| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21929
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/15/16 7:27 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| See, Countries that have actually banned weapons does seem to work extraordinarily well, if you just look at the stats. I'd be interested in reading your article, but I doubt very much it has been more successful since Australia's zero mass shootings since their ban. |
Sure, mercfan3, on the surface.
But look at the flip side. Life here is barely worth living now that nut jobs can't legally get a bunch of guns and I can't have assault weapons.
It's just a matter of time before this largely-unarmed populace of ours gets oppressed by our tyrannical government. Frankly it's fucked up down here. We're all living in a constant state of fear as we await the inevitable, but of course you won't find any stats for that.
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| we have had 174 mass shootings this year. We've got a major problem with guns. |
174 is a very small price to pay when you weigh it against all the benefits.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/15/16 8:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
Life here is barely worth living now that nut jobs can't legally get a bunch of guns and I can't have assault weapons.
It's just a matter of time before this largely-unarmed populace of ours gets oppressed by our tyrannical government.
Frankly it's fucked up down here. We're all living in a constant state of fear as we await the inevitable, but of course you won't find any stats for that.
|
Sarcasm aside, whatever country you're in, do you allow unlimited illegal immigration and massive legal immigration of undocumentable refugees from Muslim theocracies in the Middle East?
If not, why not? Is everyone in your country racist and Islamophobic?
BTW, I don't think the Orlando shooting was motivated by homophobia, especially since there's solid evidence that the shooter was himself homosexual. He likely picked the Pulse simply because it was a densely packed bar he was very familiar with, including the security precautions, the escape routes and the general layout for a killing field. It's most likely that the slaughter was motivated by the same blindingly obvious thing that has motivated virtually all Islamic slaughters around the globe for 1400 years: the divine commands of Allah against infidels in the sacred Koran. |
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/15/16 9:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
Life here is barely worth living now that nut jobs can't legally get a bunch of guns and I can't have assault weapons.
It's just a matter of time before this largely-unarmed populace of ours gets oppressed by our tyrannical government.
Frankly it's fucked up down here. We're all living in a constant state of fear as we await the inevitable, but of course you won't find any stats for that.
|
Sarcasm aside, whatever country you're in, do you allow unlimited illegal immigration and massive legal immigration of undocumentable refugees from Muslim theocracies in the Middle East?
If not, why not? Is everyone in your country racist and Islamophobic?
BTW, I don't think the Orlando shooting was motivated by homophobia, especially since there's solid evidence that the shooter was himself homosexual. He likely picked the Pulse simply because it was a densely packed bar he was very familiar with, including the security precautions, the escape routes and the general layout for a killing field. It's most likely that the slaughter was motivated by the same blindingly obvious thing that has motivated virtually all Islamic slaughters around the globe for 1400 years: the divine commands of Allah against infidels in the sacred Koran. |
Islam also has divine commands against homosexuality. I guess he was pretty picky about which divine commands were important and which ones were not.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/15/16 10:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
Life here is barely worth living now that nut jobs can't legally get a bunch of guns and I can't have assault weapons.
It's just a matter of time before this largely-unarmed populace of ours gets oppressed by our tyrannical government.
Frankly it's fucked up down here. We're all living in a constant state of fear as we await the inevitable, but of course you won't find any stats for that.
|
Sarcasm aside, whatever country you're in, do you allow unlimited illegal immigration and massive legal immigration of undocumentable refugees from Muslim theocracies in the Middle East?
If not, why not? Is everyone in your country racist and Islamophobic?
BTW, I don't think the Orlando shooting was motivated by homophobia, especially since there's solid evidence that the shooter was himself homosexual. He likely picked the Pulse simply because it was a densely packed bar he was very familiar with, including the security precautions, the escape routes and the general layout for a killing field. It's most likely that the slaughter was motivated by the same blindingly obvious thing that has motivated virtually all Islamic slaughters around the globe for 1400 years: the divine commands of Allah against infidels in the sacred Koran. |
Islam also has divine commands against homosexuality. I guess he was pretty picky about which divine commands were important and which ones were not. |
Yeah but Glenn's kind of got a good point. Actually more than one. Let's not forget this guy called the cops, a TV station, etc. Unless I missed it he didn't say anything about homosexuality. He talked about ISIS and the US bombing of Syria. Remember also after San Bernardino... the question there was was this Islamic terrorism or a workplace shooting. Comes down to the possibility of shooters picking targets that that provide them with what they need. Large group of folks in an enclosed place, lax or no security, etc. Yeah, I don't like this guy and a handful of my co-workers either. I don't like all these gays practicing homosexuality in an open way even though I can't stay away from it myself, etc. Human beings and human events are such a complicated mix of factors and influences and even just chance._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/15/16 10:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| norwester wrote: |
| So it would have been better if only 10 or 15 people had died. I get it. Just a compromise to allow hand guns, then, but not address the lack of funding for programs that work to actually reduce gun deaths (which a ban does not seem to do). |
Yes, it would have. 10 or 15 people dying is 10 or 15 people too many, but it's still not 50. Like I said, I'd ban all of it, but that ain't happening..so I'd like to fix it a bit. BTW: Half of all mass shootings have happened after 2005, after the ban on semi-automatic weapons was lifted.
I said this is a good place to start, not were we should finish.
See, Countries that have actually banned weapons does seem to work extraordinarily well, if you just look at the stats. I'd be interested in reading your article, but I doubt very much it has been more successful since Australia's zero mass shootings since their ban.
| norwester wrote: |
Ban those semi-automatic rifles that are responsible for relatively few deaths per year because people don't "need" them. Because shooting isn't a valid sport. Because differently-abled hunters shouldn't be hunting anyway (semi-auto rifles are easier for them to handle). Because they're scary looking. Because the majority of Americans don't have one or want one. Because those who do must be scary and immature. But not because we actually care about reducing gun deaths.
What problem are we even trying to address here? And why is the national conversation about guns and not gays?  |
I'm sorry, this just isn't rational. At all. You're suggesting we should allow people to have tools that are literally only good for mass killing because some people think it's fun. Some people would think bombs are fun. Hell, some people think killing is fun.
We're trying to address gun violence. There's a very simple way to do that, but the NRA would rather people die.
As clearly homophobic as THIS attack was, we have had 174 mass shootings this year. We've got a major problem with guns.
edit: That article is interesting. I'm not sure I buy that it would work in this country though, and it's not the simplest solution. And personally, I think simple is important - because I think simple is most effective. (And that's not even getting into our inability to reform or effectively outreach. Like for instance, look how well the "war on drugs" is going...freaking heroin is making a comeback )
That's also not to say that there are some serious underlying issues. Mass shootings are perpetrated by men, in almost all cases. If they were being done by women, I'd imagine there would be some discussion about it.
Like wise, these types of killings typically tend to be done by white men (ages 18-30). I imagine if the majority of these killings were done by black people, hispanic people, or muslims we would have already banned guns..
but that's not even white I'm getting at..I think it's time we question why this is happening with this specific demographic..whether there are some underlying connections anywhere or cultural issues. It's been touched on slightly, but not enough, IMO.
Also, I don't mean to be confrontational with you. I get heated over this one, and I think you do too.  Honestly, I agree with you 99% of time, it's just this one thing..  |
This isn't a subject like other subjects. Heat is justified. Let 'er rip. We lost luvDhoops because of one thread, the Newtown shooting thread. She became that frustrated and disheartened. And I don't or didn't blame her. I had to pull back from the thread because I felt the conversation was about to drive me way over the edge in terms of behavior. But if 'heated confrontatio" happens on Rebkell's over the subject of assault rifles after the things that have happened in this country then that's just too bad._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/15/16 10:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
Yeah but Glenn's kind of got a good point. Actually more than one. Let's not forget this guy called the cops, a TV station, etc. Unless I missed it he didn't say anything about homosexuality. He talked about ISIS and the US bombing of Syria. Remember also after San Bernardino... the question there was was this Islamic terrorism or a workplace shooting. Comes down to the possibility of shooters picking targets that that provide them with what they need. Large group of folks in an enclosed place, lax or no security, etc. Yeah, I don't like this guy and a handful of my co-workers either. I don't like all these gays practicing homosexuality in an open way even though I can't stay away from it myself, etc. Human beings and human events are such a complicated mix of factors and influences and even just chance. |
Come on man, the guy killed 50 people and injured 50 more in a gay club during pride month. According to everyone who knew him personally, he was homophobic.
It's pretty clearly an attack on homosexuality. A hate crime. Is it possible that it's more than just that one thing? Sure. But I think it's being intentionally oblivious to try and ignore the hate crime aspect of what happened.
BTW Senator Murphy has my vote any time I am in a position to vote for him. So proud to call him my senator.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/15/16 10:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Yeah. Some people see things very clearly. Some people see the murkiness behind human behavior and events and are said to have their heads buried in the sand. The guy frequented a gay bar. Maybe he couldn't get lucky. His own dad called him gay according to his first wife. That's going back a long time. So there's all that. But there are his words in his dying hours where he attests himself as to why he is doing the killing. He's unambiguous. Tells 911, tells the TV station, tells his victims over the course of hours.
But hey I'm sure you know better and couldn't possibly have your own head in the sand._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/15/16 11:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
Life here is barely worth living now that nut jobs can't legally get a bunch of guns and I can't have assault weapons.
It's just a matter of time before this largely-unarmed populace of ours gets oppressed by our tyrannical government.
Frankly it's fucked up down here. We're all living in a constant state of fear as we await the inevitable, but of course you won't find any stats for that.
|
Sarcasm aside, whatever country you're in, do you allow unlimited illegal immigration and massive legal immigration of undocumentable refugees from Muslim theocracies in the Middle East?
If not, why not? Is everyone in your country racist and Islamophobic?
BTW, I don't think the Orlando shooting was motivated by homophobia, especially since there's solid evidence that the shooter was himself homosexual. He likely picked the Pulse simply because it was a densely packed bar he was very familiar with, including the security precautions, the escape routes and the general layout for a killing field. It's most likely that the slaughter was motivated by the same blindingly obvious thing that has motivated virtually all Islamic slaughters around the globe for 1400 years: the divine commands of Allah against infidels in the sacred Koran. |
Islam also has divine commands against homosexuality. I guess he was pretty picky about which divine commands were important and which ones were not. |
Yeah but Glenn's kind of got a good point. Actually more than one. Let's not forget this guy called the cops, a TV station, etc. Unless I missed it he didn't say anything about homosexuality. He talked about ISIS and the US bombing of Syria. Remember also after San Bernardino... the question there was was this Islamic terrorism or a workplace shooting. Comes down to the possibility of shooters picking targets that that provide them with what they need. Large group of folks in an enclosed place, lax or no security, etc. Yeah, I don't like this guy and a handful of my co-workers either. I don't like all these gays practicing homosexuality in an open way even though I can't stay away from it myself, etc. Human beings and human events are such a complicated mix of factors and influences and even just chance. |
The difference here is in what we have learned about this guy from sources like his coworkers and ex wife. He is not someone with a history of devout belief, but rather someone with a lot of anger and hatred toward others. This is a guy who talked about shooting up his school when he was in the 5th grade...long before ISIS was a thing. He talked about hating gays and jews and black people...
No, from what we have heard about this guy he was someone who was looking for an excuse to be able to kill a bunch of people and ISIS provided the perfect reason. Unlike in something like San Bernardino, religion actually seemed to be tangential. He wasn't in contact with any of these groups, nor even getting caught up in their propaganda. He just wanted to be able to kill people. Like has had for years...
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 12:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I think ISIS is made up of people who have a lot of hatred, anger, and a fervent desire to kill. That doesn't make this guy an outlier. I'm not saying they don't hate homosexuals or that there isn't a ton of stuff involved in this guy's deadly attack. But he may have been gay himself, number one. And you can't disregard his own stated reasons for killing all of these people. He had two trips I believe in the last five or so years to Muslim theocracies. He attended a mosque regularly. He married women in semi-arranged marriages and his current wife was from a family that didn't allow the girls to have normal western lives despite being born and raised in California. And yet she married this guy. He didn't just attach himself to ISIS when ISIS became an available excuse. He's been there all along.
You say ISIS provided him with maybe a more, I don't know, acceptable justification for this act, as a blow to the west for ISIS. I'm more inclined that all of this gay stuff he was dabbling in provided him with an opportunity, a fertile field, and a common Muslim booger-bear at that. Homosexuals. But of course. This is perfect. he might have thought.
I don't what we're debating here. I guess it's hard not to fall into ideological arguments when it seems so important for one side of the political spectrum to label something as a terrorist act and the other side to label it as an act of hatred against homosexuals. I'm so over a lifetime of standing in the middle of these kinds of arguments._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 12:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Or he was gay, his father hated him, he was an abomination and couldn't deal with it, so out of anger that others could go out and have a good time or be happy or be supported by their families he goes to the gay club in Pride month to take as many down with him as he can. Psychologically "killing" that part of himself that he hates. And in an attempt to measure up and make his family proud in the final hour, he couches it in terms they find more acceptable than killing himself because he's homosexual: radical Islam. No shame in going out waging jihad.
If gun control enthusiasts cared about the weight of human lives lost, they'd fight for programs that addressed the everyday violence on our streets. I know we can care about more than one issue at once, but this focus on one sensational thing creates cognitive dissonance for me. Like "winning" is more important than the problem.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 6:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
Yeah. Some people see things very clearly. Some people see the murkiness behind human behavior and events and are said to have their heads buried in the sand. The guy frequented a gay bar. Maybe he couldn't get lucky. His own dad called him gay according to his first wife. That's going back a long time. So there's all that. But there are his words in his dying hours where he attests himself as to why he is doing the killing. He's unambiguous. Tells 911, tells the TV station, tells his victims over the course of hours.
But hey I'm sure you know better and couldn't possibly have your own head in the sand. |
A lot of homophobic people are homophobic precisely because they grew up in a homophobic household and they are gay themselves.
I'm not saying things are black and white. However, I am saying use some common sense and look at the overwhelming evidence. And explaining behavior in a way that fits an agenda is not the same thing as seeing nuance.
Not only that, but IMO refusing to acknowledge the nature of this attack is in itself dangerous to the lgbt community.
Re: mental illness is a discussion all on its own. I have some problems with it being consistently brought up for a few reasons, but a major problem is that most of these killers have personality disorders. You can't fix that. In fact, even my extremely liberal ass wouldn't totally be against just locking up people diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and throwing away the key.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Last edited by mercfan3 on 06/16/16 5:39 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21929
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 6:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| but a major problem is that most of these killers have personality disorders. You can't fix that. In fact, even my extremely liberal ass wouldn't totally be against just locking people diagnosed with antisocial personality and throwing away the key. |
Harsh, but ok, I can see some justification for a measure that extreme.
Just so long as you don't take their guns away. That would be crossing the line.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 7:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| but a major problem is that most of these killers have personality disorders. You can't fix that. In fact, even my extremely liberal ass wouldn't totally be against just locking people diagnosed with antisocial personality and throwing away the key. |
Harsh, but ok, I can see some justification for a measure that extreme.
Just so long as you don't take their guns away. That would be crossing the line. |
Well you know, it's a constitutional right. I mean sure, even Scalia didnt think the right should be unlimited, but who asked him anyway?
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 9:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Utah Lt. Gov. apology.
| Quote: |
"Im here because, yesterday morning, 49 Americans were brutally murdered. And it made me sad. And it made me angry. And it made me confused. Im here because those 49 people were gay. Im here because it shouldnt matter. But Im here because it does."
Cox, who supported Marco Rubio in the GOP presidential race, continued to speak bluntly.
"And I am speaking now to the straight community. How did you feel when you heard that 49 people had been gunned down by a self-proclaimed terrorist? Thats the easy question. Here is the hard one: Did that feeling change when you found out the shooting was at a gay bar at 2 a.m. in the morning? If that feeling changed, then we are doing something wrong." |
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/15/utah-lawmaker-offers-apology-lbgt-community/85958432/
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
|
gpark33
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 5116
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 10:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
Yeah. Some people see things very clearly. Some people see the murkiness behind human behavior and events and are said to have their heads buried in the sand. The guy frequented a gay bar. Maybe he couldn't get lucky. His own dad called him gay according to his first wife. That's going back a long time. So there's all that. But there are his words in his dying hours where he attests himself as to why he is doing the killing. He's unambiguous. Tells 911, tells the TV station, tells his victims over the course of hours.
But hey I'm sure you know better and couldn't possibly have your own head in the sand. |
I get what you are saying and you could be absolutely right. My personal read is that this was a self hating gay man. He was taught his entire life that being gay was an abomination so to his friends and family, he had to play this strong machismo straight guy with a wife he could overpower. He hated himself for being gay and used the allegiance to ISIS in those last calls to continue the facade that he was not gay. Again, I could be way off base but how many anti-gay acts have we seen from people deep in the closet. And how many ISIS attacks have we seen where the attacker(s) didn't have methodical plans that eventually tied them back to communications with ISIS leadership in some way.
_________________
The teacher and the student.
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 12:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
| Quote: |
| "Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47," the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events." |
| Quote: |
| "After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military." |
| Quote: |
"What has happened, good or bad, since his patents have expired is a result of our free market system," Stoner's family said. "Currently, a more interesting question is 'Who now is benefiting from the manufacturing and sales of AR-15s, and for what uses?'"
That's the question for the rest of us. |
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/family-of-ar-15-inventor-he-didnt-intend-it-for-civilians/ar-AAh7hM9?ocid=mailsignout
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 12:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
<embed><iframe width="509" height="310" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lVuun6RJzRQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
https://youtu.be/lVuun6RJzRQ
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 4:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| norwester wrote: |
Guns aren't the problem here. Terrorists aren't the problem here. The culture of homophobia is the problem, but no one wants to talk about that either.  |
Whattt!??
Now, THAT'S "precious": And what was The Problem at Sandy Hook--children? San Bernardino? Aurora? In Orlando, Gays were the victims du jour. This IS about guns, guns in the hands of mentally ill people.
And semi-automatics generally available because of disabled shooters? Please--the logic is feeble.
"Bear Arms". Arms? I want HAND GRENADES for my arms. Fuck guns: if I want/need/deserve game meat to survive, just imagine how well-fed I'd be if I could lob a hand grenade into a herd of elk. Orr.....if my tyrannical government might do me dirty, wouldn't hand grenades be my God-given right?? Why hasn't the NRA lobbied against the government's control of those? |
Howee, you've made a couple of comments here in this discussion that seem to directly call my intelligence into question because my conclusions differ from yours.
This isn't about guns in the hands of mentally-ill people. If everyone who was depressed and/or suicidal at some point or another was denied owning a gun, we might as well have no second amendment.
mercfan has weighed in a bit too. I am aware of the nuances in the gun debate. I'm frustrated that people dismiss non-gun control measures as a means of decreasing gun violence when indeed they have been shown to be effective in the United States (in parts of Chicago and Baltimore, specifically). But they also need funding for larger application, and there seems to be no will behind that. Everyone just beats the "ban" drum and listens to nothing else, secure in the knowledge that their own mistrust/disgust at gun ownership and use makes them superior.
Which does not change my statement, that it's being whitewashed that this guy was targeting the LGBT community. This is not without repercussion, as much as people seem to be denying that a specifically vulnerable community was targeted. What is wrong with admitting that? When a Jewish synagogue is shot up, there is discussion of anti-Semitism and how it is fostered. Why is there no discussion of the fostering of homophobia in our society? It doesn't even have to be the only discussion, but as it stands it's hardly a discussion at all!
We can have discussions about racism when a black church is shot up. Anti-Semitism when a synagogue is shot up. Rape culture when a judge gives a slap on the wrist to a convicted racist. But heaven forbid we try to keep this particular discussion on a targeted discussion about homophobia. I did expect better than that on this site, but gun-ban fervor cannot be denied...or something? The kids in CT were not a vulnerable minority group. The movie-goers in CO were not a vulnerable minority group. But in this instance, when the targeted group is, in this instance there are no discussions about American homophobia. I'm taken aback that this is true here in Area 51 as well. Stunned.
All I can conclude is that there is no interest in reducing gun deaths, only guns. I guess because fewer deaths will be a bi-product? A comfy bi-product to help you sleep at night, because gays can fend for themselves.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 5:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| norwester wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| norwester wrote: |
| Guns aren't the problem here. Terrorists aren't the problem here. The culture of homophobia is the problem, but no one wants to talk about that either. |
Whattt!??
Now, THAT'S "precious": And what was The Problem at Sandy Hook--children? San Bernardino? Aurora? In Orlando, Gays were the victims du jour. This IS about guns, guns in the hands of mentally ill people.
And semi-automatics generally available because of disabled shooters? Please--the logic is feeble.
"Bear Arms". Arms? I want HAND GRENADES for my arms. Fuck guns: if I want/need/deserve game meat to survive, just imagine how well-fed I'd be if I could lob a hand grenade into a herd of elk. Orr.....if my tyrannical government might do me dirty, wouldn't hand grenades be my God-given right?? Why hasn't the NRA lobbied against the government's control of those? |
Howee, you've made a couple of comments here in this discussion that seem to directly call my intelligence into question because my conclusions differ from yours.
This isn't about guns in the hands of mentally-ill people. If everyone who was depressed and/or suicidal at some point or another was denied owning a gun, we might as well have no second amendment.
mercfan has weighed in a bit too. I am aware of the nuances in the gun debate. I'm frustrated that people dismiss non-gun control measures as a means of decreasing gun violence when indeed they have been shown to be effective in the United States (in parts of Chicago and Baltimore, specifically). But they also need funding for larger application, and there seems to be no will behind that. Everyone just beats the "ban" drum and listens to nothing else, secure in the knowledge that their own mistrust/disgust at gun ownership and use makes them superior.
Which does not change my statement, that it's being whitewashed that this guy was targeting the LGBT community. This is not without repercussion, as much as people seem to be denying that a specifically vulnerable community was targeted. What is wrong with admitting that? When a Jewish synagogue is shot up, there is discussion of anti-Semitism and how it is fostered. Why is there no discussion of the fostering of homophobia in our society? It doesn't even have to be the only discussion, but as it stands it's hardly a discussion at all!
We can have discussions about racism when a black church is shot up. Anti-Semitism when a synagogue is shot up. Rape culture when a judge gives a slap on the wrist to a convicted racist. But heaven forbid we try to keep this particular discussion on a targeted discussion about homophobia. I did expect better than that on this site, but gun-ban fervor cannot be denied...or something? The kids in CT were not a vulnerable minority group. The movie-goers in CO were not a vulnerable minority group. But in this instance, when the targeted group is, in this instance there are no discussions about American homophobia. I'm taken aback that this is true here in Area 51 as well. Stunned.
All I can conclude is that there is no interest in reducing gun deaths, only guns. I guess because fewer deaths will be a bi-product? A comfy bi-product to help you sleep at night, because gays can fend for themselves. |
I mean, I'm not sure how you came up with that. In fact, if gun control isn't an option, I honestly can only conclude that there is no actual concern for reducing gun deaths..because finding ulterior less effective and more expensive ways to reduce gun deaths means the problem isn't being taken seriously.
I don't think you need to have a discussion about who the victims are to discuss a few obvious ways to minimize gun deaths. We have a serious pattern of mass shootings in this country, and who the victims are have been a variable.
Likewise, the people who are minimizing who the victims are in the tragedy are not those pushing for gun control, they are those whose primary concern seems to be terrorism.
And I think that's happening for a few reasons.
First, and most unfortunate, if it's acknowledged that the victims were gay and that this is a hate crime, the fear mongering over terrorism loses its power because the victims are less sympathetic.
Second, if we acknowledge that this was a hate crime, than we are acknowledging that this act could have been committed by a variety of Americans, not just someone with brown skin who sympathizes with ISIS.
The refusal to acknowledge (which, btw, I have noticed as well), has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. In fact, politically, the same people discussing gun control are the ones specifically mentioning and discussing who these victims are.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/16 6:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Viewer Discretion is Advised
<embed><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BsCHPDF4Uw0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsCHPDF4Uw0
<embed><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7TTiZLtERDA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TTiZLtERDA
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
|
|
|
