Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All
from the pinhead dept
You just knew it was going to happen. Not long ago, Dylann Roof walked into a historic African American church in Charleston, South Carolina, prayed with several parishioners there for some time, and then proceed to shoot most of them dead. So many of these stories are horrific not only for the violence that gets perpetrated, but because we're typically left with the most vexing of questions: why? Why did two Colorado teenagers shoot up their school? Why would a young man walk into an East Coast elementary school and shoot children? Why?
The South Carolina massacre is different in that respect. We know exactly why Dylann Roof killed nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans. Oh, also video games, if you ask Martin Luther King III and Bill O'Reilly, obviously.
"Look at video games," King said during the segment. "Our children play video games and 7 out of 10 of them are violent. Some of our movies are very violent, and we want to see more and more violence."This has to end. With the available evidence continuing to demonstrate that any link between violent media and real-life violence being tenuous at best, the rush to drag an entertainment medium into the discussion of a self-admitted racist killing blacks simply because they were black is absolutely insane. There's no wondering the why here. There's no linking video games to this tragedy. The conversation doesn't belong in any relevant discussion about Dylann Roof. And it's not like O'reilly really wants entertainment mediums saddled with the responsibility for what evil people do.
O’Reilly agreed with King, noting that there needs to be more pushback, more people need to argue that it’s "not a good thing to devote your leisure time to violent pursuits."
You'll notice that O'Reilly (and it isn't just him, I can assure you) is happy to bring up his own constitutional rights to free speech when challenged but have no issue dragging an art form and entertainment medium into the spotlight after a tragedy that had nothing to do with video games. And, look, this isn't a Fox News or Bill O'Reilly problem. Plenty of major news outlets are happy to placate older adults that need a tight little box to put tragedies in, something that can be blamed. Video games apparently are destined to fill that role until these idiots retire and the next generation of news people are in place, because those people will have grown up gaming if the statistics and demographics are any indication.
So I guess we just wait them out.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bill o'reilly, blame, charleston, dylann roof, martin luther king iii, racism, video games, videogames
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Meanwhile we can have fun laughing at the oldies yelling at the clouds, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Object
This is defamation. I don't want to see more violence. I want to see more sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: W. S. Huff on Jun 25th, 2015 @ 6:19am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...whatever currently popular form of entertainment the older generation doesn't understand and finds new and scary. That's always the way, and has been for generations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep blaming...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
When was this imaginary time when kids games didn't include violence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm
Football isn't about rape! It's about violently dominating anyone that stands between you and what you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM2RUVnTlvs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We played cops and robbers...nobody ever got arrested, just shot."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They must blame something other than themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone is missing the concussive elephant in the room.
Stupid how it's always the fiction of violence that's the source of moral panics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
or a Democrat for that matter. Nice try though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"most racist, white supremacists are Democrats, right?" Are you shitting us? Are from 1960? Those back then were called Dixiecrats. Guess what party the left and joined?
" So the rewrite of history you racists keep attempting doesn't work as most people know the party of racism starts with a D."
You owe me a Irony-O-Meter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
Shit for brains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happened to the dixiecrats?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx
Hint: I'm not a democrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I suppose the Republicans are honest and true hearted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's idiots like you that make us look bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me guess:
crazy conspiracy theories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because we live in a dynamic world where everything changes all the time ... would it be too difficult to provide data in support of your claims relative to the present time frame rather than simplistic references to people who lived hundreds of years ago and expect us to accept your ridiculous assumption that nothing has changed over that time period?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political "talks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes room for a really smart and calm debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I envy you. The presidential "debates" in the US haven't appeared smart even with a 'moderator'. Not to mention other 'debates'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Games are better than Bugs Bunny
Previous generations had cartoon violence, war footage, movies like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, go further back with the likes of black and white Dracula and the Wolf Man or creature from the black lagoon.
Violence is in our nature, people who've never played a single video game perform horrific acts of violence.
Hell, the Bible includes stories about entire cities being essentially nuked where all the people ended up being columns of ash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, maybe a little bit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, maybe a little bit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, maybe a little bit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it is so easy to fall into this trap that even Timothy Geigner has done it himself to some extent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And it is so easy to fall into this trap that even Timothy Geigner has done it himself to some extent.
In what way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He said
He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans.
Those things are bad - yes but it doesn't explain his behaviour because most racist bigots aren't willing to do something that will put them in jail for life (at best).
So by claiming that it does explain his behaviour Timothy Geigner has fallen inot the trap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see what you mean. I see it as hinging on what you mean by "why". Geigner was, I think, explaining the guy's motivation - more or less what would he say if asked why he did it (and he was honest about it). You seem to be coming at it from a more scientific perspective - what factors explain how this person's behavior differs from everyone else's. They're slightly different questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The number of those people committing violence themselves is so infinitesimally small that any correlation could be considered within the margin for error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What really makes me want to shoot people (metaphorically)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What really makes me want to shoot people (metaphorically)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to blame games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have to blame games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about blaming the person who pulled the trigger rather than inanimate objects?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about blaming the person who pulled the trigger rather than inanimate objects?
"Might." That's all you've got? He could've learned explosives tech (a la Timothy McVay or Unabomber), or just used knives or swords, or chemical weaponry (Carbon Monoxide, Ammonia, ...). They'd be just as dead.
You really need to get over that fetish of yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about blaming the person who pulled the trigger rather than inanimate objects?
If you can accept that the rate of gun-related fatalities in the US is ridiculously high, then you need to consider the two options for reducing the numbers:
1. Convince people to shoot each other less often, or
2. Make it harder to get guns
Which do you think is most likely to succeed? Human nature says option 2.
If you reject both option. does that mean you consider the rate of guns deaths an acceptable price to pay to protect gun ownership?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Convincing people to shoot each other less often.
Also, how many gun deaths per capita do you think is too many? Care to apply that quantity regarding bathtubs? Swimming pools? Stepladders? SCUBA gear? Surfboards? Because I think you won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: motor vehicles
Or would you like a repeat of the lesson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: motor vehicles
Assumes facts not in evidence. A tool is not constructive or destructive. It's just a lump of inanimate matter. The person wielding the tool is what you should be concerned with.
It's becoming tedious listening to you play that same silly song over and over. I think we get it: you've a pathological disgust for guns and you're never going to allow yourself to question that assumption. Fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knocked into my head?
I wouldn't call it a lesson. Repeating your rhetoric over and over again and failing to address counterarguments does not a lesson make.
I'm pretty sure that you just hate guns and want to blame all the worlds woes on them. Those zones that are gun-free yet still have problems, because America still has guns.
Bring what you will, but if you want to convince me, you're going to need some better points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: otherwise you might have to blame guns
In the US of A, guns own you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: otherwise you might have to blame guns
If he wasn't given a gun, he may have found another way to acquire one.
Or built a bomb.
Or drove a vehicle through the church.
Or laced the water supply with anthrax.
Or made use of fifty gallons of gasoline, which is very easy to obtain.
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, I know you think the firearm is the great American demon, but the human brain is far more creative than you believe. Banning guns will not solve this problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: otherwise you might have to blame guns
Obviously no simple answer is going to solve a complex problem, but what if it reduced the problem?
Also, to hearken back to a recent thread, what if "banning guns" doesn't actually stop you from enjoying responsible gun use in many reasonable ways?
Neither of these are hypotheticals, in case you're wondering.
Also, how many gun deaths per capita do you think is too many? Care to apply that quantity regarding bathtubs? Swimming pools? Stepladders? SCUBA gear? Surfboards? Because I think you won't.
I think you underestimate how much time and energy goes into preventing each of those categories of deaths. Perhaps time and money would have much better long-term benefits from being spent on improving mental health conditions and support in the community (all communities) than in controlling guns (actually, no perhaps, it's undeniably true), but that's not enough reason (for me) not to control guns as well, especially when the consequences of properly implemented gun control are so slight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But at what cost, Mr. Troy? BUT AT WHAT COST?
And I'm pretty sure your standards for enjoyment are not up to par with the standards that gun enthusiasts have. Many of the other commenters think that enthusiasts should be content with computer simulations, or rented guns or slingshots. It's avoiding the issue that you're still invoking your will on their liberties.
And you're doing so based on distrust, so it's only fair that we distrust you right back. What's to stop you from expanding your regulations beyond your original mild restrictions or beyond guns to other devices? What's to stop you from using these laws to implement your religious morality on people who don't share it?
A look into recent history (The Hobby Lobby affair, The FBI's shit-flipping over practically-impenetrable cryptography, countless challenges of countless books and this freaking article right here) shows that none of this is hypothetical either.
So, yeah, I appreciate your concern, and I agree that there are a lot of stupid people who do not respect the risk that comes with owning a gun. And I agree that the NRA has become something of a bag of dicks that does not represent the gun community well at all. But in the long game, gun control is not the answer, especially so as the age of 3D printing approaches and custom gun parts can be prototyped locally, rather than by a major manufacturer.
And I relentlessly distrust anyone pushing for more gun control in this convesation to not, once their agenda is furthered, wipe their hands of the Charleston massacre deciding okay we did something. That's what O'Reilly is trying to do by accusing video games. That's what Obama is trying to do by pushing gun control.
The Charleston Massacre is not another rampage killing to be swept under the rug like so many others. And blaming guns here is being used to do exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But at what cost, Mr. Troy? BUT AT WHAT COST?
Controlling one thing will be used as a stepping stone for introducing more control, you're right. I don't have a good answer for that other than contacting your government representative regularly to let them know how you'd like to be represented. An imperfect answer, I'd like to find better.
3D-printed guns will only get better, but right now they seem to be more of a risk to their wielder than anyone else, unless the maker has a degree of expertise, see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-26/3d-printing-fact-file/6429816
I will still hold up Australia as an example that gun control *can* help. It may not be *the* answer, but that doesn't mean it can't be part of the answer. Nutjob control would also help, but unfortunately governments willing to invest in good societal platforms for mental health issues, equality and education are few and far between.
In terms of any arguments that gun control doesn't work, I'll just handball to John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L
I agree that any simple answer is wrong, or at least insufficient. All I can suggest is to be the change you want to see in the world, but the depressing aspect is that's probably what motivated this guy to action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: otherwise you might have to blame guns
I'm guessing that blindingly obvious spot you speak of isn't the trigger finger of the one who pulls it.
Wacko.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More violence
If tha assessment was right then you would expect to see FAR MORE incidents of this type.
Incidentally I don't think your analysis is correct. Simply to say "He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans." is not an adequate explanation - it is simply badmouthing someone for not subscribing to your own worldview.
If you want an explanation of this kind of violence (ie the kind not perpetrated for personal gain or because of an individual grievance) then it would go something like this.
1. He subscribes to a certain worldview.
2. His knowledge of that worldview leads him to believe that it requires or approves of violence in the cause.
3. His personality type is the kind that will actually act on the basis of his beliefs - even though it is extremely disadvantageous to him personally.
Fortunately personalities of the type in (3) are quite rare - otherwise every extreme racist with access to a gun would go on a killing spree - so your analysis fails for the same reason that Bill O'Reilly's does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More violence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More violence
It happens. We had a nutbar here in Canada who decided to take out feminists. Columbine kids took out kids. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, yada, yada.
Spartans tossed the defective ones off a cliff. We're more enlightened than that. Chuckle, chuckle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice...
Wait...wait... you would never dondemn but then say she has blood on her hands? I guess that's Fox logic or as imo humans would call it "what? - no logic at all".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice...
Reminds me of Craig T. Nelson. "I was on food stamps. I was on welfare. Did anyone give me a helping hand? No!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone is racist (its a degree of)
video games do not contribute to violent acts
That kid is a lost cause and should be put down
Bill O'Reilly is a puppet (no surprise there)
King is irrelevant
Democrats and republicans are both equally worthless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Think before you type. Worthless things do little more than hurt. Pennies aren't even worth talking about how little they're worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Especially with all those app games now.
Maybe we should send every phone app creator to jail for supporting massacres.
If I have to say that's sarcasm that's just as depressing as people that blame video games for people that would have committed the massacre regardless of what they saw or did prior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What stuns me is not that Mr. O'Reilly is blaming video games.
You can't explain that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its the oppisite of what they say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: its the oppisite of what they say
And then ya just have to asplode!!! Uh, huh. Video gamer spends every waking moment shooting phantoms, then when that's not enough, decides to hunt real humans. Chyaa, right. Maye he was just a sick fuck and should have been killed years ago, but gaming helped him keep it together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@26
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Said
"And it's not like O'Reilly really wants entertainment mediums saddled with the responsibility for what evil people do."
Well done. Let's assess if there has been any violence bred from anger fomented by Fox News, assign a reasonable cost, and make Rupert pay the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gamers grown up will stop this?
Good luck with that. Lots of pot smoking hippies grew up to be insurance salesmen and other captains of industry, all heartily in favor of the War On Drugs. They may be gamers now, but nothing's stopping them from becoming curmudgeons*, as many of them likely will.
* "a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gamers grown up will stop this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video games to blame, not guns?
You know guns? The things that are are specifically designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to kill REAL people.
So lets put limitations on freedom of speech/artistic expression, but not guns. Guns aren't the problem, right 'merica? It's video games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaming even guns is a distraction to the real causes for rampage killings.
We should limit not only human access to swimming pools and power tools, but also rough terrain (e.g. national parks), motor vehicles, many home appliances and bathtubs.
And if the average citizen cannot be trusted with firearms, how can we trust the police or the military? I suspect that the homicide per capita for law enforcement is way higher than it is for civilians, even when you include rampage killers.
What's more interesting to me, though, is that homicides in general are way down while we seem to be having a lot of rampage killers. That doesn't sound like guns are the problem, since we have more guns than we did, say, in the seventies when homicides were up.
(Honestly, I haven't looked up to confirm if our current rate of rampage killers has been high in the last few years compared to other eras. Does anyone have any data on this?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blaming even guns is a distraction to the real causes for rampage killings.
It's sort of irrelevant when mere traffic casualties can swamp whatever lethal weaponry can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blaming even guns is a distraction to the real causes for rampage killings.
No point reading any further, because I assume the rest of your argument is based on this strawman.
Nobody is trying to BAN guns, only make it harder for people who are not responsible or competent enough to operate one to get them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banning guns
So think again.
The United States has the right to bear arms for some very serious reasons. It's up to those who govern us to create a society in which we aren't motivated to exercise and defend that right.
Or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banning guns
You should watch this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Banning guns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banning guns
And what if those reasons are not what you think they are? What if they are to provide the government with access to a militia force specifically to put down uprisings?
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5203&context=faculty_schol arship
p649:
p654:
p662:
Most of the rest is talking about the very limited likelihood of success of an civilian armed revolution, particularly compared to the remarkable success that nonviolent resistance has had recently. Interesting read though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The remarkable success that nonviolent resistance has had recently"
History has shown us that when it comes to really big issues such as slavery, systemized genocide and immense wealth disparity violence has become necessary.
To be fair, I didn't read Cl. Dunlaps treatise, nor do I trust him as an authority. I have read numerous COIN experts who point out that insurrections are hard to put down when the people have a legitimate grievance.
(I've also noted that guns serve as an auxiliary function when it comes to revolution or other asymmetric theaters, which depend on sabotage, mischief -- or in many cases, terrorism -- to further their ends. Ideally, such methods are achieved more quietly than modern guns allow)
And in the US I think they have a few legitimate grievances, starting with their own representatives refusing to listen to them.
And as I pure liberty is just cause to have no restrictions on guns. So far, the government, the press, the moral guardians have all been poor judges of what is good for the people and what isn't. Why should I trust them to decide regarding guns when they've failed so many other times?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Banning guns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Banning guns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banning guns
Reasons that are both massively out of date and arguably come at a very steep price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Massively out of date
Feel free to make those arguments. In the meantime I've noticed that every state that does significantly regulate guns also presumes to know what else is too dangerous for the public.
Maybe that's a coincidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Banning guns
You may think that, but I'm pretty sure the Apache nation still hates your guts and would love to see the back of you if you didn't have overwhelming firepower on your side.
Hate takes many forms, some of which can take centuries to be seen in the raw. I'm Canadian, but even our Natives/Aboriginals are still pretty peed at us invaders, and we were relatively nice about it all compared to how the US treated its Natives. If there's ever another Little Big Horn, I won't be on Custer's side. He was a supreme asshole in pretty much every way possible. Our forbears treated Natives little better than rodents. Black slaves had it good in comparison.
You definitely do need the right to bear arms in the US. Pockets of the US population are only barely under control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: then there are countless other things that should also be banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same old nonsense
I'd try to clarify it but I think you are compelled to dismiss any opinion not your own.
To be fair, I may be in similar straits, as I said I don't trust others to decide for me what is or isn't too dangerous. That credit was blown with AD&D, Rock-&-Roll and Video Games being instruments of Satan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perpetrator watched was FOX NEWS and REALITY TV 24 hours a day seven days a week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your point being...???
But he is right about one thing: I like guns is a valid reason to allow for people to own guns.
Now I don't own a gun, and nor do I particularly want one. but we get a lot of people (like Mr. O'Reilly, above) telling us what we should be allowed to have and what we shouldn't.
To Hell with them all.
I don't trust anybody, including Bill, including you, including Mr. Jeffries to tell me what I can or cannot have. Even if you are terrified of guns, I can assure you there are people equally terrified of video games or violent movies or rock-&-roll or AD&D or psychotherapy. More so, actually.
So no. Much that I know that I still have freedom of speech by seeing that far more offensive things are being said without arrests being made (or not, as has been recent history), I can similarly expect that they're not going to take away my video games or my music or my mocha lattes or my computer on the basis that they aren't collecting guns yet.
You don't have the expertise nor, thankfully, the authority to decide what is dangerous or not or what people in a liberty-minded nation should or should not be allowed to have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlike other
It's easy to offer baseless assumptions or "talking points" if the shooter is dead and and you guess what he does in his sparetime.
"He must have trained on those murder games"
- "No i only play Candy Crush and Farmville"
It will be interesting to see how pundits will treat this if it goes to court and it's shown that he is a racist asshole or if his lawyers try to trott it out and blame videogames to reduce culpability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Candy Crush and Farmville
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlike other
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responsibility and motive
Contrary to every Agatha Christie whodunnit ever, it takes a certain degree (and quality) of crazy to murder. That or desperation. Either way he was more broken than merely a seething hatred for black people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then, this happened.
Racism, bigotry, self-aggrandizement and assholery may after all be enough to drive humans violent.
Fuck.
Disappointed, human race. Disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And then, this happened.
ACK.
Hey, no need to tar the whole species all for a few knuckle draggers. In fact, I very much doubt any of the perps are female which leaves you owing an entire gender an apology.
The US certainly is exceptional in many ways. Go big or don't go (no, I won't quote Yoda). So, we've got a Race War boiling over (again!) south of the 49th parallel. I thought we fixed that when the Woodstock Generation got loud, or maybe when Rodney King wound up in the news. You even made MLK's birthday a national holiday. Didn't the South get the memo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Owing an entire gender an apology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You misspelled "asshole".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]