Charleston Church

[kelroy55]

What a horrific crime. My thoughts go out to the victims and their families.

Charleston church shooting: 9 deaths reported - CNN.com

[jccouger]

Prayers for the victims & their families.

I hope this brings races together, instead of apart. Which I'm sure was the intention of the shooter.

[Lord Helmet]

Another day...another shooting. Welcome to the USA.

[Dustin]

Love what the president said. No other civilized or advanced country in the world has massacres like this, happening at such a high frequency.

We don't take care of our mentally ill and too many people like the gunman have easy access to guns.

[Lord Helmet]

We don't take care of our mentally ill and too many people like the gunman have easy access to guns.

You'd think we'd take steps to try and remedy this. Yet no attempt is ever made. I imagine folks in Washington are afraid they won't get reelected if they did something on this issue.

[Achilleslastand]

You'd think we'd take steps to try and remedy this. Yet no attempt is ever made. I imagine folks in Washington are afraid they won't get reelected if they did something on this issue.

There were steps taken to remedy this going back decades but unfortunately they were incorrect.

[Teo9969]

Love what the president said. No other civilized or advanced country in the world has massacres like this, happening at such a high frequency.

We don't take care of our mentally ill and too many people like the gunman have easy access to guns.

To be fair, we've centralized the government in an area 80% the size of Europe with 43% the amount of people. Anybody that's surprised that we have some major anomalies compared to a country like Poland, which is the size of New Mexico, with more people than California, and a GDP that would be among the Top 10 states in the US, all operating under one government, should not be surprised that they have a better handle on not letting these things slip through the cracks.

It's a systemic problem that doesn't get fixed for Wyoming 1600 miles away in D.C.

Yes there could be more gun-control. Yes we could take better care of the mentally ill. None of that addresses the reason this is happening 15 years after Columbine: The federal government is so big and inefficient that it can't efficiently keep up with the progress of society.

[dankrutka]

Yes there could be more gun-control. Yes we could take better care of the mentally ill. None of that addresses the reason this is happening 15 years after Columbine: The federal government is so big and inefficient that it can't efficiently keep up with the progress of society.

I have no clue what this means. Can you clarify?

It seems that special interest politics seems a far larger impediment to addressing these issues than government inefficiency... whatever you mean by that.

[dankrutka]

Love what the president said. No other civilized or advanced country in the world has massacres like this, happening at such a high frequency.

We don't take care of our mentally ill and too many people like the gunman have easy access to guns.

I totally agree. But, is there evidence this guy was mentally ill? Honestly asking. Because we also need to address systemic and deep-seated racism, which was this guy's stated motivation. Just calling him mentally ill can avoid the other important conversation.

[kelroy55]

There were steps taken to remedy this going back decades but unfortunately they were incorrect.

Which steps were those?

[Dustin]

I totally agree. But, is there evidence this guy was mentally ill? Honestly asking. Because we also need to address systemic and deep-seated racism, which was this guy's stated motivation. Just calling him mentally ill can avoid the other important conversation.

Both of my grandfathers were deep-seated racists, but they would never kill another human being. You have to be a little crazy to kill 9 people cold-blooded.

But I agree his main motivation was obviously racism.

[dankrutka]

Both of my grandfathers were deep-seated racists, but they would never kill another human being. You have to be a little crazy to kill 9 people cold-blooded.

So, every mass killing should be explained by mental illness?

[Jersey Boss]

So, every mass killing should be explained by mental illness?

This was an act of terrorism, plain and simple.

[Teo9969]

I have no clue what this means. Can you clarify?

It seems that special interest politics seems a far larger impediment to addressing these issues than government inefficiency... whatever you mean by that.

Special Interest politics is part and parcel to this level of centralized government. The average citizen would be lucky to get a token lunch or meeting with her US Representative once every few years. Forget your senators altogether. The citizens are left to align themselves with things they're most passionate about: Guns, Gay Rights, God, and Government Handouts (of the corporate and individual variety) plus a whole host of other interests, and then support those powerful entities lobbying for those interests. There is no legitimate representation of 320 million people in Washington DC. The Federal government of Poland has more elected federal officials than the United States of America with about 10% of the people.

[Jersey Boss]

To be fair, we've centralized the government in an area 80% the size of Europe with 43% the amount of people. Anybody that's surprised that we have some major anomalies compared to a country like Poland, which is the size of New Mexico, with more people than California, and a GDP that would be among the Top 10 states in the US, all operating under one government, should not be surprised that they have a better handle on not letting these things slip through the cracks.

It's a systemic problem that doesn't get fixed for Wyoming 1600 miles away in D.C.

Yes there could be more gun-control. Yes we could take better care of the mentally ill. None of that addresses the reason this is happening 15 years after Columbine: The federal government is so big and inefficient that it can't efficiently keep up with the progress of society.

How would that compare to Canada? More land area, fewer % of people but the number of mass killings there do not extrapolate to the ratio of land mass to people.

[Teo9969]

My point at large, dan, is that we don't have time except to give a perfunctory nod to the fact that we have problems in this country. Tomorrow congress will be dealing with giving some money to a few states to do some park projects, the next day they'll be legislating some bills about gun control, the following day some talk about health care and then over the next week the government is going to be at work on interstate commerce laws. Obviously that's a caricature, but the point is there is no way to streamline the needs of 320 million people simultaneously. There just isn't. Not now, not ever. Do we seriously expect to effectively address this mass level violence when we're worried about anywhere between 50 and 100 other major issues that "The United States of America" is trying to solve?

[Jersey Boss]

How would that compare to Canada? More land area, fewer % of people but the number of mass killings there do not extrapolate to the ratio of land mass to people.

Never mind, you explained it.

[Jersey Boss]

My point at large, dan, is that we don't have time except to give a perfunctory nod to the fact that we have problems in this country. Tomorrow congress will be dealing with giving some money to a few states to do some park projects, the next day they'll be legislating some bills about gun control, the following day some talk about health care and then over the next week the government is going to be at work on interstate commerce laws. Obviously that's a caricature, but the point is there is no way to streamline the needs of 320 million people simultaneously. There just isn't. Not now, not ever. Do we seriously expect to effectively address this mass level violence when we're worried about anywhere between 50 and 100 other major issues that "The United States of America" is trying to solve?

With the HOR only working on the average 137 days a year it is no wonder it's hard to get anything done.

[Teo9969]

How would that compare to Canada? More land area, fewer % of people but the number of mass killings there do not extrapolate to the ratio of land mass to people.

Seriously? Most of Canada is uninhabitable, nearly the entire population is concentrated in 2 regions of the country.

[dankrutka]

My point at large, dan, is that we don't have time except to give a perfunctory nod to the fact that we have problems in this country. Tomorrow congress will be dealing with giving some money to a few states to do some park projects, the next day they'll be legislating some bills about gun control, the following day some talk about health care and then over the next week the government is going to be at work on interstate commerce laws. Obviously that's a caricature, but the point is there is no way to streamline the needs of 320 million people simultaneously. There just isn't. Not now, not ever. Do we seriously expect to effectively address this mass level violence when we're worried about anywhere between 50 and 100 other major issues that "The United States of America" is trying to solve?

I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing ways that government can curb special interests and better represent citizens. Stronger campaign finance reform laws and spending limits might mean that legislators would quit ignoring the will of the people, often overwhelmingly, on issues where there is more public consensus. And there are issues where 90% of the public agrees, but special interests win. There are many other short and long term (e.g., multiparty system) solutions that I won't go into detail mentioning.

I guess I'm not ready to concede our democracy just yet, or at least my active role as a citizen. And I'm personally not willing to just accept mass killings or systemic racism or environmental degradation or whatever without trying to do something...

[kelroy55]

Both of my grandfathers were deep-seated racists, but they would never kill another human being. You have to be a little crazy to kill 9 people cold-blooded.

But I agree his main motivation was obviously racism.

So, every mass killing should be explained by mental illness?

I think there's a difference between being a little crazy and mentally ill.

[Teo9969]

I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing ways that government can curb special interests and better represent citizens. Stronger campaign finance reform laws and spending limits might mean that legislators would quit ignoring the will of the people, often overwhelmingly, on issues where there is more public consensus. And there are issues where 90% of the public agrees, but special interests win. There are many other short and long term (e.g., multiparty system) solutions that I won't go into detail mentioning.

I guess I'm not ready to concede our democracy just yet, or at least my active role as a citizen. And I'm personally not willing to just accept mass killings or systemic racism or environmental degradation or whatever without trying to do something...

I'm not ready to concede our democracy yet, either. Indeed I'd prefer to see a more representative democracy by flipping the resources and importance of our State governments with our Federal government, because individuals have far more voice in their own states than they do at the federal level.

And nobody is asking anyone to accept mass killings, systemic racism and a whole host of other awful things that happen in this country. But a machine as massive as the US government being nimble and nuanced enough to be efficacious is a pretty tall order. I think it would be a lot easier for several individual state governments to put together some solutions to these problems: see what works and what doesn't, and then move forward.

If a Federal initiative fails, it usually fails spectacularly…and I think we can see that more than a few of our attempts at mitigating a large variety of issues are proving to be spectacular failures. People keep blaming the "other" party, but never look at the fact that the system is probably what has us in the most trouble.

[Dustin]

As sad as this story is, we shouldn't be making this maniac a celebrity by posting his photo all over the news and showing his name...

[dankrutka]

I'm not ready to concede our democracy yet, either. Indeed I'd prefer to see a more representative democracy by flipping the resources and importance of our State governments with our Federal government, because individuals have far more voice in their own states than they do at the federal level.

And nobody is asking anyone to accept mass killings, systemic racism and a whole host of other awful things that happen in this country. But a machine as massive as the US government being nimble and nuanced enough to be efficacious is a pretty tall order. I think it would be a lot easier for several individual state governments to put together some solutions to these problems: see what works and what doesn't, and then move forward.

If a Federal initiative fails, it usually fails spectacularly…and I think we can see that more than a few of our attempts at mitigating a large variety of issues are proving to be spectacular failures. People keep blaming the "other" party, but never look at the fact that the system is probably what has us in the most trouble.

I don't want to hijack this thread further so I'll make one last comment and you can have the last word if you so choose. First, the federal/state dichotomy oversimplifies how federalism does and can work where most issues actually derive influence from both levels. Secondly, being around Oklahoma's state legislature, do you really trust states much more? There's also the new phenomenon of conservative, small government state politicians stripping the rights of local communities to make decisions. The binary thinking and that comes from the two-party system, which many Founders warned against, seems a bigger problem to me. We need more, and real, choices in our democracy. The two parties often fail to provide meaningful choices about actionable issues.

[Jersey Boss]

I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing ways that government can curb special interests and better represent citizens. Stronger campaign finance reform laws and spending limits might mean that legislators would quit ignoring the will of the people, often overwhelmingly, on issues where there is more public consensus. And there are issues where 90% of the public agrees, but special interests win. There are many other short and long term (e.g., multiparty system) solutions that I won't go into detail mentioning.

I guess I'm not ready to concede our democracy just yet, or at least my active role as a citizen. And I'm personally not willing to just accept mass killings or systemic racism or environmental degradation or whatever without trying to do something...

Unfortunately the current makeup of SCOTUS equates campaign reform with assaults on free speech. Until a constitutional amendment is passed(roflmao) this logic will stand and hinder any attempt at spending limits or other reforms that limit influence through monetary rewards. SCOTUS is enabling the current system to lurch along.