sweden has no mass shootings and no guns smh
holy city shooting
posted in
Off Topic
Hallowsweden has no mass shootings and no guns smh
There may be a different reason though
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Sweden+vs+norway_b81d90_5272051.jpg
[quote=Hallow]sweden has no mass shootings and no guns smh[/quote]
There may be a different reason though
[img]http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Sweden+vs+norway_b81d90_5272051.jpg[/img]
There may be a different reason though
[img]http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Sweden+vs+norway_b81d90_5272051.jpg[/img]
all the swedes ive seen had jelly bean shaped heads (im looking at u herr p + alba!!!!)
all the swedes ive seen had jelly bean shaped heads (im looking at u herr p + alba!!!!)
Gun ownership in Sweden is the second highest per capita in Europe. smh
Gun ownership in Sweden is the second highest per capita in Europe. smh
Hallowidk i wouldnt fucking shoot someone for breaking into my house
Nor would I, unless they were armed also with a firearm and seemed they were going to try to kill me or someone else in the household. Even if you never loaded the gun, or had a very real looking airsoft gun, it would still scare the shit out of most people... It's a show of force and they would back down (if they were unarmed), or you could detain and wait for the police to come pick them up.
I'm pretty sure that most times a Police officer draws a gun they don't end up killing someone... It's a show of force and causes the individual to back down in most cases.
wheatchampionIt's not about whether you're able to obtain a murdering machine or not, it's about how easy it is to obtain. .
"A murdering machine." You do know that guns are used for recreational and hunting purposes far more than malicious acts of murder right? I would never call a gun a murder machine. The person is the murder machine not the tool. If anything that can be used to kill a person can be called a murder machine, then wouldn't a knife be called a "murder machine" also? Knives are used daily by many people for tasks other than murdering such as cooking, recreational use, opening boxes, cutting rope and wire etc.
wheatchampion Sure you can go about driving around in a massive truck and trying to run over people, but that's far more difficult than just mowing people down with a rifle.
You're kidding me right? If your goal is to kill, you'd go to the most populated areas. The streets of NY for example around rush hour or lunchtime. Wall to wall people on the sidewalks... I'm pretty sure if someone wanted to, they could do a hell of a lot more damage with a truck then with a gun.
------------------------
Why is it that every time there is a mass killing the liberals are here to say that we should ban guns or make them much more difficult to obtain. Let's address the issue. The issue is crazy people. Let's figure out how we can care for these crazy people and help them, so they don't live in isolation and brew up all these crazy ideas and end up killing innocent people.
[quote=Hallow]idk i wouldnt fucking shoot someone for breaking into my house[/quote]
Nor would I, unless they were armed also with a firearm and seemed they were going to try to kill me or someone else in the household. Even if you never loaded the gun, or had a very real looking airsoft gun, it would still scare the shit out of most people... It's a show of force and they would back down (if they were unarmed), or you could detain and wait for the police to come pick them up.
I'm pretty sure that most times a Police officer draws a gun they don't end up killing someone... It's a show of force and causes the individual to back down in most cases.
[quote=wheatchampion]It's not about whether you're able to obtain a murdering machine or not, it's about how easy it is to obtain. .[/quote]
"A murdering machine." You do know that guns are used for recreational and hunting purposes far more than malicious acts of murder right? I would never call a gun a murder machine. The person is the murder machine not the tool. If anything that can be used to kill a person can be called a murder machine, then wouldn't a knife be called a "murder machine" also? Knives are used daily by many people for tasks other than murdering such as cooking, recreational use, opening boxes, cutting rope and wire etc.
[quote=wheatchampion] Sure you can go about driving around in a massive truck and trying to run over people, but that's far more difficult than just mowing people down with a rifle.[/quote]
You're kidding me right? If your goal is to kill, you'd go to the most populated areas. The streets of NY for example around rush hour or lunchtime. Wall to wall people on the sidewalks... I'm pretty sure if someone wanted to, they could do a hell of a lot more damage with a truck then with a gun.
------------------------
Why is it that every time there is a mass killing the liberals are here to say that we should ban guns or make them much more difficult to obtain. Let's address the issue. The issue is crazy people. Let's figure out how we can care for these crazy people and help them, so they don't live in isolation and brew up all these crazy ideas and end up killing innocent people.
Nor would I, unless they were armed also with a firearm and seemed they were going to try to kill me or someone else in the household. Even if you never loaded the gun, or had a very real looking airsoft gun, it would still scare the shit out of most people... It's a show of force and they would back down (if they were unarmed), or you could detain and wait for the police to come pick them up.
I'm pretty sure that most times a Police officer draws a gun they don't end up killing someone... It's a show of force and causes the individual to back down in most cases.
[quote=wheatchampion]It's not about whether you're able to obtain a murdering machine or not, it's about how easy it is to obtain. .[/quote]
"A murdering machine." You do know that guns are used for recreational and hunting purposes far more than malicious acts of murder right? I would never call a gun a murder machine. The person is the murder machine not the tool. If anything that can be used to kill a person can be called a murder machine, then wouldn't a knife be called a "murder machine" also? Knives are used daily by many people for tasks other than murdering such as cooking, recreational use, opening boxes, cutting rope and wire etc.
[quote=wheatchampion] Sure you can go about driving around in a massive truck and trying to run over people, but that's far more difficult than just mowing people down with a rifle.[/quote]
You're kidding me right? If your goal is to kill, you'd go to the most populated areas. The streets of NY for example around rush hour or lunchtime. Wall to wall people on the sidewalks... I'm pretty sure if someone wanted to, they could do a hell of a lot more damage with a truck then with a gun.
------------------------
Why is it that every time there is a mass killing the liberals are here to say that we should ban guns or make them much more difficult to obtain. Let's address the issue. The issue is crazy people. Let's figure out how we can care for these crazy people and help them, so they don't live in isolation and brew up all these crazy ideas and end up killing innocent people.
dollarlayer
"A murdering machine." You do know that guns are used for recreational and hunting purposes far more than malicious acts of murder right? I would never call a gun a murder machine. The person is the murder machine not the tool.
While this statement is factually correct and there is nothing wrong about it the one that follows and is usually associated with it, that being "there for everyone has a right and can have one without any kind of checks or training" is wrong. Just because the item itself does not cause the action the item is still apart of the action and the way it is used and conducted is as much to blame as the person who uses it. A knife is a good example, knives as a tool to hunt and make tasks easier is a perfectly fine thing to have but a sword (a knife that is designed to kill things / people) is not something that everyone has acesss to or the knowlage / training to use it properley. Same with guns, as a tool for glfood gathering they are perfectly legit, some training is still required but the use and purpose of the item is fine. Now a AR-15 on the other hand is a military weapon that is built to cause as much damage to humans as possible with as little effort, and something like that has no need to be in public hands without proper training and testing, and no fucking way should you be able to get one at Walmart just because.
[quote=dollarlayer]
"A murdering machine." You do know that guns are used for recreational and hunting purposes far more than malicious acts of murder right? I would never call a gun a murder machine. The person is the murder machine not the tool.[/quote]
While this statement is factually correct and there is nothing wrong about it the one that follows and is usually associated with it, that being "there for everyone has a right and can have one without any kind of checks or training" is wrong. Just because the item itself does not cause the action the item is still apart of the action and the way it is used and conducted is as much to blame as the person who uses it. A knife is a good example, knives as a tool to hunt and make tasks easier is a perfectly fine thing to have but a sword (a knife that is designed to kill things / people) is not something that everyone has acesss to or the knowlage / training to use it properley. Same with guns, as a tool for glfood gathering they are perfectly legit, some training is still required but the use and purpose of the item is fine. Now a AR-15 on the other hand is a military weapon that is built to cause as much damage to humans as possible with as little effort, and something like that has no need to be in public hands without proper training and testing, and no fucking way should you be able to get one at Walmart just because.
"A murdering machine." You do know that guns are used for recreational and hunting purposes far more than malicious acts of murder right? I would never call a gun a murder machine. The person is the murder machine not the tool.[/quote]
While this statement is factually correct and there is nothing wrong about it the one that follows and is usually associated with it, that being "there for everyone has a right and can have one without any kind of checks or training" is wrong. Just because the item itself does not cause the action the item is still apart of the action and the way it is used and conducted is as much to blame as the person who uses it. A knife is a good example, knives as a tool to hunt and make tasks easier is a perfectly fine thing to have but a sword (a knife that is designed to kill things / people) is not something that everyone has acesss to or the knowlage / training to use it properley. Same with guns, as a tool for glfood gathering they are perfectly legit, some training is still required but the use and purpose of the item is fine. Now a AR-15 on the other hand is a military weapon that is built to cause as much damage to humans as possible with as little effort, and something like that has no need to be in public hands without proper training and testing, and no fucking way should you be able to get one at Walmart just because.
Um you do realize that you have to own a license for most guns right? You're ignorant
for my state
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm
Tino have you ever even looked into this or even knew anything prior to anything guns?
Um you do realize that you have to own a license for most guns right? You're ignorant
for my state
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm
Tino have you ever even looked into this or even knew anything prior to anything guns?
for my state
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm
Tino have you ever even looked into this or even knew anything prior to anything guns?
And that is more or less a legal document saying you are who you are and a legal place of residence. Yes quite hard to get. That also ONLY applys to commercial sales of firearms in most states private sales need nothing other then person to person consent of the sale. So not many checks and balances with eBay anf kijiji and all the other online resources that are out there.
And that is more or less a legal document saying you are who you are and a legal place of residence. Yes quite hard to get. That also ONLY applys to commercial sales of firearms in most states private sales need nothing other then person to person consent of the sale. So not many checks and balances with eBay anf kijiji and all the other online resources that are out there.
Tino_Now a AR-15 on the other hand is a military weapon that is built to cause as much damage to humans as possible with as little effort, and something like that has no need to be in public hands without proper training and testing, and no fucking way should you be able to get one at Walmart just because.
You're showing your ignorance about this topic. The AR-15 is NOT a military weapon, it is a civilian firearm, although it is basically built off the same platform as a military firearm. The M16 and other similar rifles like the M4 are military rifles which are fully automatic. Colt produced the AR15 as a semi-automatic civilian rifle.
And no the AR15 was not designed to cause as much damage to humans as possible. There are much more powerful weapons available than an AR15, many of them being banned for civilian use/ownership. I would say though that the majority of people that own AR15's own them because 1) They are a very good self defense weapon, 2) They are a lot of fun to shoot at a range or on large private property areas (where it is legal to shoot). 3) They look damn cool.
And yes, although walmart does carry firearms in some states, it's not like you can just walk in there grab an AR15 and put it in your shopping cart and head out with it. Most states have some form of waiting period and at least a very basic background check of some sort is required and some kind of license may be required (varies by state).
Tino_So not many checks and balances with eBay anf kijiji and all the other online resources that are out there.
LOL... ebay doesn't allow firearm sales of any kind with the exception of some accessories (bags, scopes, sites). And again it varies by state about private party firearm sales. But in California you can't legally sell a firearm directly to a private party, you must go through a registered dealer -- an FFL.
[quote=Tino_]Now a AR-15 on the other hand is a military weapon that is built to cause as much damage to humans as possible with as little effort, and something like that has no need to be in public hands without proper training and testing, and no fucking way should you be able to get one at Walmart just because.[/quote]
You're showing your ignorance about this topic. The AR-15 is NOT a military weapon, it is a civilian firearm, although it is basically built off the same platform as a military firearm. The M16 and other similar rifles like the M4 are military rifles which are fully automatic. Colt produced the AR15 as a semi-automatic civilian rifle.
And no the AR15 was not designed to cause as much damage to humans as possible. There are much more powerful weapons available than an AR15, many of them being banned for civilian use/ownership. I would say though that the majority of people that own AR15's own them because 1) They are a very good self defense weapon, 2) They are a lot of fun to shoot at a range or on large private property areas (where it is legal to shoot). 3) They look damn cool.
And yes, although walmart does carry firearms in some states, it's not like you can just walk in there grab an AR15 and put it in your shopping cart and head out with it. Most states have some form of waiting period and at least a very basic background check of some sort is required and some kind of license may be required (varies by state).
[quote=Tino_]So not many checks and balances with eBay anf kijiji and all the other online resources that are out there.[/quote]
LOL... ebay doesn't allow firearm sales of any kind with the exception of some accessories (bags, scopes, sites). And again it varies by state about private party firearm sales. But in California you can't legally sell a firearm directly to a private party, you must go through a registered dealer -- an FFL.
You're showing your ignorance about this topic. The AR-15 is NOT a military weapon, it is a civilian firearm, although it is basically built off the same platform as a military firearm. The M16 and other similar rifles like the M4 are military rifles which are fully automatic. Colt produced the AR15 as a semi-automatic civilian rifle.
And no the AR15 was not designed to cause as much damage to humans as possible. There are much more powerful weapons available than an AR15, many of them being banned for civilian use/ownership. I would say though that the majority of people that own AR15's own them because 1) They are a very good self defense weapon, 2) They are a lot of fun to shoot at a range or on large private property areas (where it is legal to shoot). 3) They look damn cool.
And yes, although walmart does carry firearms in some states, it's not like you can just walk in there grab an AR15 and put it in your shopping cart and head out with it. Most states have some form of waiting period and at least a very basic background check of some sort is required and some kind of license may be required (varies by state).
[quote=Tino_]So not many checks and balances with eBay anf kijiji and all the other online resources that are out there.[/quote]
LOL... ebay doesn't allow firearm sales of any kind with the exception of some accessories (bags, scopes, sites). And again it varies by state about private party firearm sales. But in California you can't legally sell a firearm directly to a private party, you must go through a registered dealer -- an FFL.
guys can we check ourselves for a second
https://40.media.tumblr.com/3a97a8b860ed31dc2035f0f56a497e21/tumblr_nq93rj9vmx1qeqbeio5_r1_540.png
https://41.media.tumblr.com/21be0e451a2f4538d94806e84b3dc282/tumblr_nq9r50cVbv1r89kp0o1_540.jpg
This shouldn't be a discussion on gun control. Absence of a gun wouldn't prevent an act as hateful as this.
This shouldn't be a discussion on mental health. This man was thinking very clearly and knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish.
This SHOULD be a discussion on racism and race relations in America. A white man walks into a church with a gun, waits around for an hour, stands up and announces that he is there to kill black people. Eventually he is taken into custody without cuffs and given a fuckin bulletproof vest. Even the news circuits are trying everything they can to derail, to humanize him, to defend and protect the identity of a hateful murderer. "It's not because he was racist, because he had a bad childhood / was actually a really nice kid / had black friends." A black or brown person would not have gotten this relatively lofty treatment under such circumstances. We've seen black and brown people get way worse treatment under way less dire circumstances. The longer we keep making excuses and acting like it's not as bad as it seems, the longer shit like this will continue to happen. It's not okay. The man is a terrorist and deserves to be remembered as such.
guys can we check ourselves for a second
[img]https://40.media.tumblr.com/3a97a8b860ed31dc2035f0f56a497e21/tumblr_nq93rj9vmx1qeqbeio5_r1_540.png[/img]
[img]https://41.media.tumblr.com/21be0e451a2f4538d94806e84b3dc282/tumblr_nq9r50cVbv1r89kp0o1_540.jpg[/img]
This shouldn't be a discussion on gun control. Absence of a gun wouldn't prevent an act as hateful as this.
This shouldn't be a discussion on mental health. This man was thinking very clearly and knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish.
This SHOULD be a discussion on racism and race relations in America. A white man walks into a church with a gun, waits around for an hour, stands up and announces that he is there to kill black people. Eventually he is taken into custody without cuffs and given a fuckin bulletproof vest. Even the news circuits are trying everything they can to derail, to humanize him, to defend and protect the identity of a hateful murderer. "It's not because he was racist, because he [url=http://puu.sh/iwYcr/f6c7cc9552.jpg]had a bad childhood[/url] / was actually a [url=http://puu.sh/iwYed/d7eec90b8b.jpg]really nice kid[/url] / [url=http://puu.sh/iwYfz/c63eb04b1f.jpg]had black friends[/url]." A black or brown person would not have gotten this relatively lofty treatment under such circumstances. We've seen black and brown people get way worse treatment under way less dire circumstances. The longer we keep making excuses and acting like it's not as bad as it seems, the longer shit like this will continue to happen. It's not okay. The man is a terrorist and deserves to be remembered as such.
[img]https://40.media.tumblr.com/3a97a8b860ed31dc2035f0f56a497e21/tumblr_nq93rj9vmx1qeqbeio5_r1_540.png[/img]
[img]https://41.media.tumblr.com/21be0e451a2f4538d94806e84b3dc282/tumblr_nq9r50cVbv1r89kp0o1_540.jpg[/img]
This shouldn't be a discussion on gun control. Absence of a gun wouldn't prevent an act as hateful as this.
This shouldn't be a discussion on mental health. This man was thinking very clearly and knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish.
This SHOULD be a discussion on racism and race relations in America. A white man walks into a church with a gun, waits around for an hour, stands up and announces that he is there to kill black people. Eventually he is taken into custody without cuffs and given a fuckin bulletproof vest. Even the news circuits are trying everything they can to derail, to humanize him, to defend and protect the identity of a hateful murderer. "It's not because he was racist, because he [url=http://puu.sh/iwYcr/f6c7cc9552.jpg]had a bad childhood[/url] / was actually a [url=http://puu.sh/iwYed/d7eec90b8b.jpg]really nice kid[/url] / [url=http://puu.sh/iwYfz/c63eb04b1f.jpg]had black friends[/url]." A black or brown person would not have gotten this relatively lofty treatment under such circumstances. We've seen black and brown people get way worse treatment under way less dire circumstances. The longer we keep making excuses and acting like it's not as bad as it seems, the longer shit like this will continue to happen. It's not okay. The man is a terrorist and deserves to be remembered as such.
hoolisnip
https://41.media.tumblr.com/d66214446941aeafb9c6e6229943ea1f/tumblr_nq91x3iCuC1qhd9too2_400.jpg
https://40.media.tumblr.com/86720fcfbbfaec7ddae01c76efc42b11/tumblr_nq91x3iCuC1qhd9too4_540.jpg
https://40.media.tumblr.com/e57c7225ccc55265707ed0adb34f3f73/tumblr_nq91x3iCuC1qhd9too6_400.jpg
compare and contrast
[quote=hooli]snip[/quote]
[img]https://41.media.tumblr.com/d66214446941aeafb9c6e6229943ea1f/tumblr_nq91x3iCuC1qhd9too2_400.jpg[/img]
[img]https://40.media.tumblr.com/86720fcfbbfaec7ddae01c76efc42b11/tumblr_nq91x3iCuC1qhd9too4_540.jpg[/img]
[img]https://40.media.tumblr.com/e57c7225ccc55265707ed0adb34f3f73/tumblr_nq91x3iCuC1qhd9too6_400.jpg[/img]
compare and contrast
[img]https://41.media.tumblr.com/d66214446941aeafb9c6e6229943ea1f/tumblr_nq91x3iCuC1qhd9too2_400.jpg[/img]
[img]https://40.media.tumblr.com/86720fcfbbfaec7ddae01c76efc42b11/tumblr_nq91x3iCuC1qhd9too4_540.jpg[/img]
[img]https://40.media.tumblr.com/e57c7225ccc55265707ed0adb34f3f73/tumblr_nq91x3iCuC1qhd9too6_400.jpg[/img]
compare and contrast
Vetoscompare and contrast
ok, lets get this straight. the news reports on FUCKING EVERYTHING. everything you posted was reported on not to tar and feather based on race, but because it was related to the case in question. now in your obnoxiously worded post you write this gem:
"It's not because he was racist, [it was] because he had a bad childhood / was actually a really nice kid / had black friends."
the quotes are yours, not mine. who are you quoting? its not the fucking articles you linked, in which they are PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR about what facts they are presenting. One article writes simply: Dylann's father was abusive. At no point does it justify dylann, or say that dylann was a racist because of it. Another writes that dylann was "quiet and soft-spoken" which you ridiculously conflate with "really nice". No, they arent saying he's nice. They're saying he was quiet and soft-spoken. there is a fucking HUGE difference, mainly that if anything they are calling Dylann a coward, who shied away from conflict in life outside of this one incident in which he was able to practice his repressed machismo with a gun.
and then the last one, it doesnt even say he was friends with black people. ONLY THAT HE WAS FACEBOOK FRIENDS. god fucking damn, its intention is just to report a fact and get views, and if it has a secondary intention it would probably be that dylann only practiced his extreme racism in private for fear of the out lash against him, being unable to practice it even in the relative safety of facebook.
Again, you write that these articles try to justify Dylann's CAUSE, but none of them even mention it!
then you show us the evidence that the media just LOVES to tear down black individuals. Except no, you don't, because again you impotently link to facts not opinions. CNN/NBC/ABC were all in a tiff with Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin about how they were just kids, about to go off to college, one just wanted to walk to the store and buy skittles (not even safe in his own neighborhood!). These organizations did not go about blaming the victim, and even when instances came up like the Michael Brown store footage or the suspensions the news was one of the FIRST to mention that in circumstances like this the victim shouldn't be blamed, and that Michael Brown's prior actions do not justify the police officer gunning him down in cold blood.
The issue here is not the news being racially biased, its that your own interpretation of the news that is biased.
[quote=Vetos]
compare and contrast[/quote]
ok, lets get this straight. the news reports on FUCKING EVERYTHING. everything you posted was reported on not to tar and feather based on race, but because it was related to the case in question. now in your obnoxiously worded post you write this gem:
"It's not because he was racist, [it was] because he had a bad childhood / was actually a really nice kid / had black friends."
the quotes are yours, not mine. who are you quoting? its not the fucking articles you linked, in which they are PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR about what facts they are presenting. One article writes simply: Dylann's father was abusive. At no point does it justify dylann, or say that dylann was a racist because of it. Another writes that dylann was "quiet and soft-spoken" which you ridiculously conflate with "really nice". No, they arent saying he's nice. They're saying he was quiet and soft-spoken. there is a fucking HUGE difference, mainly that if anything they are calling Dylann a coward, who shied away from conflict in life outside of this one incident in which he was able to practice his repressed machismo with a gun.
and then the last one, it doesnt even say he was friends with black people. ONLY THAT HE WAS FACEBOOK FRIENDS. god fucking damn, its intention is just to report a fact and get views, and if it has a secondary intention it would probably be that dylann only practiced his extreme racism in private for fear of the out lash against him, being unable to practice it even in the relative safety of facebook.
Again, you write that these articles try to justify Dylann's CAUSE, but none of them even mention it!
then you show us the evidence that the media just LOVES to tear down black individuals. Except no, you don't, because again you impotently link to facts not opinions. CNN/NBC/ABC were all in a tiff with Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin about how they were just kids, about to go off to college, one just wanted to walk to the store and buy skittles (not even safe in his own neighborhood!). These organizations did not go about blaming the victim, and even when instances came up like the Michael Brown store footage or the suspensions the news was one of the FIRST to mention that in circumstances like this the victim shouldn't be blamed, and that Michael Brown's prior actions do not justify the police officer gunning him down in cold blood.
The issue here is not the news being racially biased, its that your own interpretation of the news that is biased.
compare and contrast[/quote]
ok, lets get this straight. the news reports on FUCKING EVERYTHING. everything you posted was reported on not to tar and feather based on race, but because it was related to the case in question. now in your obnoxiously worded post you write this gem:
"It's not because he was racist, [it was] because he had a bad childhood / was actually a really nice kid / had black friends."
the quotes are yours, not mine. who are you quoting? its not the fucking articles you linked, in which they are PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR about what facts they are presenting. One article writes simply: Dylann's father was abusive. At no point does it justify dylann, or say that dylann was a racist because of it. Another writes that dylann was "quiet and soft-spoken" which you ridiculously conflate with "really nice". No, they arent saying he's nice. They're saying he was quiet and soft-spoken. there is a fucking HUGE difference, mainly that if anything they are calling Dylann a coward, who shied away from conflict in life outside of this one incident in which he was able to practice his repressed machismo with a gun.
and then the last one, it doesnt even say he was friends with black people. ONLY THAT HE WAS FACEBOOK FRIENDS. god fucking damn, its intention is just to report a fact and get views, and if it has a secondary intention it would probably be that dylann only practiced his extreme racism in private for fear of the out lash against him, being unable to practice it even in the relative safety of facebook.
Again, you write that these articles try to justify Dylann's CAUSE, but none of them even mention it!
then you show us the evidence that the media just LOVES to tear down black individuals. Except no, you don't, because again you impotently link to facts not opinions. CNN/NBC/ABC were all in a tiff with Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin about how they were just kids, about to go off to college, one just wanted to walk to the store and buy skittles (not even safe in his own neighborhood!). These organizations did not go about blaming the victim, and even when instances came up like the Michael Brown store footage or the suspensions the news was one of the FIRST to mention that in circumstances like this the victim shouldn't be blamed, and that Michael Brown's prior actions do not justify the police officer gunning him down in cold blood.
The issue here is not the news being racially biased, its that your own interpretation of the news that is biased.
Have you even tried searching Dylann Roof on Google? The exact type of articles you are saying don't exist are literally right there in plain view. Or was this supposed to be a discussion based on feelings instead of facts?
Dylan Roof arrested in February for carrying drug Suboxone
Racist Website Appears to Belong to Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof
Have you even tried searching Dylann Roof on Google? The exact type of articles you are saying don't exist are literally right there in plain view. Or was this supposed to be a discussion based on feelings instead of facts?
[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132989/Personal-path-massacre-Dylan-Roof-s-visits-slave-plantations-Confederate-landmarks-developed-racist-mass-murderer-months-leading-Charleston-shooting.html]The making of a monster: Dylann Roof's visits to slave plantations and Confederate landmarks chart his transition from idiot racist to 'mass murderer'
[/url]
[url=http://www.esbtrib.com/2015/06/20/17737/dylan-roof-arrested-in-february-for-carrying-drug-suboxone/]Dylan Roof arrested in February for carrying drug Suboxone[/url]
[url=http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/white-supremacist-site-appears-belong-charleston-church-suspect-n379021]Racist Website Appears to Belong to Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof[/url]
[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132989/Personal-path-massacre-Dylan-Roof-s-visits-slave-plantations-Confederate-landmarks-developed-racist-mass-murderer-months-leading-Charleston-shooting.html]The making of a monster: Dylann Roof's visits to slave plantations and Confederate landmarks chart his transition from idiot racist to 'mass murderer'
[/url]
[url=http://www.esbtrib.com/2015/06/20/17737/dylan-roof-arrested-in-february-for-carrying-drug-suboxone/]Dylan Roof arrested in February for carrying drug Suboxone[/url]
[url=http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/white-supremacist-site-appears-belong-charleston-church-suspect-n379021]Racist Website Appears to Belong to Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof[/url]
twenty2020.
I'm not gonna deny that, yes, I do have a skeptical predisposition regarding news outlets. I never meant to imply these articles outright attempt to justify his actions, but I disagree that any of the factual headlines in my post contribute to their respective cases. I have witnessed headlines like these, intentionally or not, manage to vindicate people who may seek an apologist OR reactionary stance depending on the suspect/subject at hand. i.e. "Trayvon got suspended, he was probably a troublemaker and was justifiably being watched." They don't contribute anything other than that.
Also there's really no need to attack me personally but ANYWAY
Royce
Both of you present a good point. It does bother me that these articles exist, but now I see it was inaccurate to generalize the coverage. My apologies, I was wrong.
[quote=twenty2020].[/quote]
I'm not gonna deny that, yes, I do have a skeptical predisposition regarding news outlets. I never meant to imply these articles outright attempt to justify his actions, but I disagree that any of the factual headlines in my post contribute to their respective cases. I have witnessed headlines like these, intentionally or not, manage to vindicate people who may seek an apologist OR reactionary stance depending on the suspect/subject at hand. i.e. "Trayvon got suspended, he was probably a troublemaker and was justifiably being watched." They don't contribute anything other than that.
Also there's really no need to attack me personally but ANYWAY
[quote=Royce][/quote]
Both of you present a good point. It does bother me that these articles exist, but now I see it was inaccurate to generalize the coverage. My apologies, I was wrong.
I'm not gonna deny that, yes, I do have a skeptical predisposition regarding news outlets. I never meant to imply these articles outright attempt to justify his actions, but I disagree that any of the factual headlines in my post contribute to their respective cases. I have witnessed headlines like these, intentionally or not, manage to vindicate people who may seek an apologist OR reactionary stance depending on the suspect/subject at hand. i.e. "Trayvon got suspended, he was probably a troublemaker and was justifiably being watched." They don't contribute anything other than that.
Also there's really no need to attack me personally but ANYWAY
[quote=Royce][/quote]
Both of you present a good point. It does bother me that these articles exist, but now I see it was inaccurate to generalize the coverage. My apologies, I was wrong.
showstoppershits fucked bro, what the fuck is wrong with people
futurevideo gamessss
[quote=showstopper]shits fucked bro, what the fuck is wrong with people[/quote]
[quote=future]video gamessss[/quote]
[quote=future]video gamessss[/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=26&v=E8qB5g39Q6I
FUCK THE SYSTEM THAT PAYS FOR OUR EBT CARDS! stupid negroes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=26&v=E8qB5g39Q6I
FUCK THE SYSTEM THAT PAYS FOR OUR EBT CARDS! stupid negroes
FUCK THE SYSTEM THAT PAYS FOR OUR EBT CARDS! stupid negroes
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.