Great news! Over 20 dead in Orlando Night Club!

[repoman]

Reports now saying his wife knew what he was planning and accompanied him on recon. That is messed up if true.

kill all the gay people so her husband will pay her attention?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Actually, I was remarking to responses to the event, with radicals of apparently each of the religions related to Judaism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) applauding the massacre. But yes, if this person was gay, this was more caused by the hate and bigotry of his father and religion than anything else.

Right at this particular moment with the information we have available it seems like there were some factors:
Hormone imbalance/bipolar disorder
Testosterone
Religion
Homophobia
Lax gun laws

Personally, I think his mental disorder is chief among the factors. I can't prove it, though, and I don't think we will be able to measure how much each factor contributed to this outcome. There's also a complication that one factor may be dependent upon another factor or might interact with another, which would make assigning rank to the factors even more difficult. For example, his religion and his sexual fears may have interacted. Or his mental disorder may have played a role in him turning to extremist religion.

 

[laughing dog]

It doesn't take long to get gasoline or knives. The 911 attackers only had box cutters. Calling for a ban of this or a ban of that is not a rational response. Even the politicians who pander to folks like you know that proposed bans would make no difference. But never let a good crisis go to waste, right?

As your responses readily indicate. Restrictions on acquiring assault weapons would probably help. But too many politicians are too scared to deal with these issues in a sensible manner.

 

[ronburgundy]

Well, if nothing else, the reaction to this event demonstrates extremism knows no religious boundaries,

Yup. It had little to do with the particular religion he was raised in. He was a seriously mentally disturbed man who happened to be gay and was raised in a religious home where he was taught that being gay is an abomination. Quite a combination.

The two underlined statements contradict each other, depending on what you mean by "particular religion". While the exact sub-brand of Abrahamic monotheism didn't matter, the fact that it was Abrahamic monotheism mattered a great deal. It mattered that the religion inherently promoted authoritarian obedience (as all Abrahamic religions do). It mattered that the religion was constructed to fuel bigotry and violence rooted in fear and intolerance (as all Abrahamic religions were). It mattered that the religion was designed to and does promote irrational thought, as all religions that promote faith (the definition of anti-reason) do. Finally, it mattered that the religion promoted intolerant violence against homosexuals as the core doctrines of all Abrahamic religions do.

Also, if the stories about his wife assisting him turn out to be true, then odds are that any general "mental illness" was less important, making his religious upbringing even more important.

 

[dismal]

Actually, I was remarking to responses to the event, with radicals of apparently each of the religions related to Judaism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) applauding the massacre. But yes, if this person was gay, this was more caused by the hate and bigotry of his father and religion than anything else.

Right at this particular moment with the information we have available it seems like there were some factors:
Hormone imbalance/bipolar disorder
Testosterone
Religion
Homophobia
Lax gun laws

Also, I heard he was a registered Democrat.

 

[abaddon]

http://www.joemygod.com/2016/06/14/...sacre-if-an-arab-did-this-good-for-him-video/

Orthodox Jew Posts Facebook Rant Celebrating Orlando Massacre: If An Arab Did This, Good For Him [VIDEO]

Watching these vids that Potoooooooo is posting has got me thinking the bigger issue is to point directly at the hate itself and its source (in ALL the monotheisms), to push further the cultural paradigm shift toward greater acceptance of everyone by everyone, rather than focusing on either what people should or shouldn’t be able to buy or complaining it's the Muslims that are the greatest danger.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Nothing to do with Islam.

Wow! You found six tweets of homophobic muslims?


6?

Six out of one billion. That's your evidence for your stance? If it was 6 million, it would still be less than 1/10th of one percent.

WTF is the matter with your brain? There isn't enough hate going around for you?

 

[Artemus]

Yup. It had little to do with the particular religion he was raised in. He was a seriously mentally disturbed man who happened to be gay and was raised in a religious home where he was taught that being gay is an abomination. Quite a combination.

The two underlined statements contradict each other, depending on what you mean by "particular religion".

When read in context of the quotes I responded to you'll see that I meant "which particular religion that teaches begin gay is an abomination." If he had been raised in one of the fundy christian or orthodox jewish religious sects that have been quoted here there would have likely been a similar outcome. Bat-shit insane Christians lose it all the time (the Planned Parenthood shooting, for example) but in those cases the mental illness is blamed, not the religion. In reality it is both
.

 

[Trausti]

Nothing to do with Islam.

Wow! You found six tweets of homophobic muslims?


6?

Six out of one billion. That's your evidence for your stance? If it was 6 million, it would still be less than 1/10th of one percent.

WTF is the matter with your brain? There isn't enough hate going around for you?

Oh good grief. Off the high horse. You really think that's it, and this is not just a sample? For fucks sake.

https://twitter.com/faisalalmutar/status/742059724351365121

 

[Malintent]

To address the last, first - I know how it is spelled. I am mocking the speech patterns and spelling of those who get their hair on fire anytime anyone with dark skin and/or a "funny" name is the topic - hence the quotations.

The number and types of guns and ammunition matters because it happens with alarming frequency in this country, and we do absolutely nothing about it. As long as guns exist, there will never be a 100% fool-proof means of preventing tragedies like this, but the lack of political will to even try (as other countries do try) is appalling

I suspected you were mocking but I couldn’t imagine you would lower yourself to the level of people you were referring to.

As for the weapons : my point is that Europe has the strictest gunlaws you can imagine. You end up fined or arrested with even a slingshot.

Still with increasing frequency, terrorists have access to assault riffles. All over Europe with maybe exception for insular UK.

A decade ago, all guns from law abiding citizens were confiscated. People had to turn in museum pieces or family guns. With these weapons there had not been any major incident since WW2 (which was the previous confiscation by German Occupier)
Now : every halfwit frustrated muslim seems to have an AK at home while peoples slingshots have been seized.

So, let me rephrase my question : do you believe that the shooter would not have been able to act if there had been stricter gun laws ?
To be clear : I am not talking about the hormone driven frustrated teenager who gets his hands on an assault riffle but on this specific case of terrorism. (if terrorism it is because we dont know yet)

Are you trying to say that criminals will not commit crime if it is more illegal to do so? more laws restricting guns will prevent people intent on breaking the law from getting them to commit crimes? on what planet, exactly, has this worked? cause it hasn't on Earth where us humans live.

 

[RVonse]

So is this finally going to challenge Left's infatuation with Islam? Or do Muslims still rank higher than gays on the "progressive stack"?

Interestingly you don't ask if this going to challenge the Right's infatuation with assault type weaponry? You really are not fooling anyone.

I'd say more like the religion of "unfettered capitalism" is too similar for my comfort. That's the prime factor that's driven the US to attack, kill, and take "tribute" (oil & other resources) from others for the last 30-40 years. Capitalism doesn't technically "enslave" people, but it convinces people to enslave themselves. Many people in the world are as afraid of US imperialism (their term, not mine) as the right wing is of Islam.

 

[RVonse]

Forgive the metaphor, but the NRA did not hold a gun to anyone's head. It's the American Congress and every single legislator who votes against gun control that is the problem.

Obama is CONSISTENT (not necessarily right) in his not wanting to take away guns. The pot has to be careful to give to the kettle all the same lethal "rights" he exercises on a global scale with his drones. The calculus of terror is the same whether it is our president or some nut attacking a gay nightclub. The idea is that the killing will serve a political purpose...make someone somewhere react in fear and begin to allow fear to rule their lives. We are at such a crossroads in our electoral process...only allowed a choice of two very violence prone candidates for president. Looks like this terrorism stuff works for those who use it. It is only an illusion however because we really can't see past the curtains people start to draw when they see the violence. Human beings are able to be extremely dishonest and have no problem with killing each other if they don't have to get too close to where the killing happens. That appears to be a given. I believe we have been conditioned to accept violence as the means of eliminating problems we face without really understanding that violence is a human failing and it is retrogressive and without actual positive value...ever. That is not saying that it does not sometimes have to happen. It is saying that frequent dependence on violence can only lead to tragedies like the current middle east with lots of spillage of blood and only regression back into ever more primitive forms of violence...

"We" smack down our foes then smartly insult the remnants of our adversaries and then are surprised when they show up with something to make "us" pay. It really is not surprising at all if you understand the calculus that precedes the action. It is the same on both sides...both the pot and the kettle.

+1 Agreed

 

[RVonse]

It doesn't take long to get gasoline or knives. The 911 attackers only had box cutters. Calling for a ban of this or a ban of that is not a rational response. Even the politicians who pander to folks like you know that proposed bans would make no difference. But never let a good crisis go to waste, right?

As your responses readily indicate. Restrictions on acquiring assault weapons would probably help. But too many politicians are too scared to deal with these issues in a sensible manner.

Yes it would probably help. The little good it does is not worth trashing the 2nd amendment though.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes it would probably help the little good it does is not worth trashing the 2nd amendment.

Unless you think the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to get bazookas or any other armament, there is no need to "trash" the 2nd amendment under a SCOTUS capable of independent critical thinking.

 

[bleubird]

As your responses readily indicate. Restrictions on acquiring assault weapons would probably help. But too many politicians are too scared to deal with these issues in a sensible manner.

Yes it would probably help. The little good it does is not worth trashing the 2nd amendment though.

Define militia.What was a militia in 1787?What does it mean in 2016?

 

[RavenSky]

No. They suffered from mental health issues, something that only happens to White people. It is the cost of White Privilege.

I'm not suggesting your suggestion isn't valid, but why is this a "first step" to stopping mass killings in the U.S.?

Well, I wouldn't consider it a "first step", rather another avenue that must be used in conjunction with other avenues. When dealing with Islamic inspired extremism, it makes sense to fight back against extremist propaganda.

I don't disagree... and better mental health help for those privileged white fucktards. Let's battle back against christian extremism too.

But let's stop sales of AR-15's and/or strengthen back-ground checks to keep guns out of hands of killers while those other measures are needing time to work.

We should also stop sale of gasoline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

Fertilizer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

And knifes: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

Oh, and guns, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

This/ is just STUPID. Let's ban bicycle helmets because people drown in swimming pools.

Seriously though, the 'bomb' scenario takes time, planning, and a lot of luck not to get caught beforehand. An mass killing takes hours to buy a gun/ammo. So, why make it fucking easy to mass kill people? Your analogy is stupid, falls flat and is disgusting.

It doesn't take long to get gasoline or knives. The 911 attackers only had box cutters.

No, they had planes. They killed people with planes. They merely gained control of the planes with box cutters, because people didn't realize their goal was to use the planes as the weapons to kill thousands. Also, many hundreds of lives were likely saved because they only had box cutters rather than guns, which enabled the revolt on flight 93 that led to it crashing before reaching its target in D.C. They succeeded with 3 of the planes only because no one was aware or prepared for the possibility that they would use the planes that way. Today, passengers would immediately attack them and they would not succeed with knives, but would still likely succeed if they had guns.

Calling for a ban of this or a ban of that is not a rational response.

When the "that" is a object whose sole designed purpose is to kill many people as quickly as possible, an act which is criminal in every plausible situation outside of military combat, then banning "that" is very rational. What is irrational is comparing "that" to a "this", such as a knife which whose primary and secondary functions are positive, legal, and very useful, and while it can be repurposed to kill many people, it is never the first choice of those trying to do so because it is not remotely as effective as other options that people are too stupid to ban, like assault rifles (note their highly apt fact that a crime is right in the name of these weapons).
When was the last time that more than 10 people were murdered within minutes by a single person using only a knife?
When was the last time that 10 people were deliberately murdered by someone setting a fire? (not merely arson, but arson with intent to kill)

People use guns for such mass killings because it is infinitely easier and more likely to succeed if you use a gun than any other method, and that is a direct result that guns were designed for that very purpose.

Also, your mention of fertilizer or homemade bomb ingredients backfires (pun intended) on you. It is illegal to assemble these ingredients into something designed to cause harm/damage. The apt analogy to guns is that while the basic ingredients that have many legal functions but could be used to build a gun (e.g., steel, springs) should be legal, actually assembling them into such a gun or possessing such an assembly should be illegal, just as assembling a bomb from fertilizer is illegal.

The rationale for banning guns capable of firing more than a few rounds without reloading is the same as for banning possession major explosives including nuclear weapons by citizens. All the arguments against such a ban apply to nuclear weapons too. So, if you favor bans on nuclear weapons but not on guns whose sole legal context would be in military combat, then you know your being an unprincipled hypocrite.

Of course, Trausti ignores the fact that after airplanes were used for a terrorism event, we changed procedures, tightened security, locked cockpit doors, etc. In other words, took what steps we could to make it harder for mass killers to kill masses of people with airplanes.

But somehow AR-15s are too special. We can't do anything at all ever to make it harder for killers to get this gun.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[RavenSky]

Wow! You found six tweets of homophobic muslims?


6?

Six out of one billion. That's your evidence for your stance? If it was 6 million, it would still be less than 1/10th of one percent.

WTF is the matter with your brain? There isn't enough hate going around for you?

Oh good grief. Off the high horse. You really think that's it, and this is not just a sample? For fucks sake.

https://twitter.com/faisalalmutar/status/742059724351365121

And as has been demonstrated, fundy Christians and fundy Jews have have been posting similar shit.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[couch_sloth]

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016...reacher-praises-orlando-gay-nightclub-attack/
Christian Pastor Celebrates Orlando Massacre: Round Up All The Gays And Blow Their Brains Out [VIDEO]

He pretty much just outed himself.

It seems like 50% of these fundamentalist ministers who have a fanatical obsession with homosexuals, are themselves closeted gays.

 

[RavenSky]

Stephen Colbert: Despair Is A Victory For Hate

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1VZGUJ8GtY[/YOUTUBE]

Stephen opens The Late Show with his thoughts on the heartbreaking events in Orlando.

 

[RavenSky]

He drove his point home by citing a quote from an experienced hunter to Slate that an AR-15 rifle, the exact gun that was used in the shooting, is not necessary for hunting or home defense — and should be banned from civilians. “It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games,” Meyers read.

I said this almost word for word yesterday morning. Nice to see a hunter who agrees. (Needless to say, so does Seth Myers)

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTi40ekUcV8[/YOUTUBE]