Terrorist attack in South Carolina

[Oberon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179019

My prayers go out to the families of the victims and to the survivors of this terrible attack.

[Harvs]

Pretty sad but it does not say anything about a terrorist, just another sick individual with a gun.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Harvs

Pretty sad but it does not say anything about a terrorist, just another sick individual with a gun.

That's the definition of a terrorist, isn't it?

[Harvs]

Originally Posted by Oberon

That's the definition of a terrorist, isn't it?

not in my book, is he doing it for a cause ? has he posted his views and reasons on some radical website ? posted a video of his crime ? threatened to cause more deaths in the name of some god ? i would believe him to be a racist or a hatist with mental problems but not a terrorist.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Harvs

not in my book, is he doing it for a cause ? has he posted his views and reasons on some radical website ? posted a video of his crime ? threatened to cause more deaths in the name of some god ? i would believe him to be a racist or a hatist with mental problems but not a terrorist.

He must be doing it for some cause or he wouldn't have done it, right?
In regards to the views and reasons, I dare say the media will find that in due time.
The definition of a terrorist is:

A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims

And terrorism is defined as:

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

Now, we don't know his motives just yet, but we will soon, but his targetting indicates either an anti-religious or anti-black motive, and as such, it is terrorism. He was a civilian, he used a gun against unarmed civilians for a particular reason, he is a terrorist.

[Harvs]

From the same source

Quote

In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal-law definition.

I have my definition, you have yours.

[ikalugin]

I smell a gun control thread.

[Oberon]

We already have a thread for that. This is a thread about the terrible attack on innocent civilians by a terrorist in South Carolina.

[Betonov]

Killing people with a different ideology/rase/religion for no other reason than hate and bigotry is an act of terrorism and I do not care if he had mental issues. A murderer is a murderer and should have a drone jammed up his rectum like al qaida

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by Harvs

After the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australian firearm laws were changed for the better, we still have deaths from shootings but its nowhere as bad as it could have been had the law not changed. Have a read of this and then ask how will gun control work.

http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

Most of the outlawed firearms are still out there. And there are more firearms in general than there were before the "buyback". The laws haven't really done anything other than give people raised on Hollywood fantasy, a perceived sense of security.

[Harvs]

Do you have the right to bear arms because its in your constitution ?

[August]

Originally Posted by Harvs

Do you have the right to bear arms because its in your constitution ?

Well no, our constitution, specifically the first 10 Amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights which lists RKBA, just enumerates the rights of free men.

Preamble to the BoR:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

In other words there are certain human rights that the founding fathers specifically wanted set down in writing because they didn't trust future governments from trying to take them away which they constantly attempt to do.

[Onkel Neal]

....the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.

Ah, well, screw that. Self defense is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. I'm not keen on being defenseless.

[Harvs]

There lies the problem, everyone has to have a gun to protect yourself from people with guns, your constitution was written in 1787 when there were no automatic or semiautomatic weapons, pretty hard to have a mass shooting with a flintlock dont you think? There is no reason on earth to justify civilians owning military type weapons and handguns should only be issued for sporting purposes, its a sad reality that you will have plenty more mass shootings until the law changes.

[Buddahaid]

I have them and self defense isn't a reason I even consider. I own them simply because I can and want to.