It angers me that the father gave a son who is evil/mentally ill a gun. They are either clueless (of course objectivity is difficult for parents) or should be held culpable as well.
Counter-example:
Chris Dorner, black = crazy evil
Biker gang shootout recently, mostly white = thug
Unabomber, Oklahoma, etc, white = terrorist
Would someone please ask dear old dad why he thought it was just a peachy idea to give his troubled son a gun for his birthday? Did he also buy him that nifty jacket celebrating apartheid and oppression? And was he partially responsible for inculcating the idea that blacks are rapists hell bent on taking over “their” country?
Anyone want to argue that this one wasn’t a hate crime?
And yeah, he could also be mentally ill. Two conditions can prevail at the same time.
“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”?
I live in North Carolina, so not as far from the shooting as many CCers. One of the major local news sources has hundreds of comments from the public, with Facebook profiles attached. The three main words that both white and black people (assuming that their Facebook pictures are their own pictures) are using to describe him are “thug,” “evil,” and “terrorist”.
You know what else makes me sad - besides the acts of an evil terrorist killing a bunch of people attending a Bible study?
It also makes me sad to read the hateful, scary comments left by readers (<–and I use that word loosely) of internet news stories. What is wrong with some people?
It disturbs me when people say the shooting wouldn’t have happened if the people in the church would’ve been armed.
He had a confederate flag license plate on his car
Maybe his dad is a Stormfront guy and just gave his son an inspired middle name as homage.
I had the same thought, saintfan. I have a feeling we’ll be hearing a lot about the ideology this young man grew up learning.
The apple probably didn’t fall far from the tree.
Did the father give him a gun for his birthday before or after his arrest for drug possession? He was currently out on bond from the drug arrest.
The Daily Mail (UK) is reporting that he was a prescription drug abuser, meth head, cocaine user. He had no job and stayed in his room for long periods of time.
Drug use, maybe yes. Mental illness, no evidence yet. Racism, definitely.
From the NY Times and the Daily Beast.
Post #5
I would hardly classify the shooters in incidents (yes, it’s come to this - incidentS - how terrible) as people, let alone law-abiding people. Thugs, nutcases, violent racists, terrorists, whatever you call them don’t respect regulations regarding preserving human life. It’s against the law to kill - that doesn’t seem to have stopped the shooter. He clearly doesn’t respect the laws of the land regarding human life - why should he respect laws about gun ownership? Do you really think that making it harder to get a gun would have absolutely prevented this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3129109/South-Carolina-church-shooter-captured.html
This article answered my question. He was arrested for drug possession in March. He got a gun for his birthday in April. Dumb, irresponsible parents. Who gives a person who got arrested a gun for a present?
Guns - always an appropriate gift. 
States with the highest gun violence have the highest percentage of gun ownership. The primary cause of death, by far, is suicide. Another great reason to not give an already disturbed person a gun for their birthday!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/13/24-7-wall-st-states-most-gun-violence/71003050/
<<<
he just said ‘I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.’"
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
??? What? This sounds looney. He’s insane.
He was a terrorist by any definition. And it was obviously a hate crime. It makes me so angry that so many people’s first reaction is that he must have been mentally ill. When Muslim terrorists murder Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris, nobody immediately talks about their obvious mental illness. Everyone assumes they did it because they ascribe to a hateful ideology. The same is true of this man. I am generally against the death penalty, but for crimes involving mass murder like this, when there’s no doubt whatsoever that someone is guilty, I’m not so sure.
The difference, I think, is that mentally ill people (as they are usually defined) act alone. When terrorists act as a group, are they all mentally ill? Yes, to some, saying that anyone who ascribes to that philosophy and then shoots up a newspaper in Paris, is mentally ill. But perhaps not mentally ill as a psychiatrist would define.