Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on June 12, 2016, 09:16:05 AM
-
Breaking news on the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36510272
-
Grim stuff Rhiannon :(.
-
Yes. :(
-
SICK and then some!
-
Apparently a talented young pop star was murdered by a stalker in the same town.
-
Now reporting 20 killed. It is being described as a "terrorist Incident".
And already on Twitter some lovely homophobe out there proclaiming the murderer as somebody doing "God's work".
Some sick dudes in this world.
-
Apparently a talented young pop star was murdered by a stalker in the same town.
That's right, not long before the shooting at the club.
Yes Trent, there are sick individuals in this world, unfortunately. We never know the minute nor the hour.
-
Suspect provisionally identified as Omar Mateen, 29.
-
This was mentioned and prayed for at church, this morning - alongside prayers for the leadership of our own nation, at all levels.
-
Now it is "50 dead" and a "state of emergency" has been declared.
-
There's nothing sensible I can say. :(
-
There may not be anything sensible to say, not now, all we can do here is offer thoughts.
-
Indeed.
And again, this was made possible by an unnecessary adherence to a so-called Constitutional "right".
-
When every nutter has access to assault weapons it's difficult to see how these kinds of tragedies can be avoided.
-
There may not be anything sensible to say, not now, all we can do here is offer thoughts.
You put it very well, NS. Thanks.
-
One cretin stated if more people carried guns in the US there would be less gun related atrocities! YEH RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
You put it very well, NS. Thanks.
. There is a rush to judgement at such times that feels to me unseemly. Were we posting near Orlando. I would say just go and donate blood.
-
Of course some won't resist the rush to judgement
-
. There is a rush to judgement at such times that feels to me unseemly. Were we posting near Orlando. I would say just go and donate blood.
Unseemly, maybe. Futile, definitely.
I don't get why any human being wants another human being to suffer. Judging gun laws, culture or religion won't change that it's something that human beings inflict on other human beings.
-
There is also a hint at glorification in the whole 'deadliest' shooting stuff. A whiff of a challenge to other nutters.
-
And now we have a return to the war on terror. Helpful comments from the homophobe Marco Rubio here.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/politics/marco-rubio-orlando-shooting/
-
Perhaps the murderer was filled with "compassion", a sad day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ
-
According to the BBC website, the USA last year had 372 mass shootings (an incident which causes four or more deaths or injuries) in which 475 people died and 1,870 people were injured.
Pat Robertson's comments are despicable. At least Rubio encouraged people to give blood.
-
I have read many articles and posts since this terrible attack on LGBTI people. This article sums up, pretty much, my present state of mind:
http://www.pride.com/firstperson/2016/6/12/puzzle-empty-crosswords
-
According to the BBC website, the USA last year had 372 mass shootings (an incident which causes four or more deaths or injuries) in which 475 people died and 1,870 people were injured.
Pat Robertson's comments are despicable. At least Rubio encouraged people to give blood.
The only surprise is how low these numbers are given the availability of these deadly weapons. You wonder just what kind of atrocity it will take to make people realise that something needs to be done.
-
The only surprise is how low these numbers are given the availability of these deadly weapons. You wonder just what kind of atrocity it will take to make people realise that something needs to be done.
There will be no such event.
The event that made rational, reasonable, thinking people aware that the American attitude to guns is fucked up beyond all measure happened a very long time ago. It wasn't any one specific mass shooting; it was any of them. Pick one, any one.
But the NRA, god-given-rights, hunting mob who have sat by and watched all these shootings and seen the bodies - many of them children's bodies - pile up and still think that there's no need for strict gun control are not rational, reasonable, thinking people; so no, no type of atrocity will make them realise anything at all.
-
There will be no such event.
The event that made rational, reasonable, thinking people aware that the American attitude to guns is fucked up beyond all measure happened a very long time ago. It wasn't any one specific mass shooting; it was any of them. Pick one, any one.
But the NRA, god-given-rights, hunting mob who have sat by and watched all these shootings and seen the bodies - many of them children's bodies - pile up and still think that there's no need for strict gun control are not rational, reasonable, thinking people; so no, no type of atrocity will make them realise anything at all.
Americans are very hot on their rights - it is a shame that, mostly, they don't give a tuppenny damn for the rights of anyone else of any other nationality anywhere in the world.
-
Americans are very hot on their rights - it is a shame that, mostly, they don't give a tuppenny damn for the rights of anyone else of any other nationality anywhere in the world.
Ah stereotyping. Hurrah
-
Apparently you can buy guns in Walmart when you are buying your groceries!
-
I'm so glad we have tighter legislation for gun ownership here but, at the same time, we cannot be complacent. We have plenty of gun crime here, the guns are owned illegally but still it happens.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gun-crime-capital-uk-been-7375468
-
I'm so glad we have tighter legislation for gun ownership here but, at the same time, we cannot be complacent. We have plenty of gun crime here, the guns are owned illegally but still it happens.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gun-crime-capital-uk-been-7375468
No we certainly can't be complacent at all. However, gun crime would be much, much worse if people were permitted to arm themselves with hand guns, assault rifles etc for protection as in the US..
-
Dear Shaker,
But the NRA, god-given-rights, hunting mob who have sat by and watched all these shootings and seen the bodies - many of them children's bodies - pile up and still think that there's no need for strict gun control are not rational, reasonable, thinking people; so no, no type of atrocity will make them realise anything at all.
Yep!! that's them, the NRA, very powerful and rich people, gun control would be bad for business, I joined their web site last time we had one of these tragedies, I think it was the white guy walking into a school, not terrorist related, anyway I was banned for simply asking what they were going to do about it, if I remember correctly there was only one discussion going on about the shooting, the rest was about the latest most powerful gun on the market, sad, very sad.
Gonnagle.
-
Ah stereotyping. Hurrah
You would disagree with my assessment?
Anyone would think that I gave a tuppenny damn. All my personal experiences with Americans confirm my personal view and will do so until I find some Americans who think and act otherwise and that includes most of their politicians and political appointees from local marriage registry officials upwards!
-
You would disagree with my assessment?
Anyone would think that I gave a tuppenny damn. All my personal experiences with Americans confirm my personal view and will do so until I find some Americans who think and act otherwise and that includes most of their politicians and political appointees from local marriage registry officials upwards!
Spoken like a true bigot.
-
Owlswing
I don't really know why you wish to generalise in such a fashion. I'm sure the people of Marseilles think that the English are all a bunch of thugs.
You simply can't do that with any nationality. And dare I say it especially with a country as diverse as the USA.
I am not saying that the states are not without their faults - gun laws being a prime example - but I have met and I am friends with some thoughtful, caring intelligent Americans; who I know are just as appalled at this act as I and you are. Similarly they see their interventions in the Middle East as a disaster.
So you really have to stop getting that tarred brush out quite so often.
-
Just picked up this story - Owen Jones walking out of Sky News.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/sky-news-homophobia-orlando-sexuality
-
Spoken like a true bigot.
Pedantry on my part but it would be prejudice not bigotry?
Definition:-
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.
-
Spoken like a true bigot.
While we are on the subject of generalisations let's not forget Shakers one on " hunters" it isn't the " hunters who are misusing their guns shooting people.
But the NRA, god-given-rights, hunting mob who have sat by and watched all these shootings and seen the bodies - many of them children's bodies - pile up and still think that there's no need for strict gun control are not rational, reasonable, thinking people; so no, no type of atrocity will make them realise anything at all.
It is possible to cut down on who has access to a certain type of a gun, while accommodating hunters.
-
Pedantry on my part but it would be prejudice not bigotry?
Definition:-
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.
Using it as effectively synonym - see below
1.intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself:
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"
synonyms: prejudice · bias · partiality · partisanship · sectarianism ·
-
Just picked up this story - Owen Jones walking out of Sky News.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/sky-news-homophobia-orlando-sexuality
I watched that no idea why Owen Jones got quite so worked up. I think JHB agreed it was an attack on LGBT.
-
While we are on the subject of generalisations let's not forget Shakers one on " hunters" it isn't the " hunters who are misusing their guns shooting people.
I am unaware of what % of the mass shootings carried out are members of the NRA - are you? And you should note that Shaker didn't say they had carried out the shootings, so unsure what your point is?
-
Using it as effectively synonym - see below
1.intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself:
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"
synonyms: prejudice · bias · partiality · partisanship · sectarianism ·
Gah poor pedantry on my part then. :)
JHB on the Sky News thing.
http://talkradio.co.uk/highlights/julia-hartley-brewer-speaks-out-about-twitter-abuse-after-owen-jones-debate-1606131595
-
I watched that no idea why Owen Jones got quite so worked up. I think JHB agreed it was an attack on LGBT.
I saw it live - it wasn't specifically JHB it was more the presenter Mark ? who was quite remarkably insensitive - by stressing that they were human beings - and not wanting to really accept the specific point that they were targeted because they were gay. Had it been Jews in a synagogue - it would have been described as anti-Semitic - there was an unwillingness to accept it was an homophobic hate crime - as well as terrorism. Also the description of the man as a lunatic was not helpful in the context of the discussion as again it implied he could have chosen any group of people - whereas it had already been disclosed by his father that he had got worked up by seeing two men kissing.
-
Owlswing
I don't really know why you wish to generalise in such a fashion. I'm sure the people of Marseilles think that the English are all a bunch of thugs.
You simply can't do that with any nationality. And dare I say it especially with a country as diverse as the USA.
I am not saying that the states are not without their faults - gun laws being a prime example - but I have met and I am friends with some thoughtful, caring intelligent Americans; who I know are just as appalled at this act as I and you are. Similarly they see their interventions in the Middle East as a disaster.
So you really have to stop getting that tarred brush out quite so often.
I regret to say that my meetings with persons of American nationality, in particualar servicemen, have been far from cordial.
Fellow soldiers dismissed and cowards and useless idioits who, as soon as they got into a fight, call for the Americans to get them out of trouble - usually, funny, not, when 20 or so Bristish soldiers have been doing perfectly well only to see the Yanks come barging in by the hundred and claim the they "were rescuing the Brisish" and having the Yank papers yelling their praises and ignoring the Brits - both the wounded and the dead.
Soldiers lost in friendly fire in Iraq, and Afghanistan (where, during the first months the British Army lost more killed and wounded to the Americans (friendly fire) than the Iraqis)- those Americans who shot them sent home amd given medals and promotions and the British authorities refused permisionb to question the Yanks involved at the inquests on the ground that America does not, and will not, extradite its citizens to face possible criminal charges overseas.
To see a single WWII Victoria cross holder dismissed by a group of about fifteen US marines with enough scrap metal on their chests to sink the Titanic, as a 'lightweight" for having only six ribbons on his chest and being asked where he was wounded to be awarded the putrple one, probably, according to the sergeant for a hangnail, before they walked off laughing. Britih soldiers were restrained from action as being 'bad publicity'.
NS and Trent, until I meet some decent Yanks, I have only met two I can remember and they were as scared of their countrymen as anyone for both these ladies were pagan and witch, I will keep hold of my tar-brush thanks! At least I can go public with my religion without getting death threats!
Anyway, rather than upset the delicate sensibilities of the Yanks and their friends on this side of the Oggin, I'll shut up.
-
It is ironic (this is not my original thought but something I picked up on FB) that the very people who want us to hate Muslims are the same ones who want the free sale of guns in the USA to the likes of Mateen.
I'm trying hard not to use this phrase but really you couldn't fucking make it up.
-
Just picked up this story - Owen Jones walking out of Sky News.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/sky-news-homophobia-orlando-sexuality
I think the point being made was that the Paris attack was worse because it involved 100 people rather than 50, whereas he wanted the fact it had happened to gay people to be more prominent.
The problem is that can make it sound as if the reason it was worse is because the victims were gay.
Whereas if it's your relative that gets killed it's pretty much as bad as it gets and their sexuality is irrelevant.
It sounds like he wanted it to be viewed as worse as it was aimed specifically at gay people.
Hence the woman news reporter saying it could be aimed at her as a gobby woman.
Sometimes stressing an aspect on a shooting and murder, comes across as making a similar shooting less important.
Sometimes people object to the idea that the murder if one person is less important than the murder of another, because of some reason or another ( either sexuality, colour of skin or some other reason).
Sometimes for example the suffering of other victims ( not Jewish for example in the holocaust ) is down played.
I don't think people mean to upset others, but it will cause upset if people are made to feel less important.
Because this guy wanted to make their sexuality a big feature it sounds like he played down the Paris one and the newsreaders responded as they did.
-
I watched that no idea why Owen Jones got quite so worked up. I think JHB agreed it was an attack on LGBT.
I think it was more (a) the constant questioning about whether this was both a terrorist attack and a specific attack on LGBT people as per his comments that an attack in a synagogue would be immediately called out as anti semitic, (b) the idea that he has somehow suggested tgis was worse than the Paris attacks which was untrue, and (c) the emotion he was feeling. I don't think it was the best way to handle it but I could see why he got annoyed with the idea that is wasn't somehow a deliberate attack on LGBT people which the presenter continued with.
-
I think the point being made was that the Paris attack was worse because it involved 100 people rather than 50, whereas he wanted the fact it had happened to gay people to be more prominent.
The problem is that can make it sound as if the reason it was worse is because the victims were gay.
Whereas if it's your relative that gets killed it's pretty much as bad as it gets and their sexuality is irrelevant.
It sounds like he wanted it to be viewed as worse as it was aimed specifically at gay people.
Hence the woman news reporter saying it could be aimed at her as a gobby woman.
Sometimes stressing an aspect on a shooting and murder, comes across as making a similar shooting less important.
Sometimes people object to the idea that the murder if one person is less important than the murder of another, because of some reason or another ( either sexuality, colour of skin or some other reason).
Sometimes for example the suffering of other victims ( not Jewish for example in the holocaust ) is down played.
I don't think people mean to upset others, but it will cause upset if people are made to feel less important.
Because this guy wanted to make their sexuality a big feature it sounds like he played down the Paris one and the newsreaders responded as they did.
Where does he play down the Paris attacks? He's accused of it incorrectly by the presenter and points out that he didn't say that.
Don't you agree that if it had been an attack on a synagogue there would have been no questioning if a Jewish journalists had said it was anti Semitic?
-
I regret to say that my meetings with persons of American nationality, in particualar servicemen, have been far from cordial.
Fellow soldiers dismissed and cowards and useless idioits who, as soon as they got into a fight, call for the Americans to get them out of trouble - usually, funny, not, when 20 or so Bristish soldiers have been doing perfectly well only to see the Yanks come barging in by the hundred and claim the they "were rescuing the Brisish" and having the Yank papers yelling their praises and ignoring the Brits - both the wounded and the dead.
Soldiers lost in friendly fire in Iraq, and Afghanistan (where, during the first months the British Army lost more killed and wounded to the Americans (friendly fire) than the Iraqis)- those Americans who shot them sent home amd given medals and promotions and the British authorities refused permisionb to question the Yanks involved at the inquests on the ground that America does not, and will not, extradite its citizens to face possible criminal charges overseas.
To see a single WWII Victoria cross holder dismissed by a group of about fifteen US marines with enough scrap metal on their chests to sink the Titanic, as a 'lightweight" for having only six ribbons on his chest and being asked where he was wounded to be awarded the putrple one, probably, according to the sergeant for a hangnail, before they walked off laughing. Britih soldiers were restrained from action as being 'bad publicity'.
NS and Trent, until I meet some decent Yanks, I have only met two I can remember and they were as scared of their countrymen as anyone for both these ladies were pagan and witch, I will keep hold of my tar-brush thanks! At least I can go public with my religion without getting death threats!
Anyway, rather than upset the delicate sensibilities of the Yanks and their friends on this side of the Oggin, I'll shut up.
Gah poor pedantry on my part then. :)
JHB on the Sky News thing.
http://talkradio.co.uk/highlights/julia-hartley-brewer-speaks-out-about-twitter-abuse-after-owen-jones-debate-1606131595
Weren't you the one pulling up people for tarring the police with that brush, something that didn't actually do? Hypocrite and a bigot.
-
I am unaware of what % of the mass shootings carried out are members of the NRA - are you? And you should note that Shaker didn't say they had carried out the shootings, so unsure what your point is?
Where do you get your information about it? Are you sure it's not biased?
I obviously don't visit the same web sites as you.
They have ranges and support safety (just like they do in the uk.)
https://home.nra.org
I don't think you know very much about it.
-
Where does he play down the Paris attacks? He's accused of it incorrectly by the presenter and points out that he didn't say that.
Don't you agree that if it had been an attack on a synagogue there would have been no questioning if a Jewish journalists had said it was anti Semitic?
He didn't realise the impression he had created.
I can see I'm not mistaken by the way the news team reacted.
What he thought he was saying isn't what he actually said.
-
Gah poor pedantry on my part then. :)
JHB on the Sky News thing.
http://talkradio.co.uk/highlights/julia-hartley-brewer-speaks-out-about-twitter-abuse-after-owen-jones-debate-1606131595
Owen Jones has spoken out against the attacks on JHB. Almost any discussion on Twitter can contain this sort of unplesantness
-
You are not getting it Rose.
There was a misrepresentation of his position and a lack of acknowledgement certainly on the part of the presenter that this was an attack specifically targeted at LBGTI people.
In a comparable situation with Jews or Black people - there would not have been the hedging of well they're "human beings". OF course they are that's a fucking given.
They would have said it was anti-Semitic or racist. That's the difference.
-
He didn't realise the impression he had created.
I can see I'm not mistaken by the way the news team reacted.
Would he have 'created that impression' if he had been a Jewish journalist calling an attack on a synagogue anti Semitic.
-
Where do you get your information about it? Are you sure it's not biased?
I obviously don't visit the same web sites as you.
They have ranges and support safety (just like they do in the uk.)
https://home.nra.org
I don't think you know very much about it.
How on earth is that relevant to my post that said I am unaware of what % of the mass shootings carried out are members of the NRA - are you? And you should note that Shaker didn't say they had carried out the shootings, so unsure what your point is?
Which makes no claim to knowledge but asks you if you have any, and points out that Shaker didn't make the statement you have taken him to task for?
You appear not to get logic
-
You are not getting it Rose.
There was a misrepresentation of his position and a lack of acknowledgement certainly on the part of the presenter that this was an attack specifically targeted at LBGTI people.
In a comparable situation with Jews or Black people - there would not have been the hedging of well they're "human beings". OF course they are that's a fucking given.
They would have said it was anti-Semitic or racist. That's the difference.
Yes it was aimed at those people because of their perceived sexuality.
i don't think anyone doubts that.
A white slave suffers just as much as a black one, but you try telling people that.
It's politically incorrect to point it out.
-
Weren't you the one pulling up people for tarring the police with that brush, something that didn't actually do? Hypocrite and a bigot.
I know more decent coppers, who work hard do their job and DON'T fuck up than do!
I have yet to meet a decent Yank who is NOT a witch!
-
Yes it was aimed at those people because of their perceived sexuality.
i don't think anyone doubts that.
A white slave suffers just as much as a black one, but you try telling people that.
It's politically incorrect to point it out.
Then why would calling it an attack on LGBT people be somehow saying it was worse than Paris? Again, if a Jewish journalist called an attack on a synagogue anti Semitic would it be a claim about the attck being worse?
-
i don't think anyone doubts that
Well the presenter certainly did.
Host Mark Longhurst interjected and said the crime had been carried out against “human beings” who were “ trying to enjoy themselves, whatever their sexuality."
-
I know more decent coppers, who work hard do their job and DON'T fuck up than do!
I have yet to meet a decent Yank who is NOT a witch!
You think it's ok for you to express your opinion of US citizens and ignore anyone who might have different experiences. But you think that people should listen to you about policemen and quite possibly ignore their own - It's a hypocritical position
-
Then why would calling it an attack on LGBT people be somehow saying it was worse than Paris? Again, if a Jewish journalist called an attack on a synagogue anti Semitic would it be a claim about the attck being worse?
Your comments are rapidly making you look, to me, very anti-gay!
The man who did it, even his father defends him as being incensed by a gay kiss he saw in public! If that is NOT an anti-gay attack for fuck's sake tell me what the bloody hell it was or S T F U!
-
Your comments are rapidly making you look, to me, very anti-gay!
The man who did it, even his father defends him as being incensed by a gay kiss he saw in public! If that is NOT an anti-gay attack for fuck's sake tell me what the bloody hell it was or S T F U!
I don't think you are reading NS's posts correctly.
-
Your comments are rapidly making you look, to me, very anti-gay!
The man who did it, even his father defends him as being incensed by a gay kiss he saw in public! If that is NOT an anti-gay attack for fuck's sake tell me what the bloody hell it was or S T F U!
That's what I've been saying. I've been exactly defending Owen Jones' comments that it was an attack on LGBT people and that he was right to say it. Maybe you need to reread the posts.
-
You think it's ok for you to express your opinion of US citizens and ignore anyone who might have different experiences. But you think that people should listen to you about policemen and quite possibly ignore their own - It's a hypocritical position
Keep on, keep on, another blinkered liberal!
As shown on a wall poster once - I am trying very hard to see you point of view but I really cannot get my head as far up my own arse as yours iappear to be able to get yours up you!
-
Keep on, keep on, another blinkered liberal!
As shown on a wall poster once - I am trying very hard to see you point of view but I really cannot get my head as far up my own arse as yours iappear to be able to get yours up you!
And more bigotry to add your hypocrisy
-
Wanders off muttering can you be a blinkered liberal and anti-gay.....................
-
Whatever! I will be in Old Compton Street at 1900 tonight as will my daughter for te two minutes silence . . .
and will, for NS, probably a collection of bent coppers trying to find someone to arrest for nothing!
-
Whatever! I will be in Old Compton Street at 1900 tonight as will my daughter for te two minutes silence . . .
and will, for NS, probably a collection of bent coppers trying to find someone to arrest for nothing!
My thoughts will be with you.
-
I think it was more (a) the constant questioning about whether this was both a terrorist attack and a specific attack on LGBT people as per his comments that an attack in a synagogue would be immediately called out as anti semitic, (b) the idea that he has somehow suggested tgis was worse than the Paris attacks which was untrue, and (c) the emotion he was feeling. I don't think it was the best way to handle it but I could see why he got annoyed with the idea that is wasn't somehow a deliberate attack on LGBT people which the presenter continued with.
(a) I don't agree listen to the longer version (link below), Owen Jones was pushing back when the interviewer said 'this is an attack against all people who are free to live their lives', Owen Jones then said 'you don't understand this because you are not gay', that is quite fucking insulting to me.
(b) Who suggested he thought this was worse than Paris?
(c) He was emotional, we all are.
Here is a longer version:-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMXxx-EWcY
-
(a) I don't agree listen to the longer version (link below), Owen Jones was pushing back when the interviewer said 'this is an attack against all people who are free to live their lives', Owen Jones then said 'you don't understand this because you are not gay', that is quite fucking insulting to me.
(b) Who suggested he thought this was worse than Paris?
(c) He was emotional, we all are.
Here is a longer version:-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMXxx-EWcY
I had watched the longer version, it's why I thought he had a point. The presenter continually questions if if it is was an attack.
I don't think say yo can't understand because you are not gay was a great statement to make at the time but in some sense it's valid. If you are part of a group that is targeted then I suggest the meaning to you will be different if you are not. Again the very conversation would never have happened if a Jewish journalist had pointed out that an attack on a synagogue was anti Semitic.
The presenter suggests that Jones is suggesting that the attack is somehow worse than Paris, which he denies. Watch it again
A number of my friends today have been in tears because of this, because of the implied threat to them, to the places they have felt safe, I am not so effected and in part that's because i'm not a member of the LGBT community, merely a supporter, and if one of them were to explain that by saying I can't understand exactly how they feel because i'm not gay, I wouldn't be poncing about feeling 'fucking insulted. I would just see what I could do.
-
I agree very much, NS. We still live in a society where there isn't full equality for the LGBT community and for as long as that is the case there will be those who feel that legitimises prejudice and even violence. Straight people don't know what it's like to have grown up in a world where our relationships couldn't be marriages until very recently and that's a huge message that society has been sending out.
-
(a) I don't agree listen to the longer version (link below), Owen Jones was pushing back when the interviewer said 'this is an attack against all people who are free to live their lives', Owen Jones then said 'you don't understand this because you are not gay', that is quite fucking insulting to me.
(b) Who suggested he thought this was worse than Paris?
(c) He was emotional, we all are.
Here is a longer version:-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMXxx-EWcY
Yes, I think it is an attack on people who are free to live their lives in the way they see fit.
Yes these were gay, but the bigger picture is that by attacking gay people they are attacking us non gay people as well.
They object to all of us, and our lives and freedoms.
Even just a woman's freedom to be independant, to talk to who she chooses and go to things she wants to go to.
It's putting attacks of this sort into perspective, he took it the wrong way.
It isn't lessening the attack on gay people. It's pointing out it's an attack on all of us, gay and straight.
Being gay or straight, doesn't matter in the sense it's an attack on our freedoms to be ourselves.
-
Attended the vigil in Glasgow. As always such things have elements of bathos, lighting candles difficult in wind, megaphones working intermittently but a very calm determination to stand together, not to hate (not even the pillock playing a radio loudly to exercise his free speech).
Pe
-
Yes, I think it is an attack on people who are free to live their lives in the way they see fit.
Yes these were gay, but the bigger picture is that by attacking gay people they are attacking us non gay people as well.
They object to all of us, and our lives and freedoms.
Even just a woman's freedom to be independant, to talk to who she chooses and go to things she wants to go to.
It's putting attacks of this sort into perspective, he took it the wrong way.
It isn't lessening the attack on gay people. It's pointing out it's an attack on all of us, gay and straight.
Being gay or straight, doesn't matter in the sense it's an attack on our freedoms to be ourselves.
And again had a Jewish journalist stated an attack on a synagogue was anti Semitic would you be saying he wasn't seeing the 'big picture'?
-
And again had a Jewish journalist stated an attack on a synagogue was anti Semitic would you be saying he wasn't seeing the 'big picture'?
If there was a bigger picture, yes.
No one is saying it wasn't an attack on gay people.
Islamic terrorists attack anyone different who have freedoms they don't think they should have or believe something they think wrong.
They don't attack gay people in isolation, they attack anyone who they consider an outsider who doesn't live by their laws.
They don't attack Jews in isolation either.
Or Christians.
Most of the terrorists appear to be anti women, anti Jewish, anti Christian, anti ( insert any religion other than their brand of Islam) anti western society, anti trade, anti commercialism, anti music, anti pictures.
In fact they seem to be anti Muslim if another Muslim tries to build bridges with " the infidels"
If you stand back and look ...... They are anti just about everything.......
They are a pain in the arse.
Hence the reporters talking about the bigger picture.
Turning around and saying someone can't understand because they arn't gay is rude and untrue.
It's called empathy, and it's insulting to imply someone cannot understand it, they can.
Someone can understand what it must have been like to be a slave, you don't have to be black. Some black people use that argument too, that white people don't understand what being a slave was like or the concept of prejudice against black people.
All too often that one is used to create divisions instead of building bridges.
He insulted people by turning round and telling them they couldn't understand because they weren't gay.
That's bollocks!
Yes you can understand what's it's like to be disapproved of and not recognised to be in fear of being bullied and picked on.
It's called empathy.
It would be better if there was more empathy with people who are gay, not less.
If people who arn't gay can't understand anyway, what's the point?
Where was he going with that one?
-
I had watched the longer version, it's why I thought he had a point. The presenter continually questions if if it is was an attack.
No the presenter said 'this is an attack against human beings... against people .... as Bataclan was'.
I don't think say yo can't understand because you are not gay was a great statement to make at the time but in some sense it's valid.
I never said it wasn't valid I said it was fucking insulting.
If you are part of a group that is targeted then I suggest the meaning to you will be different if you are not. Again the very conversation would never have happened if a Jewish journalist had pointed out that an attack on a synagogue was anti Semitic.
The whole thing because Owen Jones wanted the correct label applied, a homophobic attack, which I think it was. They were debating if this was another attack by Islamic extremists which it also might be. Owen Jones didn't like that so he had a tantrum.
The presenter suggests that Jones is suggesting that the attack is somehow worse than Paris, which he denies. Watch it again.
What time in the video was this?
A number of my friends today have been in tears because of this, because of the implied threat to them, to the places they have felt safe, I am not so effected and in part that's because i'm not a member of the LGBT community, merely a supporter, and if one of them were to explain that by saying I can't understand exactly how they feel because i'm not gay, I wouldn't be poncing about feeling 'fucking insulted. I would just see what I could do.
I've been in tears over this I challenge anyone not to be, seeing the families hearing the news of their loved ones would fill anyone with despair. Anyone who attends a pride marches or gay club is going to feel threatened.
The only one poncing about has been Owen Jones.
-
The text sent to the mother by her son trapped in the toilets was just tragic, very sad.
That must have been so awful, to be helpless, like that.
:'(
I felt very sad when I read that.
:(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637576/Terrified-text-son-sent-mother-Orlando-terror-unfolded.html
-
Lots of straight people go to gay clubs too.
My son does, he reckons it's a great nightclub.
As far as I know he's not gay, but he has no issue with gay people.
That message could just have easily have come from my son, I empathise with that mother.
Gay people have many connections mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers etc.
Any of those people gay or straight can empathise with the victims and their families.
IMO most people can empathise from one angle or another.
Which in part is what makes that comment about non gays not understanding, insulting.
All those victims had families and friends
-
I'm not gay, and I don't find it insulting.
-
The Soho vigil was attended by the new London mayor, Sadiq Khan.
Hundreds of people have gathered in Old Compton Street, at the heart of London's gay community, where the Admiral Duncan pub is located. Three people were killed and many more injured in a nailbomb attack on the gay pub in 1999.
The BBC's Rebecca Café, who is in Soho, says it is a subdued scene.
"Those gathered here say they are nervous, particularly as the annual Pride in London event is only a couple of weeks away, but they are determined to stand in unity," she said.
The vigil has been organised by the group London Stands With Orlando, whose description of the Soho vigil is, "London's gay village joins hands to honour victims of Pulse shooting".
It wrote on its Facebook page: "This evening's commemorative event is open to everybody, from all walks of life. We will stand together in solidarity against all who fight against the principles of peace, equality and liberty."
Vigils were also held in Birmingham, Manchester, Brighton, Leeds and Nottingham, with more planned in the coming weeks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36520754
-
And?
I still don't know what it's like to be a part of a community that has been so marginalised it needs its own clubs in order to feel safe when going out openly for the night.
-
And?
I still don't know what it's like to be a part of a community that has been so marginalised it needs its own clubs in order to feel safe when going out openly for the night.
I can't argue with that, if you say so Rhiannon.
It's how you feel about it.
Not everyone else has to feel the same way.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/orlando-shooting-isil-wages-war-on-gays-in-the-west-after-omar-m/
One moment the father of the killer is saying it has nothing to do with religion and the next all this comes out.
-
I can't argue with that, if you say so Rhiannon.
It's how you feel about it.
Not everyone else has to feel the same way.
Well it's not my say so; I'm not gay, so it's a fact.
And Owen Jones can think differently from you and from the Sky News presenters then. And say so out loud.
-
One gay mans view on it
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/12/11914186/orlando-florida-shooting-gay-muslims-islam
-
Well it's not my say so; I'm not gay, so it's a fact.
And Owen Jones can think differently from you and from the Sky News presenters then. And say so out loud.
Is that a problem for you?
Different POV.
What's a fact? That you' re not gay?
-
Is that a problem for you?
Different POV.
Of course not.
It was for you back up the thread though.
-
Of course not.
It was for you back up the thread though.
No, just didn't agree with what he said and how he behaved.
Just because the man is gay doesn't mean he is always right.
Other opinions from gay men are around if you look.
I posted a link further up, to one sensible one.
-
No, just didn't agree with what he said and how he behaved.
Just because the man is gay doesn't mean he is always right.
Other opinions from gay men are around if you look.
I posted a link further up, to one sensible one.
And this is you not having a problem?
Where did I say we should agree with him simply because of his sexuality?
-
And?
I still don't know what it's like to be a part of a community that has been so marginalised it needs its own clubs in order to feel safe when going out openly for the night.
Not all straight people cannot connect with how it must be to be gay.
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/straight-man-moved-tears-he-learns-why-being-gay-not-choice100914/#gs.Vjo87iA
But if you don't know, then you don't know.
Like I said, I can't tell you what you can and cannot know. Your feelings are your own.
The guy in the video seems to be able to put himself in that position.
Enough to show his feelings anyway.
-
Well it's not my say so; I'm not gay, so it's a fact.
And Owen Jones can think differently from you and from the Sky News presenters then. And say so out loud.
No one has said he can't, I've always admired Owen Jones, I disagree with his politics but he's very articulate, intelligent man, just baffled the way in which he reacted.
This is a diversion perhaps I'm overreacting as well because I just feel its such a terrible waste of life.
-
There's no doubt this was a specific attack on gay people but the bigger picture is that it affects non-gay people too because gays have friends and relations who are not gay, who will be horrified and grief stricken. It affects all of us whatever our sexuality because terrorists will home in on any group. In this case, a lone gunman, like Breivik in Norway.
Reporting can sometimes be clumsy, I doubt any offence was intended.
-
No one has said he can't, I've always admired Owen Jones, I disagree with his politics but he's very articulate, intelligent man, just baffled the way in which he reacted.
This is a diversion perhaps I'm overreacting as well because I just feel its such a terrible waste of life.
It's very raw. I don't think it's baffling; Trent gave a good link earlier from Pride that put it very well. That doesn't mean he was right to react as he did, just that it's understandable.
The suffering caused scarcely bears thinking about. The waste of life, yes, and families and loved ones changed forever.
-
These guys hate everyone and anyone and no one in particular.
So sad.
So many young people.
-
These guys hate everyone and anyone and no one in particular.
So sad.
So many young people.
Agreed. So many valuable people full stop. :(
-
There are some very heartless people about.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/jacob-geers/2016/06/here-are-all-the-people-applauding-the-orlando-gay-club-shooter/
Scary really.
How callous people can be.
:(
-
What the NRA has to say for itself: http://goo.gl/bu19c3
-
An emotional, inspiring, thoughtful and memorable evening spent in a packed to capacity Old Compton Street, every kind from City gents and a lady in a coat that probably cost more than a house to punks, and bkiers. All gay? Who knows, no-one asked.
No names, lots of tears, lots of hugs.
I feel proud and honoured to have been a part of it - a memory that will, for all there I hope, last at least as long as the pain.
Looking forward to Trafalgar Square June 25.
-
Separately to the above, for obvious reasons and for NS and Trent I can in all honesty say that, at the age of 70 and quite by accident I have met four really nice Americans, three lesbians and a gentleman from Austin, Texas who, after the vigil, shared a few glasses of mead with my daughter and me and with whom we had a long discussion on the differences btween the way thge British and the Americans treat their gay communities.
-
What the NRA has to say for itself: http://goo.gl/bu19c3
Actually it really isn't, it's just some biased web site you've dug up.
Stop blaming them for some other unconnected persons actions.
::)
-
There has just been a news item on the Today programme (06.35) suggesting that the gunman was a visitor to the Pulse nightclub. There was a hint (nothing more) that he may just have been gay (and possibly in denial) and that the club was sufficiently far from his home for him to feel safe from recognition.
I wonder ......
-
There has just been a news item on the Today programme (06.35) suggesting that the gunman was a visitor to the Pulse nightclub. There was a hint (nothing more) that he may just have been gay (and possibly in denial) and that the club was sufficiently far from his home for him to feel safe from recognition.
I wonder ......
Yes I was reading somewhere about a past acquaintance of his who said in the past he had not had an issue with gays and had even attended gay clubs and mixed with gays somewhere else.
Given that reports say he was laughing while he shot people it sounds like he was unstable and insane.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/orlando-shooting-isil-wages-war-on-gays-in-the-west-after-omar-m/
His friends and wife say he was gay.
http://gawker.com/multiple-people-say-the-orlando-shooter-was-gay-1781932976
He was a regular at the Pulse club
Their accounts echoed others who came forward Monday saying Mateen was part of the gay scene. Mateen was a regular at Pulse, the Orlando nightclub he attacked Sunday, patrons say—as often as twice a month. While he was there, he spoke of a wife and children and would often get so drunk he had to be escorted out of the club.
“He’s been going to this bar for at least three years,” Pulse performer Chris Callen told the Canadian Press.
-
Apparently he had also been considering Disney world as a target
http://tinyurl.com/jf8pxze
Moderator: long URL replaced.
-
Apparently according to this his dad declared himself the president of Afghanistan
videos ranting against US'
THE dad of Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen has been revealed as a Taliban sympathiser who made a TV show ranting about the USA.
Seddique Mateen, 59, has bizarrely declared himself the president of Afghanistan and makes proclamations via videos on Facebook.
The Afghan-national has said he “runs” the war-torn country from his Florida home and once declared the Taliban his “war brothers”.
Other episodes of his “Durand Jirga Show” are littered with “anti-US tirades”, according to AP.
Just hours before his son opened fire, the dad posted a rant calling for the arrest of leaders in his homeland.
Dressed in military fatigues, the self-styled politician barks: “I order the national army, national police and intelligence department to immediately imprison Karzai, Ashraf Ghani, Zalmay Khalilzad, Atmar, and Sayyaf.
“They are against our countrymen and against our homeland.”
It comes after the extremist's dad apologised for the attack, but claimed it had "nothing to do with religion".
He suggested his son had become angry after seeing two gay men kissing in downtown Miami in front of his wife and son.
The dad reportedly told NBC News: "We are saying we are apologising for the whole incident.
"We weren't aware of any action he is taking. We are in shock like the whole country."
His dad later uploaded a Facebook apology "asking God for forgiveness".
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1269999/florida-orlando-mass-shooting-biggest-massacre-american-history-fifty-dead-killer-omar-mateen-gay-club-pulse/
It's all a bit weird.
But then news papers sometimes print complete rubbish.
Like Birmingham in the uk being a no go zone for non Muslims ( Fox News).
-
Not that I'm an expert or anything but he sounds like a sociopath to me.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/13/shooter-was-laughing-frantically-during-massacre-report/
What do you think?
You have the temper and aggression, the antisocial aspect, the not fitting in, the lack of empathy.
Perhaps he attacked because he didn't fit in the gay scene either.
This is the symptoms of a sociopath
http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/types/psychological/sociopaths.php
Have a look.
He sounds like one to me.
One that got angry, didn't fit in, .......... Laughed frantically while killing.....
Something not right with that bloke, not just someone who hated gays.........
With this link you can even test yourself ( apparently it's a lot more common in the population than many people think) 3%
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/the-difference-between-a-psychopath-and-a-sociopath-10422016.html
( (note: added later. )although in this one he might be a psychopath instead as it could be hereditary)
-
Apparently one of the symptoms of a sociopath is lying and grandiose claims.
I saw this
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/13/orlando_shooter_supported_conflicting_islamist_groups_that_are_fighting_each_other/
He claimed to be a member of Hezbollah and when he was investigated by the American Government they appear to have decided he didn't know enough about the situation to be telling the truth.
I think it was because he was a sociopath.( psychopath)
He appears to be such an inconsistent person, giving out so many different claims, I think it's a pity it wasn't recognised before he hurt someone.
The FBI had investigated Mateen twice. Comey said the first time was in 2013, when Mateen told co-workers that he had relatives connected to the Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda while simultaneously claiming he was a member of the Shia militia Hezbollah.
“FBI agents closed their 2013 investigation into Mateen after concluding that he didn’t understand how al-Qaeda operated and had not committed a crime,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “He told investigators he had been lying and blustering about his terrorist ties.”
In the second investigation, in 2014, the FBI said Mateen had been watching al-Qaeda propaganda videos and attending a mosque with Moner Abu Salha, a man who became a suicide bomber for al-Nusra.
He had something wrong with him, it's obvious if you look.
http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/06/orlando-shooter-loved-cops-wanted-one/
All the ingredients seem to be there.
His dad makes strange claims too. :-\
Does it run in families? Some things do.
-
Actually it really isn't, it's just some biased web site you've dug up.
Stop blaming them for some other unconnected persons actions.
::)
Try reading the link prior to opening your gob for a change.
-
Dear World,
Do I have this right,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36522570
Under local law, he could have left the store with the rifle the same day - for the handgun, he would have needed to wait 72 hours.
You can buy and be on the street the same day with the rifle, the weapon that fires lots of bullets quickly but you need to wait 72 hours for a handgun, am I reading this right??
3. You've been committed to a mental institution.
Since the 1960s, federal law has prohibited anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from buying a gun. A person deemed "mentally defective" as determined by a court, for reasons of "subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease" is also banned.
This would also apply to anyone who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity in a court case.
In 2013, the state of Florida expanded this prohibition - with the approval of the National Rifle Association - to include people who have voluntarily committed themselves to a mental hospital. It joined states like Illinois, Maryland and the District of Columbia in expanding this restriction.
And there we have it in black and white, the NRA say its okay.
Gonnagle.
-
hmm.. NRA says what's OK?
-
That people who voluntarily go into psychiatric care can't be allowed a weapons license, as well as those who are sectioned.
-
There has just been a news item on the Today programme (06.35) suggesting that the gunman was a visitor to the Pulse nightclub. There was a hint (nothing more) that he may just have been gay (and possibly in denial) and that the club was sufficiently far from his home for him to feel safe from recognition.
I wonder ......
Nothing would surprise me, people often protest too much. When they are too vituperative and obsessive, it makes me wonder. Still we can't believe half of what is written in the media and they are having a field day atm.
-
Brilliant, brilliant clip here from the vigil in Soho and members of the LGBTI community explaining how they still feel being out and why gay clubs are a sanctuary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36525653#video-36525653
-
The footage of the vigil that I saw last night was so moving, I thought.
-
I hesitate to post this, it's so heartbreaking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36520213
-
How many more awful crimes will there be before the US realises that their love affair with guns is the problem?
-
The one thing that encourages me is that the younger generation don't seem to share their parents' fixation with guns. Probably because it is the young that are nearly always the victims of mass shootings.
-
How many more awful crimes will there be before the US realises that their love affair with guns is the problem?
Lots and lots.
-
Try reading the link prior to opening your gob for a change.
I did read the link, it was my thoughts on it.
Don't assume others don't read them before you pass judgement.
-
Things may have changed by now (I haven't checked) but when I posted #96 last night the sole tweet from the NRA - the largest and most aggressive pro-gun lobby in the US - in the wake of the largest gun-related massacre (50 dead, over 50 injured, hundreds grieving) in American history is to remind people that they can buy NRA-themed gifts for Father's Day.
-
Probably because they recognise it's not the gun that is the issue, but the person behind it.
-
Probably because they recognise it's not the gun that is the issue, but the person behind it.
Not the gun that's the issue?
Have you been decapitated in a freak tweezer accident this morning or somehing?
-
Not the gun that's the issue?
Have you been decapitated in a freak tweezer accident this morning or somehing?
Most people can be trusted to shoot a gun safely without mowing down people.
Tragic as it is, more people die on the roads.
Perhaps we should ban cars, after all in the course of a year they kill and maim thousands.
Some Americans are attached to their guns the way others are to their car.
Again it's not the car that's the issue, but the driver.
-
Most people can be trusted to shoot a gun safely without mowing down people.
Tragic as it is, more people die on the roads.
Perhaps we should ban cars, after all in the course of a year they kill and maim thousands.
Some Americans are attached to their guns the way others are to their car.
Again it's not the car that's the issue, but the driver.
Oh for goodness sake Rose.
Since John Lennon was assasinated in 1981 - over 1 million people have been killed by gun crime in the USA. 1 MILLION. And this has nothing to do with easy access to guns does it?
Just don't post until you've read that figure 1 million times.
Interestingly it is expected that this year for the first time gun deaths will surpass car deaths.
The other main point being that the vast majority of car deaths are accidental - whereas gun crime is often pre-meditated. The sensible application of gun control laws would in all pronbabilty limit the number of gun deaths in the USA.
What are you not getting??
-
Oh for goodness sake Rose.
Since John Lennon was assasinated in 1981 - over 1 million people have been killed by gun crime in the USA. 1 MILLION. And this has nothing to do with easy access to guns does it?
Just don't post until you've read that figure 1 million times.
The number of people killed and injured by cars and other vehicles is much higher.
-
The number of people killed and injured by cars and other vehicles is much higher.
See my edited post above.
-
If you banned guns in the USA tomorrow, it wouldn't make much difference.
There are so many in circulation.
The wrong person would still have access
-
If you banned guns in the USA tomorrow, it wouldn't make much difference.
There are so many in circulation.
The wrong person would still have access
Not true. If proper gun control laws were in place it would limit the availability to the likes of this person - who only purchased his firearms a few weeks ago.
But even if it it only stopped one death isn't it worth changing the law - or are you just not bothered about that one life?
-
JHB response to Owen Jones.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/the-orlando-shooting-is-not-about-owen-jones-despite-what-his-ha/
Actually isn't there a question over if this was actually homophobic in nature. Muslim gets radicalised and goes somewhere where he knows a lot of people will be, being gay and having visited previously?
-
I hesitate to post this, it's so heartbreaking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36520213
Rhiannon, Shaker
Actually being there the emotion was palpable. Even a couple of the coppers on duty at the end of Old Compton Street had tears in their eyes.
-
JHB response to Owen Jones.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/the-orlando-shooting-is-not-about-owen-jones-despite-what-his-ha/
Actually isn't there a question over if this was actually homophobic in nature. Muslim gets radicalised and goes somewhere where he knows a lot of people will be, being gay and having visited previously?
I could express what I think of JHB's piece but it defeats the support for those who suffered here
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that expressing that this was anti LGBT in nature, either downplays the general terrorism, or the feelings others might feel or that it is playing the victim card but the people whom I might be arguing with are not the enemy. When confronted by suffering, and what we see as evil, we often mistake what the problems are.
I'd ask only this of those who wonder about Jones's reaction. Watch the vigil in Old Compton St and elsewhere and think about those people who were there because they felt their community was being challenged. They no more said it was all about them, than Parisians who went to the Place de la Republique.
I have no difficulty feeling empathy with people but in part I was Charlie Hebdo not because of the similarities but the differences. I stood silently in George Sq last night, conscious that in the 35 years I have been going to gay clubs. I never went because other places were unsafe for me. That a mere year before I started going being gay was illegal in Scotland. That in the 80s and 90s we had a govt pursuing the obscenity that was Clause 28.
Yes, I have danced, partied and protested with my friends whose sexuality is their business, or should be, but i've always known that my straightness has got me a pass through life that they didn't have.
It's the birthday today of a friend who was killed three years ago. For years he felt he couldn't admit to being gay, frowned on in the macho West of Scotland. He hid it, and that hiding hurt him and others. Once he came out he became the joyous person he was meant to be. He died too young but he spent too long in a society that tried to kill the real him. I stood with many last night but John was in my heart.
-
Dear Sane,
Thank you, thank you for bringing a tear to the eye of a macho west of Scotland idiot.
Your good friend,
Gonnagle.
-
If you banned guns in the USA tomorrow, it wouldn't make much difference.
There are so many in circulation.
The wrong person would still have access
How many guns do you and your family own?
-
I agree Gonnagle, a very moving post. Well done to those who stood in solidarity with gay people in Old Compton Street and other places last night, though they didn't do it for personal commendation, just wanting to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in support.
-
Most people can be trusted to shoot a gun safely without mowing down people.
Tragic as it is, more people die on the roads.
Perhaps we should ban cars, after all in the course of a year they kill and maim thousands.
Some Americans are attached to their guns the way others are to their car.
Again it's not the car that's the issue, but the driver.
And also more on this Rose - because it is a spurious comparison:
Cars are designed to facilitate transportation.
Guns are designed to kill.
If you really can't see the need to limit one more than the other then there is nothing more that can be said to you.
-
I could express what I think of JHB's piece but it defeats the support for those who suffered here
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that expressing that this was anti LGBT in nature, either downplays the general terrorism, or the feelings others might feel or that it is playing the victim card but the people whom I might be arguing with are not the enemy. When confronted by suffering, and what we see as evil, we often mistake what the problems are.
I'd ask only this of those who wonder about Jones's reaction. Watch the vigil in Old Compton St and elsewhere and think about those people who were there because they felt their community was being challenged. They no more said it was all about them, than Parisians who went to the Place de la Republique.
I have no difficulty feeling empathy with people but in part I was Charlie Hebdo not because of the similarities but the differences. I stood silently in George Sq last night, conscious that in the 35 years I have been going to gay clubs. I never went because other places were unsafe for me. That a mere year before I started going being gay was illegal in Scotland. That in the 80s and 90s we had a govt pursuing the obscenity that was Clause 28.
Yes, I have danced, partied and protested with my friends whose sexuality is their business, or should be, but i've always known that my straightness has got me a pass through life that they didn't have.
It's the birthday today of a friend who was killed three years ago. For years he felt he couldn't admit to being gay, frowned on in the macho West of Scotland. He hid it, and that hiding hurt him and others. Once he came out he became the joyous person he was meant to be. He died too young but he spent too long in a society that tried to kill the real him. I stood with many last night but John was in my heart.
Great post I agree its a travesty that people like your friend felt he had to hide who he was.
-
It is a theory that some hold to, Trent, that allowing people to have gun licences and own firearms means the police know who they are. Here where gun licences are few, there are plenty of guns owned illegally - and used. Apparently (I've never tried!) it isn't difficult to obtain a gun, more difficult to learn how to shoot accurately.
Personally I am happy with the UK law on firearms.
-
Meanwhile, a few words from a pro gun journalist ........ "There's no obligation to be a victim." I can't imagine what would happen if everybody carried a sub machine gun to a party.
http://tinyurl.com/hjv89kr
-
JHB response to Owen Jones.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/the-orlando-shooting-is-not-about-owen-jones-despite-what-his-ha/
Hm. JHB article saying that the Orlando massacre isn't all about Owen Jones is all about ... Owen Jones.
Shurely shome mishtake.
-
Perish the thought.
If I had a gun I'd spend my life thinking about it locked away in the cupboard and be too terrified to sleep, then I'd get rid of it. Comparisons here with when I bought a rat trap a couple of years ago after my cat brought a rat in through the cat flap and it got loose. I couldn't bear to look at the trap, never mind use it. I put it in a cupboard and it still scared me so I gave it to a charity shop (in the meantime, the rat went out of the back door, cool as a cucumber).
I am not being flippant, I really do think firearms are terrifying except in controlled circumstances, like target shooting at a rifle club or clay pigeon shooting.
-
It is a theory that some hold to, Trent, that allowing people to have gun licences and own firearms means the police know who they are. Here where gun licences are few, there are plenty of guns owned illegally - and used. Apparently (I've never tried!) it isn't difficult to obtain a gun, more difficult to learn how to shoot accurately.
Personally I am happy with the UK law on firearms.
Yes I know the theory.
But hard facts:
UK: 0.23 Deaths from guns per 100,000
USA: 10.54 Deaths from guns per 100,000
That is 45 times (approx.) the death rate from gun crime in the USA compared to the UK.
Now I'm not saying it is a direct correlation - it clearly isn't (see Canada) but there is enough of a correlation to make tighter gun laws a priority in the USA. Anyone who doesn't think that is in that river in Egypt.
As for illegal ownership - yes it's a problem, but clearly not as big a problem as legal ownership is in the USA.
-
Harder and harder to bear:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/06/14/orlando-shooters-wife-knew-about-attack-plans-in-advance-didnt-warn-police/?
-
Dreadful.
This was moving:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/06/13/je-suis-orlando-eiffel-tower-leads-the-world-in-rainbow-tribute-after-gay-club-massacre/
-
Another fine piece of writing I came across talking about homophobia and gun deaths:
http://attitude.co.uk/from-shootings-to-suicide-why-homophobia-remains-as-deadly-as-ever/
-
It's a very good article. This bit concerns precisely what we have been talking about:
"Gun laws in America are a throwback to an age that couldn’t have predicted the sheer growth in population size, the myriad ways vastly different people thrown together can find to hate each other, and the force of the media and the likes of Donald Trump which perpetuates the misery we inflict upon each other."
-
Impressed to hear the head of homelands security talking about gun control being an issue of, well, homeland security. That might just make people listen.
-
Perish the thought.
If I had a gun I'd spend my life thinking about it locked away in the cupboard and be too terrified to sleep, then I'd get rid of it. Comparisons here with when I bought a rat trap a couple of years ago after my cat brought a rat in through the cat flap and it got loose. I couldn't bear to look at the trap, never mind use it. I put it in a cupboard and it still scared me so I gave it to a charity shop (in the meantime, the rat went out of the back door, cool as a cucumber).
I am not being flippant, I really do think firearms are terrifying except in controlled circumstances, like target shooting at a rifle club or clay pigeon shooting.
I have a gun and it is securely locked away at times.
In addition only I know where the keys are. It takes 2 keys to open the cabinet as well.
I see little chance of convincing US citizens to give up their guns.
They are deeply embedded in the culture. Trying to take them away is seen as a massive attack on their freedoms.
-
I have a gun and it is securely locked away at times.
In addition only I know where the keys are. It takes 2 keys to open the cabinet as well.
I see little chance of convincing US citizens to give up their guns.
They are deeply embedded in the culture. Trying to take them away is seen as a massive attack on their freedoms.
Using them takes away more that the victims freedoms!
-
Using them takes away more that the victims freedoms!
But they care about THEIR freedoms. People suggesting they should not have guns might just as well suggest they take their children.
In my opinion the guns will stay.
-
But they care about THEIR freedoms. People suggesting they should not have guns might just as well suggest they take their children.
In my opinion the guns will stay.
I think even in the States people might relinquish their assault rifles.
-
How many guns do you and your family own?
The U.K. and the USA are not comparable because we don't have vast numbers of guns already in circulation.
First they would need to take away the ones in circulation and dispose of them, and I can't see people giving them up willingly.
-
The only thing I could see working is making people take a safety course before they are allowed to own one, from a registered club like the NRA.
We have something similar in the UK if you want to shoot with a bow and arrow at a range.
Perhaps some sort of gun license and safety training is the way to go, rather than try and take them away altogether.
The trouble is, some people are so hysterical about the subject of guns that the gun owners would be afraid it was the start of the slippery slope to taking away their guns and rights.
In some ways hysterical reactions to guns in the USA, doesn't help because people become entrenched.
Then nothing is done to make any improvements.
I wouldn't want to see them have our level of hysteria in the uk on things, so we can't do anything ::)
Even our Olympic team have to leave the country to practice with their guns ::)
Stupid stupid stupid!
-
Is that the Olympics Assault Rifle team?
-
Not true. If proper gun control laws were in place it would limit the availability to the likes of this person - who only purchased his firearms a few weeks ago.
But even if it it only stopped one death isn't it worth changing the law - or are you just not bothered about that one life?
If we passed laws every time someone got hurt/killed, we wouldn't be able to do anything or go anywhere.
-
If we passed laws every time someone got hurt/killed, we wouldn't be able to do anything or go anywhere.
I repeat - because you really aren't taking it in, over 1 million people killed by guns in the USA since John Lennon was assassinated.
Your options basically are to do nothing. Courses blah, blah.
They've done that already. They don't work. You have to find a way to restrict the number of guns. And it cannot be beyond them to at least say we really don't need automatic assault rifles freely available to every wing nut that wants one.
I'm all for freedom - but its useless if you are dead.
-
If we passed laws every time someone got hurt/killed, we wouldn't be able to do anything or go anywhere.
YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As so many have been killed by gun crime in the US surely it is time to restrict gun use in that crazy country!
-
I think even in the States people might relinquish their assault rifles.
I very much doubt it.
-
YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As so many have been killed by gun crime in the US surely it is time to restrict gun use in that crazy country!
How could it be restricted.
Anyone that promotes it, will very quickly be out of office.
-
Dear World,
What I know.
I know that buying a gun in America is relatively easy, the NRA or members of have actually spoken out about this, they want tougher checks.
What I think.
I think the mood in America is angry, judging by how well Trump is doing, I can't see the Obama administration getting very far in changing the gun law, it will only make Americans more angry, America wants to point the finger and they certainly don't want to point it at themselves, if I was Obama I would be talking to the NRA, talk to the gun owners, they have some of the answers, not all of them, it should not be as easy as asking a guy at your local gun club if his gun is for sale.
I also think that the same anger of your ordinary American can be seen in this EU debacle, Brexit voters are angry, but I think they are angry at the wrong target, yes the EU does need reformed but the real target should be the present government, there austerity measures have not worked, time to ditch the Tories, make government more transparent, make taxation fairer, give the British people the tools to improve everybody's life.
Gonnagle.
-
If we passed laws every time someone got hurt/killed, we wouldn't be able to do anything or go anywhere.
The law on handgun ownership changed after Dunblane. You don't think that was sensible?
-
The law on handgun ownership changed after Dunblane. You don't think that was sensible?
Perhaps.
But it was knee jerk, and laws made in this haste may not be the best solution.
-
Perhaps.
But it was knee jerk, and laws made in this haste may not be the best solution.
Oh come on - its not like the USA hasn't had time to think about it.
-
Oh come on - its not like the USA hasn't had time to think about it.
Quite. They obviously prefer to bear the risks. They have a democratic system so can vote to change if they want to.
Personally I don't understand why people here get worked up about US murders when there are any number of other mass killings all around the world - usually for thought out political reasons, not actions of unhinged persons or accidents.
-
I think even in the States people might relinquish their assault rifles.
I wouldn't bet on it if I were you!
-
I wouldn't bet on it if I were you!
Nor would I.
-
Nor would I.
If Donald Trump's success is anything to go by I would say that if there are two alternatives, one incredibly stupid and the other terminally insane, I can guess which one Americans would probably go for.
Again I say, and stress, using the success of Donald Trump as a guideline for the assessment rather than blind bigotry.
-
Personally I don't understand why people here get worked up about US murders when there are any number of other mass killings all around the world - usually for thought out political reasons, not actions of unhinged persons or accidents.
I suppose it's largely open-mouthed incredulity that a highly advanced Western nation should in 2016 allow any old Tom, Dick and Harry - private citizens, who walk the streets the same as anyone - to buy and keep such lethal weapons, couple with disbelief that after all these mass shootings, and the bodies keep on piling up, they still won't do anything at all about it.
-
I read on another forum that some anti-gay bigots are really happy about this massacre, they must be very sick and insane!
-
Oh come on - its not like the USA hasn't had time to think about it.
They have thought, and they choose guns.
It's not really our business.
When I was over there using a gun range, the guy looked incredulous when I asked to be shown how to use the gun.
When I told him I was from England, he sort of smirked and said "Oh yeh, you guys do not have guns. How do your police work?"
He could not understand that out police also do not (routinely) carry guns, except at airports.
-
They have thought, and they choose guns.
It is not an 'either - or' situation. They have many options. Better checks. Only certain types of guns available. A cooling off period before issue of equipment.
-
It is not an 'either - or' situation. They have many options. Better checks. Only certain types of guns available. A cooling off period before issue of equipment.
I know, and they have considered them all, and they like the system they have.
They accept that these mass murders will happen, and they do not care.
There is not much more to say, it's not our problem, they vote how they like.
Personally, after Dunblane I would have liked more checks and restrictions rather than a flat ban.
This takes away the freedoms from many due to the crazy actions of a few.
-
They accept that these mass murders will happen, and they do not care.
Really, wow.
I'll let my American friends know.
-
I know, and they have considered them all, and they like the system they have.
They accept that these mass murders will happen, and they do not care.
The NRA types don't care. A majority of the public do, however - a Gallup poll found that 55% favour much stricter gun control.
-
Really, wow.
I'll let my American friends know.
You do not really need to, they must already know.
The fact you might find some does not alter the fact that the VAST majority are happy with the current situation with regard to gun ownership.
If this was not the case, then there would be calls for reform.
-
The NRA types don't care. A majority of the public do, however - a Gallup poll found that 55% favour much stricter gun control.
They should have no problem then getting this passed?
-
You do not really need to, they must already know.
The fact you might find some does not alter the fact that the VAST majority are happy with the current situation with regard to gun ownership.
If this was not the case, then there would be calls for reform.
There are.
-
They should have no problem then getting this passed?
Not with the Rethuglicans standing in the way.
-
Not with the Rethuglicans standing in the way.
They cannot stop the majority will of the people though surely?
-
They cannot stop the majority will of the people though surely?
Yes, they very obviously can, and do.
-
Yes, they very obviously can, and do.
How does this happen
How do they get into positions of power without people voting for them knowing their stance on gun control.
Are these people not elected?
-
There's no doubt this was a specific attack on gay people but the bigger picture is that it affects non-gay people too because gays have friends and relations who are not gay, who will be horrified and grief stricken. It affects all of us whatever our sexuality because terrorists will home in on any group. In this case, a lone gunman, like Breivik in Norway.
Reporting can sometimes be clumsy, I doubt any offence was intended.
Actually I think the bigger picture was the thing Owen Jones was thinking about, and it isn't the broader impacts of terrorism. Its an attitude ingrained in our western, 'civilized' society that is content to marginalize homosexuals and paint issues that affect the gay community as insignificant. It doesn't matter that it was unintentional on behalf of the reporter. His attitude is indicative of the 'bigger picture' the bigger problem. Reducing the Orlando massacre to a terrorist attack emphasizes the 'foreign' threat, form outside, and spectacularly fails to acknowledge the context of the ongoing threat the gay community feel inside their own countries, from their neighbors, fellow citizens and even their government. That is why it matters, and why Owen Jones was so upset.
-
Exactly, Sam. The people interviewed in the SoHo clip talk about wondering if they are safe to show their partners affection in public. That shouldn't be. In the States, some gay people are saying they gave to consider if they are safe going out at all. And that happens here too, we can't pretend it doesn't.
-
Actually I think the bigger picture was the thing Owen Jones was thinking about, and it isn't the broader impacts of terrorism. Its an attitude ingrained in our western, 'civilized' society that is content to marginalize homosexuals and paint issues that affect the gay community as insignificant. It doesn't matter that it was unintentional on behalf of the reporter. His attitude is indicative of the 'bigger picture' the bigger problem. Reducing the Orlando massacre to a terrorist attack emphasizes the 'foreign' threat, form outside, and spectacularly fails to acknowledge the context of the ongoing threat the gay community feel inside their own countries, from their neighbors, fellow citizens and even their government. That is why it matters, and why Owen Jones was so upset.
Actually I think you make some very fair points, Sam, but I would probably have a slightly different emphasis. I think that Jones was thinking of the immediate picture, rather than the bigger picture, and he was, understandably, caught up in the emotions that this particular horrific outrage induces. I have no disagreement whatever on your take on the vulnerability of the gay community, and the fact that they feel threatened both from within and without their own countries, and of course this matters hugely. Let us not forget however that a string of atrocities have shown a variety of groups have been targeted in similar attacks from hate filled and obsessive individuals and groups, from tourists(Ivory Coast), children(Dunblane), youth workers(Breivik), Jews(Kosher Supermarket), journalists(Los Angeles), even the bombing of Government workers(oklahoma City) for instance. And this does not take account of the many indiscriminate killings which have resulted both from gun attacks and bombings. I think the bigger picture is that we are all vulnerable to such attacks from unscrupulous, hate filled individuals and groups.
Sadly, this particular attack, once the emotions have quietened, will take its place amongst the many other attacks, I feel, until the next atrocity emerges.
-
They cannot stop the majority will of the people though surely?
America has proved on many occasions that money and religious bigotry can stop just about anything! Do you really think that without billions of dollars Trump would be where he is at the moment?
-
America has proved on many occasions that money and religious bigotry can stop just about anything! Do you really think that without billions of dollars Trump would be where he is at the moment?
Are you saying that the majority of Americans want to change the laws but they are being prevented?
-
America has proved on many occasions that money and religious bigotry can stop just about anything! Do you really think that without billions of dollars Trump would be where he is at the moment?
I agree, what's more is that Trump has financed his entire show himself and that gives him a lot of control. He answers to no-one.
Historically, large sections of the American public have been shut up, not allowed to speak until a later date when everything is done and dusted. It's far from being a democratic society.
-
According to the BBC website, the USA last year had 372 mass shootings (an incident which causes four or more deaths or injuries) in which 475 people died and 1,870 people were injured.
Pat Robertson's comments are despicable. At least Rubio encouraged people to give blood.
Give us his comments:-
-
I think the point being made was that the Paris attack was worse because it involved 100 people rather than 50, whereas he wanted the fact it had happened to gay people to be more prominent.
The problem is that can make it sound as if the reason it was worse is because the victims were gay.
Whereas if it's your relative that gets killed it's pretty much as bad as it gets and their sexuality is irrelevant.
I agree with you Rose, sexuality is not an issue. What about the 9/11 and the thousands killed in that terrorist attack.
All religions, gays, bi-sexuals, children, young adults... It pretty much scarred everyone who saw it and had family killed in it for life.
It sounds like he wanted it to be viewed as worse as it was aimed specifically at gay people.
Hence the woman news reporter saying it could be aimed at her as a gobby woman.
No! they cannot do that... this is no worse than the 9/11 or even the Paris incident. All terrorist and hatred of one form or another.
Sometimes stressing an aspect on a shooting and murder, comes across as making a similar shooting less important.
Sometimes people object to the idea that the murder if one person is less important than the murder of another, because of some reason or another ( either sexuality, colour of skin or some other reason).
Sometimes for example the suffering of other victims ( not Jewish for example in the holocaust ) is down played.
I don't think people mean to upset others, but it will cause upset if people are made to feel less important.
Because this guy wanted to make their sexuality a big feature it sounds like he played down the Paris one and the newsreaders responded as they did.
Very true, again Rose.
We have to see that the evil which killed or these people does not care about right or wrong.
Anyone who is not part of their gang is gun and target fodder.
-
I'd never heard of Pat Robertson or at least I don't remember him but he appears to be quite prominent on the televangelist circuit in the USA. I found this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/14/pat-robertson-let-left-kill-themselves-over-confli/
He sounds a bit like Trump.
-
Are you saying that the majority of Americans want to change the laws but they are being prevented?
The N R A sponsors Senators and Congressmen just as the Unions in this country sponsor MP's and, like the Unions, they expect the people that pay money to to do what they are toild! Especially when the total bill runs to billions.
An article in tgeEvening Standard by a gay American journalist, I think his name was Shaw, just after Orlando was very revealing. You should look it up!
-
I agree with you Rose, sexuality is not an issue. What about the 9/11 and the thousands killed in that terrorist attack.
All religions, gays, bi-sexuals, children, young adults... It pretty much scarred everyone who saw it and had family killed in it for life.
No! they cannot do that... this is no worse than the 9/11 or even the Paris incident. All terrorist and hatred of one form or another.
Very true, again Rose.
We have to see that the evil which killed or these people does not care about right or wrong.
Anyone who is not part of their gang is gun and target fodder.
And who hates the LGBT community in America most?
The Christian right! Except they are not right, they are so wrong! Oh except in the Bible upon which they base all their unpleasant beliefs.
-
If this attack were simply about hurting America the gunman would have street yes a mainstream club. The atmosphere in the States is still anti gay enough for the followers of the likes of Pat Robertson to think that on some level God wants this and the killer would have known that. The gunman deliberately hit a gay club. because if his hatred for the LGBT+ community, and quite possibly of what he was himself.
-
If this attack were simply about hurting America the gunman would have street yes a mainstream club. The atmosphere in the States is still anti gay enough for the followers of the likes of Pat Robertson to think that on some level God wants this and the killer would have known that. The gunman deliberately hit a gay club. because if his hatred for the LGBT+ community, and quite possibly of what he was himself.
Apparently he did think of targeting Disney World :(
-
Pat Robinson has made a statement
Contrary to some news reports, Pat Robertson did not make any statements about the tragic shooting in Orlando. The comments that are being reported were taken from a satire website and reported as if they were true. CBN has asked for an apology from those news outlets and the CBN legal team will be reviewing this matter.
Earlier today, Gordon Robertson, the CEO of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) issued the following statement on the terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida:
“Today, we mourn the deaths of innocent Americans who were murdered by an Islamic terrorist in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The attack appears to be well planned and specifically targeted against the gay community. There is no justification for this terrible act of violence. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, have the absolute right to be secure and live safely in the United States of America. We at CBN strongly condemn this act of violence and offer our condolences to the loved ones of all those killed or injured. We also commend the Orlando Police and the FBI for their swift response, ending this nightmare and saving the lives of those they could.”
http://www.patrobertson.com/recentnews/CBNClarifiesThatStatementsAttributedToPatRobertsonAreUntrue.asp
normally I probably wouldn't have a good word for him, but if he didn't make a comment, then he is innocent IMO.
If something is untrue, then it's untrue.
Untruths should be acknowledged, even if the guy accused, isn't our cup of tea.
-
Apparently he did think of targeting Disney World :(
According to an article in the Sun. Even if he had considered it, he didn't; he attacked a gay club.
-
According to an article in the Sun. Even if he had considered it, he didn't; he attacked a gay club.
It's not just the sun, many media outlets reported it
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/679587/Wife-Orlando-Pulse-terror-Omar-Mateen-police-Disney-World-attack
His wife seems to have been the source
-
Pat Robinson has made a statement
normally I probably wouldn't have a good word for him, but if he didn't make a comment, then he is innocent IMO.
If something is untrue, then it's untrue.
Untruths should be acknowledged, even if the guy accused, isn't our cup of tea.
The link that I originally put up was a satire but whether he is innocent is another matter - the link that Brownie put up was correct
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/14/pat-robertson-let-left-kill-themselves-over-confli/
Also more details here
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/15/pat-robertson-orlando-shooting-comments/
-
I'd never heard of Pat Robertson or at least I don't remember him but he appears to be quite prominent on the televangelist circuit in the USA. I found this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/14/pat-robertson-let-left-kill-themselves-over-confli/
He sounds a bit like Trump.
Robertson is a highly unpleasant extreme 'christian' who brings the faith into disrepute. His views wouldn't disgrace ISIS!
-
Maybe the gay club was just a softer target?
He may have done a recce or two hence his being in the club at a previous time. He may also have been to Disney and decided against it. I would expect Disney have plans in place to deal with such an event where as the gay club would probably not.
-
Maybe the gay club was just a softer target?
He may have done a recce or two hence his being in the club at a previous time. He may also have been to Disney and decided against it. I would expect Disney have plans in place to deal with such an event where as the gay club would probably not.
One would hope so, but wouldn't bank on it.
-
It's not just the sun, many media outlets reported it
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/679587/Wife-Orlando-Pulse-terror-Omar-Mateen-police-Disney-World-attack
His wife seems to have been the source
So it seems he went to Disney when it was hosting an event for gay people.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/14/us/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen/
-
Maybe the gay club was just a softer target?
He may have done a recce or two hence his being in the club at a previous time. He may also have been to Disney and decided against it. I would expect Disney have plans in place to deal with such an event where as the gay club would probably not.
I would have thought French football stadia would have plans in place given the high terror threat and the previous attack on the Stade de France, but Russian supporters got both flares and fireworks into the ground in Marseille.
I wouldn't be confident of anything, frankly.
-
I'm just pondering.
If is shows me anything, it is that fixing your thinking at a moment in time is a bad thing.
I am sure it seemed a canny idea in post colonial USA, putting in the immutable constitution that owning a deadly fire arm would be a fine thing and that a 6th century desert dweller along with his God considers homosexuality a mortal sin worthy of death. Deadly combination
-
I don't know about Pat Robertsons comments but if you want something to really make you feel ill try this Baptist preacher:
http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2016/6/14/sacramento-baptist-preacher-applauds-shooting
-
I don't know about Pat Robertsons comments but if you want something to really make you feel ill try this Baptist preacher:
http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2016/6/14/sacramento-baptist-preacher-applauds-shooting
And this is why I think the Orlando shootings were far more about homophobia than religion and attacking the States, for all the shooter swore allegiance to IS. That was the excuse, not the reason. There are too many in America who think like this, or who at least won't be as upset as had it been a mainstream club, for a gay club or event to be a logical target.
-
It wasn't a gay club; it was a young person's club.
No, really: http://goo.gl/BiiloQ
-
It wasn't a gay club; it was a young person's club.
No, really: http://goo.gl/BiiloQ
I suppose, technically, he's right - after all, I don't think I've seen photos of anyone or anyone being interviewed being over 25. However, ...
-
I suppose, technically, he's right - after all, I don't think I've seen photos of anyone or anyone being interviewed being over 25. However, ...
However what?
-
However what?
Look at mny post again, Rhi. I intentionally used the words 'technically' and 'However' in juxtaposition.
-
Anybody else know what he's on about? Anyone?
-
Anybody else know what he's on about? Anyone?
I've always wondered about your understanding of language, Shakes ;)
-
Technically it could well have been described as a young person's club as it appeared to be populated by young people. However in most quarters it was known as a gay club.
Conclusion: a club, though not exclusively, for gay young people.
-
Technically it could well have been described as a young person's club as it appeared to be populated by young people. However in most quarters it was known as a gay club.
Conclusion: a club, though not exclusively, for gay young people.
Which would be erroneous. It is a gay club. The oldest person to die was 50 and the average age of the victims was 29.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-victims-what-we-know-so-far/
-
I've always wondered about your understanding of language, Shakes ;)
I've always wondered how you misread the tone of what is appropriate on certain threads, but there we are.
-
I've always wondered about your understanding of language, Shakes ;)
Given the state of what passes for your thinking, that doesn't surprise me in the least.
-
Which would be erroneous. It is a gay club. The oldest person to die was 50 and the average age of the victims was 29.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-victims-what-we-know-so-far/
Ah well, I tried.
-
Ah well, I tried.
Tried what? To help Hope justify his technicality? Why?
-
It's bizarre and sick how some people are trying to avoid calling this a homophobic attack. More erasure of the gay community, so it's an attack on Americans, or on young people, or on everyone, and so on. I don't think Trump even mentioned gays, he was so full of his own self-praise.
-
I don't get it. Yes, no gay club excludes straight people - I've been to gay clubs and my mother even more so, and not as a 'young person' either - but if you shoot up a gay club it's because you want to hurt the gay community.
Why deny that? Why are people so afraid to face up to the homophobia? Is it because they'd have to accept the role that Christisnity has played in fostering it?
-
I've heard gays use the word 'erasure' to describe this - how they are ignored in the media. I think the Daily Mail put the shootings on page 4!
It's a dilute form of homophobia, I suspect, not actual anti-gay hatred, but preferring not to talk about gays really. As for Welby, with his condolences, he can fuck off, until he reforms the C of E.
-
It's bizarre and sick how some people are trying to avoid calling this a homophobic attack. More erasure of the gay community, so it's an attack on Americans, or on young people, or on everyone, and so on. I don't think Trump even mentioned gays, he was so full of his own self-praise.
It's the pachyderm in the lounge, isn't it.
The attack on a Jewish supermarket in Paris was an anti-Semitic hate crime; an attack on a gay club is about guns, about Islamic fundamentalism, but not, for some, about homophobia.
Very odd.
-
For goodness sake, I was just trying to analyse what he said, what I thought he meant. Nothing more, no justification. A purely academic exercise. What on earth????
Edit: I'm overreacting a bit, sorry. I don't want to remove my post cos that's a bit cowardly. Let's just carry on.
-
Anybody else know what he's on about? Anyone?
Yeah he made a shit statement and is trying to wipe his arse!
-
I don't know about Pat Robertsons comments but if you want something to really make you feel ill try this Baptist preacher:
http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2016/6/14/sacramento-baptist-preacher-applauds-shooting
pedolphiles?
Where did he get that?
There are some seriously nasty people calling themselves pastors :(
I wouldn't give him the time of day.
Talk about bearing false witness.
>:(
-
If this attack were simply about hurting America the gunman would have street yes a mainstream club. The atmosphere in the States is still anti gay enough for the followers of the likes of Pat Robertson to think that on some level God wants this and the killer would have known that. The gunman deliberately hit a gay club. because if his hatred for the LGBT+ community, and quite possibly of what he was himself.
From what I read, Pat Robertson was merely pointing out it was targeted because of the gay people.
He did not from what I read make it about God punishing gays. He was clear that Islam condemned the gay community and that the religion demands they be put to death. However they are not in an Islamic Country and those people were not Muslims but they thought they had the right in the USA to kill them. Well the one person did.
So Pat Robertson made the same comment had it been a nightclub just any old nightclub the attack might not have happened.
He isn't targeting the gay community he is saying it happened because the gay community had their own night club and therefore presented itself as a target for such people of such faiths who believe they are doing Gods will in killing them.
Not a Christian action to kill gay people and not one that Pat Robertson would ever support.
But he was trying to point out it happened simply because the people there were gay and the Islamic faith does not accept it.
Pat Robertson was NOT commending it or supporting the attack. He merely explained why it happened.
If America like other countries allow such people to live in their countries then the 9/11 and other incidents including this one are going to happen. It is too late to show concern having allowed them in to commit the atrocities.
No one should fear being killed in their own Country because people from religions which support terrorist have been allowed into their country.
If we allow them in, they we are equally responsible for the actions being allowed to happen.
Donald Trump was clumsy in that he was basically saying he would put a stop to the USA attacks by not allowing them in.
Protection not racism or anti-religion. Just wanting to keep his Country and the people safe.
-
Robertson and Trump come out of the same evil extremist mould!
-
Robertson and Trump come out of the same evil extremist mould!
What is evil about not wanting people in their country who carry out the events like the 9/11 and gay nightclub killings?
I don't see anything evil in wishing to prevent foreigners from coming to their country to kill them.
Would you let people in your home who hated you or the way lived and would kill you if they get the chance?
I suppose you need to see the real issues and not the prejudicial issues like Pat Robertson being a Christian.
He has for many years been abroad giving food, healing and medical help to poor people.
Giving aid in times of crisis from flood and famine. As a human being he has been more helpful to mankind than you will ever be. What is evil about providing and caring about the needs of others. He could be like you an atheist who sits at home and bad mouths people who do good to others, but I guess he doesn't have the time running an organisation which cares for others.
Shame on you.
-
What is evil about not wanting people in their country who carry out the events like the 9/11 and gay nightclub killings?
I don't see anything evil in wishing to prevent foreigners from coming to their country to kill them.
Would you let people in your home who hated you or the way lived and would kill you if they get the chance?
I suppose you need to see the real issues and not the prejudicial issues like Pat Robertson being a Christian.
He has for many years been abroad giving food, healing and medical help to poor people.
Giving aid in times of crisis from flood and famine. As a human being he has been more helpful to mankind than you will ever be. What is evil about providing and caring about the needs of others. He could be like you an atheist who sits at home and bad mouths people who do good to others, but I guess he doesn't have the time running an organisation which cares for others.
Shame on you.
They are both racist scum!
-
Look at the way the shootings are being reported in the Arab language press by the BBC and Al Jazeera amongst others.
The shooter is highly praised and Allah is asked to reserve the highest place in heaven for him!!!
http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-reaction-orlando-depressing/
-
Look at the way the shootings are being reported in the Arab language press by the BBC and Al Jazeera amongst others.
The shooter is highly praised and Allah is asked to reserve the highest place in heaven for him!!!
http://www.arabhumanists.org/arab-reaction-orlando-depressing/
Just to note it's not being reported as such rather than comments in comments sections
-
What is evil about not wanting people in their country who carry out the events like the 9/11 and gay nightclub killings?
I don't see anything evil in wishing to prevent foreigners from coming to their country to kill them.
Would you let people in your home who hated you or the way lived and would kill you if they get the chance?
I suppose you need to see the real issues and not the prejudicial issues like Pat Robertson being a Christian.
He has for many years been abroad giving food, healing and medical help to poor people.
Giving aid in times of crisis from flood and famine. As a human being he has been more helpful to mankind than you will ever be. What is evil about providing and caring about the needs of others. He could be like you an atheist who sits at home and bad mouths people who do good to others, but I guess he doesn't have the time running an organisation which cares for others.
Shame on you.
So I suppose that you would have banned the (Southern) Irish from entering England during the IRA attack period?
No, of course you wouldn't because that was Christian (Catholic) against Christian (Protestant).
-
I don't know about Pat Robertsons comments but if you want something to really make you feel ill try this Baptist preacher:
http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2016/6/14/sacramento-baptist-preacher-applauds-shooting
Umfortunately not alone
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/06/12/christian-pastor-celebrates-nightclub-massacre-theres-50-less-pedophiles-in-this-world/
-
Here's what Anonymous are doing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36560852
-
Sassy: "What is evil about not wanting people in their country who carry out the events like the 9/11 and gay nightclub killings?
I don't see anything evil in wishing to prevent foreigners from coming to their country to kill them.
Would you let people in your home who hated you or the way lived and would kill you if they get the chance?"
I agree with that, we wouldn't let anyone into our lives if we perceived them to be dangerous. However there are plenty of home-grown people already in our lives who are anti-social and violent. Also we cannot tar every group of people with the same brush just because of a rotten apple in the barrel (mixed metaphor!), each person is an individual.
-
Dear World,
Do I have this right,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36522570
You can buy and be on the street the same day with the rifle, the weapon that fires lots of bullets quickly but you need to wait 72 hours for a handgun, am I reading this right??
A hand gun can fire lots of bullets quickly. The rifle in question was semi-automatic meaning you need to pull the trigger for every shot. You could probably get the same rate of fire from a handgun except the magazine would be smaller.
The other thing about hand guns is they are much easier to conceal which makes them the weapon of choice for many nefarious purposes. Also, rifles have legitimate uses other than killing people e.g. hunting, although it is a stretch to say an AR15 is a good hunting weapon.
Even here in the UK, we have an almost complete ban on hand guns but it is possible for civilians to get hold of rifles with a good reason.
-
A hand gun can fire lots of bullets quickly. The rifle in question was semi-automatic meaning you need to pull the trigger for every shot. You could probably get the same rate of fire from a handgun except the magazine would be smaller.
The other thing about hand guns is they are much easier to conceal which makes them the weapon of choice for many nefarious purposes. Also, rifles have legitimate uses other than killing people e.g. hunting, although it is a stretch to say an AR15 is a good hunting weapon.
Even here in the UK, we have an almost complete ban on hand guns but it is possible for civilians to get hold of rifles with a good reason.
I thought it was a complete ban on handguns.
-
http://uk.businessinsider.com/guns-you-can-legally-buy-in-the-uk-2016-4
-
Thanks for the link.
It also confirms that you cannot own a handgun.
I knew about the 3 cartridge limit for shotguns as I own a 2 shot version.
My preference would be for the sort of gun I can fire in America.
-
Donald Trump on the Orlando shooting.....
"If we had people, where the bullets were going in the opposite direction, right smack between the eyes of this maniac," Trump said, gesturing between his eyes. "And this son of a b---- comes out and starts shooting and one of the people in that room happened to have (a gun) and goes boom. You know what, that would have been a beautiful, beautiful sight, folks."
-
Donald Trump on the Orlando shooting.....
"If we had people, where the bullets were going in the opposite direction, right smack between the eyes of this maniac," Trump said, gesturing between his eyes. "And this son of a b---- comes out and starts shooting and one of the people in that room happened to have (a gun) and goes boom. You know what, that would have been a beautiful, beautiful sight, folks."
Of course on that particular occasion he would be right. More people having guns in that one event would probably have stopped the carnage.
The problem of course that more guns in general greatly increases the chance of fatal shooting.
-
Thanks for the link.
It also confirms that you cannot own a handgun.
This is not completely true. There are exceptions e.g. you can have a handgun that was manufactured before 1919 as long as it's only for collection or display and you don't have any ammunition. Also, muzzle loading pistols are allowed for gun clubs.
That's why I said "almost complete".
-
Donald Trump on the Orlando shooting.....
"If we had people, where the bullets were going in the opposite direction, right smack between the eyes of this maniac," Trump said, gesturing between his eyes. "And this son of a b---- comes out and starts shooting and one of the people in that room happened to have (a gun) and goes boom. You know what, that would have been a beautiful, beautiful sight, folks."
There was a person there with a gun. He didn't stop the shooter.
-
Of course on that particular occasion he would be right. More people having guns in that one event would probably have stopped the carnage.
In a dark, crowded, noisy nightclub where many people had been drinking?
I seriously doubt it.
-
In a dark, crowded, noisy nightclub where many people had been drinking?
I seriously doubt it.
Having zero guns to stop him means you have zero chance.
Having other guns increases the chance from zero to something greater than zero.
Not a good reason to have more guns but it makes statement obviously trivially true.
-
I was just reading this:
Before his killing spree at an Orlando nightclub, the vicious gunman wrote several Facebook posts demanding the United States and Russia stop bombing the Islamic State and promised more violence ahead, according to published reports.
Mateen posted: "You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes. Now taste the Islamic state vengeance," the New York Times reported what Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin wrote in a letter to Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg. In his final post, Mateen said, "In the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic state in the USA."
Why don't the USA and Russia stop bombing the Islamic State? IS may be deeply unpopular but, whatever the ideology, the bombings aren't achieving anything. Obama said he was going to stop it when he came to power but though he has pulled out troops from some areas, the bombings continue :(. What's the point?
-
Fantastic scenes from Congress.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36598736
The majority of Americans want tighter gun control. The majority of Republicans who block it receive donations from the NRA.
-
Fantastic scenes from Congress.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36598736
The majority of Americans want tighter gun control. The majority of Republicans who block it receive donations from the NRA.
So much for the much vaunted "democracy" of the US!
-
So much for the much vaunted "democracy" of the US!
But it has always been thus. The presidency is always up for sale and currently one Donald J Trump is trying to buy it.
-
This is not completely true. There are exceptions e.g. you can have a handgun that was manufactured before 1919 as long as it's only for collection or display and you don't have any ammunition. Also, muzzle loading pistols are allowed for gun clubs.
That's why I said "almost complete".
Okay, but I would not want one of those antiques. I would be interested in a fully working modern hand gun, of the kind that I can use in the US.
-
Okay, but I would not want one of those antiques. I would be interested in a fully working modern hand gun, of the kind that I can use in the US.
Why?
-
What's the situation regarding the sit-in in the House of Representatives?
-
What's the situation regarding the sit-in in the House of Representatives?
Ended after 26 hours. Fight to continue at beginning of next session July 5.
-
Ended after 26 hours. Fight to continue at beginning of next session July 5.
Thanks for that, Owl. I tried to find some info on the BBC website but it was rather vague.
Whilst appalled by the events in Orlando (and elsewhere) over recent weeks, I'm amazed that there hasn't been this kind of action following other events of this sort - especially where children are concerned.
-
Thanks for that, Owl. I tried to find some info on the BBC website but it was rather vague.
Whilst appalled by the events in Orlando (and elsewhere) over recent weeks, I'm amazed that there hasn't been this kind of action following other events of this sort - especially where children are concerned.
Do you really think that you are the only one?
The calls for action HAVE been made, after every mass (over 4 dead victims is the definition "mass" in such cases) killing and each and every time attempts to change or tighten the gun control laws have been blocked by the Republicans, who are funded by the NRA. Even the President has been unable to break the NRA's stranglehold in this area.
-
Having zero guns to stop him means you have zero chance.
With proper gun control, the attacker probably would not have had a gun either. Zero guns means zero gun deaths.
As it happens there was a man with a gun there. He didn't stop the attack.
Having other guns increases the chance from zero to something greater than zero.
Not a good reason to have more guns but it makes statement obviously trivially true.
It also raises the chance of the deaths of bystanders from zero to almost certain in a dark crowded nightclub.
-
Why?
I expect he likes shooting hand guns. Nothing wrong with that as long as it isn't at people.
-
Why?
Because I like guns very much.
Why don't you want to fire a gun?
-
Why would anyone love guns when we know how much mayhem they cause?
-
Why would anyone love guns when we know how much mayhem they cause?
Because they are fantastic and wonderful.
You do not have to shoot people.
I would not shoot any light thing.
But I love hitting targets. It is skilful.
I also quite like archery and clay pigeons shooting as well.
-
Because I like guns very much.
Why don't you want to fire a gun?
ex-service and I have had to do it, and not for fun!
-
ex-service and I have had to do it, and not for fun!
Okay but I do it for fun.
So what?
-
Okay but I do it for fun.
So what?
Once you have done it for real - it is no longer fun!
When you have done it with someone pointing a loaded gun at you it most definitely is not fun - under any circumstances.
-
Once you have done it for real - it is no longer fun!
When you have done it with someone pointing a loaded gun at you it most definitely is not fun - under any circumstances.
I have not had that so for me it is fun.
So what.
Snorkeling is fun but i have been caught in netting 40 metres down, and that was not fun.
Does that mean that my experience should colour everyone else's?
-
I have not had that so for me it is fun.
So what.
Snorkeling is fun but i have been caught in netting 40 metres down, and that was not fun.
Does that mean that my experience should colour everyone else's?
NO because the netting is not a conscious living entity with malice toward you!
And as this thread has left the subject of the OP far far behind, I hereby leave it.
-
NO because the netting is not a conscious living entity with malice toward you!
And as this thread has left the subject of the OP far far behind, I hereby leave it.
Again so what.
Just because YOU do not enjoy something, you seem to imply that no one should.
Why should I care what others enjoy?
I am sure you enjoy doing things that I would find useless and boring, but so what?
What you enjoy is nothing to do with me, if it's legal of course.
-
I could express what I think of JHB's piece but it defeats the support for those who suffered here
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that expressing that this was anti LGBT in nature, either downplays the general terrorism, or the feelings others might feel or that it is playing the victim card but the people whom I might be arguing with are not the enemy. When confronted by suffering, and what we see as evil, we often mistake what the problems are.
I'd ask only this of those who wonder about Jones's reaction. Watch the vigil in Old Compton St and elsewhere and think about those people who were there because they felt their community was being challenged. They no more said it was all about them, than Parisians who went to the Place de la Republique.
I have no difficulty feeling empathy with people but in part I was Charlie Hebdo not because of the similarities but the differences. I stood silently in George Sq last night, conscious that in the 35 years I have been going to gay clubs. I never went because other places were unsafe for me. That a mere year before I started going being gay was illegal in Scotland. That in the 80s and 90s we had a govt pursuing the obscenity that was Clause 28.
Yes, I have danced, partied and protested with my friends whose sexuality is their business, or should be, but i've always known that my straightness has got me a pass through life that they didn't have.
It's the birthday today of a friend who was killed three years ago. For years he felt he couldn't admit to being gay, frowned on in the macho West of Scotland. He hid it, and that hiding hurt him and others. Once he came out he became the joyous person he was meant to be. He died too young but he spent too long in a society that tried to kill the real him. I stood with many last night but John was in my heart.
Due to FB's On This Day function I was reminded of this post and the birthday of my friend, John. Digitally they will be entwined going forward, and that seems appropriate. I miss John and would love to be discussing the latest Westminster farce with him.