"At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries."
Obviously Obama didn't bother to check any facts before saying this.
You'd think he'd at least have some recollection of Anders Breivik (Norway) if not Baruch Goldstein (Israel). Both of those incidents seemed to have a motive in some way analogous to that of yesterday's shooting -- racial conflict.
Incidentally, Obama himself has exacerbated racial conflict in the United States by repeatedly rushing to support paranoid accusations every time there has been a racial controversy, with the result that many Blacks have gotten the idea that they no longer have to obey authority and follow rules, and some have even been motivated to murder police and random White people. There is no doubt that Obama has greatly exacerbated racial conflict in the United States. The church-shooting in South Carolina, given the shooter's statement that Blacks were "taking over the country," seems to be a ramification of that.
Obama then qualified his statement by saying that such mass-violence did not occur "with the same kind of frequency" in other advanced countries -- but so what? Breivik and Goldstein each killed many more, in much less populous countries, than the nine out of 350 million people killed by narcotic-abuser Dylann Roof in the Emmanuel A.M.E. Church.
Obama's use of the term "advanced countries" is prejudicial. That means countries not dominated by Black or Brown people. South Africa and Zimbabwe (the former Rhodesia) certainly have very serious problems of violent crime, and one could have cited them to Obama as counterexamples to his claim, except that those countries are no longer to be counted as advanced, as they once might have been, when they were under White rule. Black and Brown countries therefore get a pass. There is no point in citing to Obama what happens in those countries because they have the excuse of not being "advanced."
According to the FBI most of the murders that happen in the United States every year are committed by perpetrators identified as African-American. The overwhelming majority of Blacks murdered in the USA every year are murdered by other Blacks. The FBI reports that in the year 2013, out of 2491 murders of Blacks, 2245 -- 90% -- were committed by Blacks. (Most of the 189 that the FBI attributes to "White" offenders were probably committed by Hispanics, since the FBI counts Hispanic offenders as White, even though many have Negro and other non-White ancestry.) Black violent crime, especially against other Blacks, is the real violent crime problem in the USA.
A study by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, on "intentional homicide by country" (cited on Wikipedia) lists countries according to annual homicides per 100,000. The annual homicide rate in the USA is 4.7 per 100,000. That's the same as Latvia, and less than some other Eastern-European states.
But: if one factors out the African-American contribution to the US homicide rate (which is approximated by halving it then multiplying by 8/7), one finds that the non-Black homicide-rate in the USA at about 2.7 is less than the rates for Taiwan and for Europe as a whole (both at 3.0 per 100,000). If the Hispanic murder-rate were known and could be excluded, the rate for an almost entirely White USA would surely be lower still.
The bottom line is that there is no especial problem with violent crime in the United States, other than the violent crime that comes from the Black population. The notion that there is such a problem emanating from White males is the creation of selective, agenda-driven reporting. Thousands of murders happen in the USA every year. An event like the racially motivated church-shooting in South Carolina is a rarity and an aberration, and not of much importance in itself.
The shooting is of interest not because it is typical but because it is unusual, and because it can be used as propaganda for for further browbeating Whitey, who is only too ready to accept guilt.