There are a lot of elements about the mass murder that happened earlier today that the media have discussed: that the location was a known gay nightclub, so the people were targeted as likely homosexuals; the weapon used in the shooting was a military inspired assault rifle; the shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS the same day of the shooting. There are countless more focal points and details being discussed, with more sure to come, in the aftermath of the largest mass shooting in United States history.
I want to hear what the community has to say. What are your reactions? What must be done to prevent anything like this from happening again?
So did you change their mind? Did they change yours? Did you learn anything? Did they? Did you come up with a solution? Did they convince you their way forward was better? Or did you all just sit around, rending your shirts, politicizing the fuck out of the scantest information to prop your opinions up with someone else's blood? I'm a fuckin' idiot. I grew up drinking lead. I shoulda been dead of nuclear war by 1986, AIDS by 1989, the greenhouse effect by 2000 and fuckin' Monsanto or some shit by 2012 but I'm still here, you're still here, we're all still here and evil walks the earth, forever and ever amen. We got people here "remembering" fuckin' Roseburg. I got mayonnaise older than that shooting. Know what I remember? San Ysidro. Crazy fuckers have long been walking into restaurants and killing people. We got people here insisting it was a hate crime and therefore somehow worse. Right. Because every gathering of small children is an act of bravery since Sandy Hook, right? Every act of sleeping in a sorority an act of bravery since Santa Barbara (or hey - how 'bout since fuckin' Richard Speck?) And every summer camp an act of bravery since Breivik. And of course, it's "radical islam." Hey, know what? If the FBI investigates you twice and doesn't pull the trigger, that means you're a citizen. "Oh, by the way, up with ISIS! allahu akbar! TTYL!" So which personal liberties shall we give up this time so you can feel more safe at night? Who shall we profile? Clearly, it's those evil assault rifles. Except Dunblane was handguns. Osaka was a kitchen knife. Oklahoma City was fertilizer and diesel. I'm sure the NRA is to blame for this if we only triangulate our self-righteousness properly. LOOK AT ME I HAVE A POINT AND NOW IT'S GOT BLOOD ON IT. LISTEN TO ME! LISTEN TO ME! LISTEN TO ME! This is a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. That lets a lot of evil through. Always has, always will. What do these post-mortems always look like? "Oh, we missed the signs." "Oh, fingers pointed at agency X for dropping the ball." "Oh, those evil muslims." "Oh, those evil politicians." "Oh, my guy is better than your guy." "Oh, my path is of righteousness and thou art on the road to hell." MILLIONS of muslims woke up yesterday morning and didn't drive to a gay bar to shoot it up. MILLIONS of gun owners did not plot to overthrow America. Go for a walk in your neighborhood. You will find no one that is any closer to killing you all today than they were yesterday. Should guns be harder to get? In my opinion, hell yeah. Would it have made a difference here? Hell no. How long were Harris and Klebold scheming to shoot up Columbine? Well, they'd been in and out of juvie for six months. They made a video - for school - in which they pantomimed killing their classmates. Give a vaguely resourceful psycho a six-month head start and he doesn't need guns. In this modern world, with these modern liberties, we are dependent on the social compact to preserve our fundamental freedom. I like social compacts that are peer-oriented. I dislike top-down autocracies. Has the TSA made you safer? How 'bout PRISM? Someone out there doesn't like your face. They don't like your lifestyle, your god, your diet, your shoes. If they're a vaguely normal human, they keep it to themselves. If they're mildly unhinged, they take to the internet. If they are bleeding asymptote crazy they might just saddle up and go practice suicide by cop. This? This is no bueno. But you know what? I'm sorry that the crazies scare you. I Grew up with this shit and you people scare me more. You live in a country that loves Tarantino, loves Deadpool, loves Dirty Harry and fucking adores guns and evil will pluck that like grapes from a vine. So keep celebrating Scorsese out of one side of your mouth and decrying Travis Bickle out of the other - that's the dichotomy of America and fuckin' A, I'm used to it. You're used to it. Culturally, this is the choice we've made. But quit pretending that shit would be different if only your politics dominated. You may be right, you may be wrong, you may be wise you may be crazy but dipping your arguments in someone else's blood doesn't make you right, it makes you ghoulish.
I was with extended family all day, and haven't learned anything much more than the fact of the event itself. So very sad. I'll check back here. I honestly don't think that these types of attacks can be prevented in the U.S., only mitigated against. I think the biggest gains in that effort would come from mental health security, and social engagement. Assault rifles are for killing people. If we want to be able to violently resist our government, it must come at a cost. I'm not sure it's worth it. I don't see violent revolutions playing out well in modern times.
Worth noting that the Arab Spring, initially hailed as a collection of successful violent revolutions, ultimately resulted in: - The installation of a revolutionary government in 1 country (Tunisia) - The installation of a unity government in 1 country (Yemen) - Minor constitutional changes in 2 countries (Morocco & Jordan) - The replacement of one dictator with a new dictator (Egypt) - Civil war with no end in sight and the rise of one of the most powerful terror groups in recent history (Syria)I don't see violent revolutions playing out well in modern times.
This is such an important tension. I agree with you, now that we're at a point where the government can operate with such lethality, revolutions must be bloodless or else risk going toe-to-toe with the US armed military. Or as Jim Jeffries says in tacocat's video, "You do realize you're bringing a gun to a drone fight." If the spirit of the second amendment was to keep a federal government on its toes with a well-regulated militia, I wonder what a congruent modern solution would be.If we want to be able to violently resist our government, it must come at a cost. I'm not sure it's worth it. I don't see violent revolutions playing out well in modern times.
I think maybe there is. We have virtual gathering spaces that make both organizing and the ability of any individual to reach many people a lot easier than they ever have been. If it is true that the pen is mightier than the sword, then the logical extension is that "we" have more power than at any time in the past. I'm not sure this is true, but were enough people to decide that change was needed, they would all easily be able to connect from all parts of the country to form a critical mass. Of course that mass would have to be really big, but when things get really bad it could happen.
Maybe. But it would basically have to be a war of ideas, of persuasion: as long as the people controlling the nukes* want you to fail, there's not much even a large majority of the population can do. IMO. *ie the various huge and terrifying weaponry controlled by the governments of the world
But that comes with the supposition that the US government would ever deploy those weapons against us. It's much more difficult to imagine that scenario than one where they listen. The thing that we have that many other countries don't is a mechanism for change baked into our foundational laws. We still remember with great disdain incidents such as Selma and Kent State where violence was used against people, and that was on a scale orders of magnitude lower than anything they could if they wanted (plus both of those examples were perpetrated by states, and not the Feds).
I guess that's where we split. I imagine that a fight for structural change would be threatening enough to the current authorities that they'd be willing to stop it by any means necessary. Maybe I'm cynical.But that comes with the supposition that the US government would ever deploy those weapons against us. It's much more difficult to imagine that scenario than one where they listen.
There are plenty of examples of structural change taking place in the US since our founding that did not involve the Federal Government raining down violence. Most of these examples involve state governments raining down violence with the Feds stepping in to stop them. The most obvious example is the Civil War, but it carries through the New Deal, the Civil Rights movement, anti-war protests, etc. The main example of the Feds perpetrating such violence is mainly against the Indians in the 19th c. See, for example, Andrew Jackson's famous, "John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it." Another moment of structural change is inevitable, and it looks closer to being a necessity all the time. It will happen through the ballot box, however. It might not look like much, but even getting the ACA passed was a coup. It shows that progress is slow, but can be effective. I don't know how our tax system will get reformed, but that will be the next big thing. One reason I couldn't support Sanders fully (although I did vote for him) is that his ideas may not even be better than the status quo. We need young blood to put forth new ideas. Until that happens, I'd rather stick with the devil we know.
It's far easier to say this and give in to our innate willingness to stereotype than it is to actually overcome prejudice.This is not an anomaly. This is not just a few crazies. These are the values of the majority of Islam being acted out in the Western countries where their values and beliefs are, for the most part, entirely incompatible with Western liberal ideals.
You're ascribing the motivations of a few people to a massive group. How is that not prejudice, exactly? You do know, right, that the majority of Muslims aren't even from the Middle East?
Echoed by entire countries, or the leaders thereof? That's an important distinction. After all, we have the leader of one of the two main political parties in the U.S. who has said some pretty racist things. Does that mean all Americans are racists?
That would be compelling if you weren't cherry-picking the data. The graph you posted is from a Pew Research Center poll in 2013. Among its findings was that Like with anything else, people rarely act as a bloc.While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.
Only if we're willing to ignore the poll you posted.But we can still acknowledge a majority of Muslims, and at the very unprobable least many millions of them, agree with what the shooter did.
Alright, but even if that's true, where do we draw the line as far as tarring all members of a group with what the group does?
Maybe, but I also think it's a bit of a straw man to equate these kinds of mass killings with even those who are okay with the severe punishments of Sharia law. The same study we've been talking about, for example, noted that in everywhere (except Palestine) a majority (often sizeable) said suicide bombing was rarely or never okay.
I think it's very unfortunate that the phrase "Sharia law" actually does translate to the word "law" like it does, since it confuses Muslims and Westerners alike. We have to recognize that we are translating from a completely foreign language here. For instance, the word "Torah" actually can translate and most often translates to "instruction". However, it also translates to "law" by some Jewish scholars. The idea, whether people of any belief system understand it or not, is that these religious texts, the Bible included, are supposed to set out a set of morals that you are to follow if you want to call yourself a member of that specific religion. The Koran itself is simply more detailed than most ancient religious texts. The Koran has many types of punishment laid out while the others didn't express the punishment because they were already culturally known. If you look at historical reference it's not much different from what Christians or Jews were doing during similar time periods. For instance, the Koran mentions crucifixion as a real punishment. Jews crucified Jesus because he was to them a false prophet who was blaspheming their religion, and crucifixions, stonings, and lashings were a regular occurrence all over the place in those time periods for similar things. Anyone who believes that the Koran is laying out explicit punishments is simply not looking at the context of when it was written, Muslims especially. Many Muslims are stuck in a culture of perpetual third-world lifestyles simply because they can't get out of the rut of whatever African or Middle Eastern war torn region they are in and are under educated on even their own religion. Many Muslims can't even read because of this, let alone understand the historical context of the books they can't read. So I guess my point is, citing statistics on global beliefs doesn't really mean much in the grand scale of things when the majority religion in the third-world countries is Islam. There are plenty of Christians committing heinous crimes in the third-world countries, there are plenty of atheist drug lords committing heinous atrocities, etc. The data is skewed because the population of Islam is skewed towards third-world countries which already are constantly at war, constantly fighting for survival, and are majorly under educated. As for San Bernadino and Orlando, it's simply a matter of the same thing as any other crazy mass shooting and isn't exactly the same. Crazy people be crazy, yo. You can make excuses for committing mass murder from anything, religious texts are just the most popular for crazy people to delve into. Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's simply not liking your job as a postal worker, hence the phrase, "going postal".
At this point, I tend to avoid participating in these discussions anymore (particularly on larger websites) because of how quickly "discussion" of the issue turns into soapboxing. At this point, it would be hard to effectively argue against the notion that Daesh and, by extension, a large contingent of the Muslim population of the world, is possessed of a worldview that at best views the West unfavorably and at worst believes in its extermination. The problem is, where do we go from here? And that's where the "discussion" always seems to stop. Because there isn't a clear answer and some of the easier potentials to discuss are particularly thorny for a number of reasons. Do we believe our right to bear arms should trump the government's authority to enforce national security policy? If so, then do we assume that death at the hands of violent individuals must simply be an assumed risk of living in our society? And if not, then do we comfortable with the notion of a long-term, extensive effort to curtail gun ownership and trafficking in this country? Or do we instead turn outwards and claim that since this act was perpetrated by a particular belief, should we increase the government's authority to pursue individuals suspected of sympathy to said groups with greater autonomy and fewer legal restrictions? Do we as a society feel comfortable with restricting the rights of those who enter this country from a certain belief system? If not, how do you effectively police and monitor individuals without trampling on their civil liberties? No one I know wants to have those discussions though. Because, odds are, we don't have nearly enough data or experience in security, policy, and socio-political relations to make a truly informed decision that could actually take shape in the form of policy. And yet time after time after time with events like these, like Sandy Hook, like Aurora, etc. etc. etc. the conversation never goes any further than righteous anger and accusations of weakness on the part of the "other team" who are clearly to blame for all of our faults in the world. And so begins the ritual of making the issue 20 parts politics and 1 part supporting the victims of the event and trying to encourage a more supportive, understanding, generally less-assholish way of living. Because those are things that we, as citizens, could more directly affect than something as nebulous as managing the centuries long conflict of Islam with the entirety of the Western world, with all its facets, complications, intricacies and competing interests. At least, it's the conversation I wish I'd see more of. Maybe I'm of a minority opinion on this one.
Its all politics from here on out. A bunch of outside interest will scream about how something should be done. If were lucky nothing will happen, if were unlucky we will loose some more of our freedoms get groped more at airports and pay billions and generally be inconvenienced for the illusion of security. Complicated problems require complex solutions and nobody is interested in that. Muslim population of the world
its kind of unfair to the Shia Muslims. I don't think they were really any recent attacks in the last decade or 2 by the Shia, yet they get lumped in with the rest of the Sunni. Its like Catholics doing the bombings but all Christians getting blamed. I feel like we should at least be making that distinction.
There are Taliban who wouldn't (and haven't) shot up gay clubs. Being gay is a capital offense in parts of Afghanistan and Shia Iran has executed homosexuals as recently as 2014. It's like the Catholics doing all the bombings and all Catholics being painted as IRA suicide bombers: Religion in general, no matter how radical, is not the proximate cause of violence. It may be the justification but at the end of the day, you have to want to kill somebody to kill somebody and there are billions of devoutly religious people in the world of all creeds that have no instinct to murder.
What do we get out of doing that, though? Islam has a history of destroying idols, sequestering women, calcifying culture and otherwise fitting poorly into this modern world... but so does Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism and despite all that, the freedoms and liberties that make the modern world modern arose out of those religions such that we can now point at "islam" as the root cause of all evil because we're so liberated and modern. But radicals have to be radicalized. Anwar al-Awlaki used to go on PBS to explain Islam and provide national perspective prior to being persecuted and subverted by the FBI. Within five years he was calling for jihad from Yemen. France is full of muslims. Nearly all of them have no interest in shooting up Kosher markets. The more of them get blamed for shooting up kosher markets, the more of them start to align with the kill the infidel wing. There's a whole lot of Islam. And yeah - I wouldn't want to open a gay club in Afghanistan, either. But I know muslims from Afghanistan that don't give the first fuck about yours, my, or anyone else's sexual orientation. And every time we say "your religion is to blame" we're driving a wedge between us and the people we're reliant on to make Islam less of of a violent, reactionary influence.
There are a few things giving me pause in replying to you. Mainly that I want to respect the conversation you're having with white2 and not me, and also because white2 is probably capable of speaking for themselves. But your reply is uncharitable and seems counterproductive to you're stated aims. Who doesn't form opinions on incomplete information? When is information complete? When you say that it is? I appreciate you wanting to limit misinformation, or to properly categorize opinion and fact. But there's a discussion going on about the proper response to terrorism. Hell, we might never agree as to what our subject even is, let alone what conclusions we should draw. But, tell me. What facts are here? What are the some valid conclusions you can draw that are "knowledgeable". I don't mean this sarcastically. If you don't have anything to say, that's perfectly ok. But other people do. And instead of listening, cogitating, responding or asking questions, you instead soapbox about something as uncontroversial as "let's all be more rigorous in our thought process." There isn't enough due diligence in the world to form the proper response to mass murder, to gun reform, or to the global clash of cultures. So in the meantime, we get together and try to figure it out, very slowly and painfully. These conversations are hard in the best of times, and aren't better served with a participant with a minority opinion being lambasted on flimsy semantical grounds. Forming opinions on incomplete information is an automatic process. It's so automatic, that the irony of this sentence seems lost on you: You acknowledge your lack of knowledge, form an opinion, and then drew a conclusion. You called it like you saw it. But what bothered me most is that you went to such pain to silence white2, despite your open disinterest in our discussion. If you're "not really interested in this conversation as a whole," then at the very least don't shut others down.Maybe I read to much into what you're saying, but I'm fairly certain you acknowledge forming opinions on incomplete information and that my friend will get you nowhere.
Okay, let's talk about this. For starters, I'm going to reflect back your statements as a summary in order to refine the nature of your argument. If I understand you correctly, your primary arguments are: 1) It's important to acknowledge the radical message coming out of the religious leaders of Islam, which cannot be done without acknowledging the radical nature of Islam. 2) Islam is radical because the Koran is radical, and leaves little room for interpretation. Therefore, the source of radical Islam is Islam itself, and any true interpretation of the Koran will lead to a violent and regressive creed. If this is the basis of your argument let me know. Because then we can begin. If not, correct at will because this is an important discussion.
I wouldn't put it that way. I do feel that there are many aspects of many religions that are fully open to criticism and I think a case could be made that Islam, in general, tends to more violence-prone sects than, say, Judaism. But it's a complex discussion that doesn't lend itself well to bumper sticker talk. I would have welcomed that discussion, and still do, and want you to know that at no point was there the slightest whiff of "this guy has his head up his ass."
Regardless of your beliefs regarding Islam and Islamic extremism, because I can't have that debate today, here's the thing: this shooting had nothing to do with Islam. The guy's parents have said that he was not a practicing Muslim, only a practicing homophobe. So no, in this case, Islam is not the issue. Homophobia is the issue, and that's sure as shit not unique to an Islamic upbringing. You know that as much as I do.
Is that necessarily true though, in the United States? In the Middle East and other predominately Muslim areas, I don't have a case against what you're saying. But here, I'm not so sure. Is it that these are the values of the religion being carried out, and that there is a statistically significant breakdown in mass shootings by ethnicity/religion in the United States? I'm having trouble finding that breakdown. Or is it a confirmation bias that has us as a society focusing on mass shootings committed by Muslims?
If there's nothing we can do about it other than wait it out then maybe that person is right to be that cynical. Edit: I'm more along these lines of thought, and you have yours, and that's totally fine. I respect your opinion. Hopefully in the future we'll be able to find some common ground here, because, in my mind the US and everywhere else conversations are two very very different things (I think we agree on that).
- President Barack Obama, on June 1st, 2016. That said, completely agree with mk (though I do think gun control can be improved on. Social engagement and mental health improvements are so, so important.I just came from a meeting today, in the situation room, in which I've got people who we know have been on ISIL web sites, living here in the United States—US citizens. And we're allowed to put them on the "No fly" list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun. This is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathizer and if he wants to walk into a gun store or a gun show right now, and buy as many weapons and ammo as he can, nothing's prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is.
That pesky Constitution, making our lives more difficult. What saddens me almost as much as the shooting itself is how it shows just how weak and craven our society has become. We're all about talking about how "free" we are, but as soon as it might cost us anything, all that goes out the window. If we as a country decide we'd rather live in a full-on police state, that's one thing, but let's not then pretend we're doing anything else.
Y'all are making this ridiculous jump from "all the guns" to "none of the guns" while blatantly ignoring the area "in between the guns!". It worked in Australia, it could work here if we had the political and societal willpower to do so. But we clearly don't, because guns are important to the point where it's easier for me to buy enough guns and ammunition to cause large scale damage than it is to rent an apartment to sustain myself.
As I said elsewhere, Australia's homicide rate remained basically unchanged after their restrictions in 1996. The problem with this argument is it's like saying restrictions on free speech or more lax warrant requirements are fine because we're not totally restricting free speech, and we still sometimes require a warrant. I mean, I get that some people may disagree with the 2nd Amendment's presence in our constitution, but the whole point of having a constitution in the first place is because we don't want the government to be able to pick and choose. You can't applaud the First, Fourth, Fifth, whatever amendments but then say we should ignore the Second. I'm fine with some more restrictions on gun ownership/purchasing within reason, but that's not what I was talking about. The President's statements are that we should be able to arbitrary restrict a constitutional right based on associations with people we don't like. Sure, Daesh is pretty much the worst. But what happens when someone down the road says "remember how bad Daesh was? Well, these Communists/Liberals/Gays/Transgendered/Blondes are just as bad!"
Man, fuck the Constitution. "It's in the Constitution" should not be a valid argument for keeping things the way they are. I know some might think I'm a heretic or whatever but I think we should decide the laws that we want to uphold in our nation. The fact that some racist assholes thought 250 years ago that folks oughta have muskets is not enough to prove to me that the government shouldn't regulate assault fucking rifles. Maybe it's time for another amendment. But even that's not necessary: is vague enough to accommodate regulation anyway. In fact, that's the whole point. It was written vaguely because our Founding Fathers couldn't agree one way or another so they basically left it up to their descendants. So what did we do? Just assumed they meant what we wanted them to instead of actually considering the issue for ourselves.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Guess you won't mind if the police walk into your house and start rifling through it, then? Of course. But that's not what Obama was saying, and so that's not what I was criticizing.Man, fuck the Constitution.
is vague enough to accommodate regulation anyway.
I'm not saying let's get rid of the Constitution. I'm saying a policy being in the Constitution is not an acceptable defense for its continued enforcement. Except it is? He's not saying get rid of all the guns, right? So it's not prohibition. Gotta be regulation.Guess you won't mind if the police walk into your house and start rifling through it, then?
But that's not what Obama was saying, and so that's not what I was criticizing.
Well, the warrant requirement is in the Constitution too. If that's not an "acceptable defense for its continued enforcement," what is, exactly? No, but what he is saying is that one right (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) is subject to having "gone to an ISIS website." I'm sure I've been to some shady websites during my time on the Internet, does that mean my Constitutional rights are less than yours?I'm saying a policy being in the Constitution is not an acceptable defense for its continued enforcement.
Except it is? He's not saying get rid of all the guns, right?
No, not like legal justification. The justification for it continuing to be law. Basically I'm saying don't take further amendment off the table. That's beside the point. I'm just saying guns can be regulated, which is what Obama suggests. You said that wasn't what he said.Well, the warrant requirement is in the Constitution too. If that's not an "acceptable defense for its continued enforcement," what is, exactly?
No, but what he is saying is that one right (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) is subject to having "gone to an ISIS website." I'm sure I've been to some shady websites during my time on the Internet, does that mean my Constitutional rights are less than yours?
That's fine, and that's how it should work. But in the meantime we can't pretend that it doesn't exist because we don't agree with it. I was referring to his statements about the no-fly list versus gun purchasing.Basically I'm saying don't take further amendment off the table.
I'm just saying guns can be regulated, which is what Obama suggests.
That's fine, and that's how it should work. But in the meantime we can't pretend that it doesn't exist because we don't agree with it.
This was also my point before I got muted into oblivion. I'm glad there are other sane minds out here that agree with this point.
But a regulation based on free speech and association. You know, the kind guaranteed in by the First Amendment?
I'm definitely not, and don't think we should (discount all regulation, that is). But all I was saying before was that the specific things Obama suggested were not what we should be looking at.
My two cents? Stop making such a big deal out of it. These things happen because someone wants the country as a whole to freak out. They want their names to ring out as martyrs to a cause. But no one cares about martyrs they've never heard of. I remember after the shooting at that community college in Washington, the local police chief refused to release the name of the shooter, saying in essence that publicity was exactly what he wanted. Of course the media found out and reported the hell out of it anyway. But I firmly believe the police chief was right. We should turn our backs on these people, not put them up on a pedestal. But, this kind of self-restraint is apparently far too difficult for us. So instead we'll blame Islam (or Abrahamic religions generally) or guns, and suggest that maybe someone's constitutional rights should be denied because of whom they associate with. After all, we've seen time after time how giving more power to the government and blaming some minority or other has led to greater stability for all.What must be done to prevent anything like this from happening again?
No. It is a big deal. People love to tell the LGBT community that we've got our rights and we should stop complaining about the very real threats that still exist. A large gathering of LGBT folx is still a brave political act precisely because of events like this. I agree that publicizing the shooter is the wrong thing to do, but people want to blame someone and being able to shift the blame to ISIS instead of continuing American homophobia helps people distance themselves from tragedies like this.
While I agree that we shouldn't be giving fame to the shooter, I think the fact that this was pretty clearly a hate crime complicates the idea that we should, or even can, ignore it. For people in the LGBT community, this is a very clear reminder that there are still people who want us dead just for existing. That marriage equality doesn't magically make us no longer a target - if anything, it deepens the hatred that some people felt already. The name of this shooter doesn't matter, I agree. It doesn't matter because he is not an anomaly, he is not an outlier. His hate is not uncommon, and his violence is no different in intention - only scale - from the violence that queer folks deal with every day. His name doesn't matter. Matthew Shepard's does. The only thing that makes this different from Laramie is that there are too many victims to remember the names. Edit: in fairness, I am probably willfully misinterpreting what you meant by "not make a big deal out of this", but this is just a topic I have strong feelings on.
Yeah, I more meant in terms of publicity. I get that we should recognize hate crimes, sure. But I'm not sure about the trade-offs involved here. Assuming I'm right, i.e. that this would reduce mass shootings, isn't that the most important outcome? I don't know if there's a middle ground.
I can't help but shake the feeling that this is 'yet another' shooting, even though each one of those shootings is an incredibly awful event that shouldn't be a norm. Or, as The Onion put succinctly: Nation Wishes It Could Just Once Be Reminded Of Preciousness Of Life Without Mass Shooting."Couldn’t there be something else that leaves me feeling immensely grateful for each day? I’m not picky; I’m just tired of it always being this.” The American populace also admitted it could use a short break from being reminded of how brief and precious life is, saying that 133 such reminders since the beginning of this year were far too many.
A Dutch version of The Onion just ran this: [...] The head of the NRA found it a 'very relevant question': "If he's a terrorist, we can say how terrible this tragedy is. But if he's another mass murderer we have to explain yet again that U.S. gun laws have nothing to do with this."Was the Orlando Shooter a Terrorist or Just Another Mass Murder? Important Question Still Unanswered.
My idea on why the US is more likely to have mass shootings is quite different than most. I think we have more mass shootings because our law enforcement techniques for regular, small scale murder has gotten so good that small scale murder is easier to prosecute, easier to catch (most are morons), and less publicized. The US is also a place where reporters are everywhere, the news is broadcast worldwide to people who don't even want to hear about it, and that brings out the crazy 15 minutes of fame in people. The actual act of being so hard on murderers has in my opinion increased the likelihood of mass murder to happen. Because people can't vent out their murderous intent on smaller numbers they have to plan bigger and get more casualties to make the effort worth it. I'm not saying that we should be softer on murder, just that it is inevitable. Humans want to kill other humans, I think it's in our DNA. For other countries to say that they don't have people dying of murder on the scale that we have, first you have to look at the wide variety of differences in our country. We are the world's melting pot of opinions, ideas, races, cultures, religions, sexual fantasies, etc, and we have a ton of people. It's just going to happen naturally. We are also larger physically and population wise than <insert example small European country here>. One thing about our country being a melting pot that nobody addresses is that racial, cultural, and ideological integration to this magnitude is not supposed to be easy, yet everyone just wants the magic iPhone app for cultural integration. It's just an extension of our already rapidly shortening attention spans, since tolerance literally is about duration as much as attention is. Everyone can tolerate their enemies, even ISIS in western society or Nazis among Jews, it's just a matter of how long they can tolerate it. Our attention spans have gotten so short nowadays that our tolerance duration of other people have reduced comparatively.
I'm not sure which one of the candidate's responses I fear more. I can't find the quotes at the moment, but on NPR this morning, each of their respective soundbites were: (in my words) Trump: Muslims need to turn in the members of their faith and community who they think might be radical. (Pronounced "Fear Mongering McCarthyism") Clinton: Let's further build up law enforcement to track and watch for "lone wolf" attackers. Oh - and let's work with Silicon Valley to stop online radicalization. (Pronounced "Police State with heightened privacy invasion and censorship") There really isn't an easy solution, so I don't think we should expect either one of the stooges to give an intelligent answer. Shame on us, perhaps, for asking them the question and expecting and answer. Who knows... maybe this comment is a little fear mongering...
Oh, for fuck's sake.Clinton: Let's further build up law enforcement to track and watch for "lone wolf" attackers. Oh - and let's work with Silicon Valley to stop online radicalization. (Pronounced "Police State with heightened privacy invasion and censorship")
I think I found it... this isn't exactly it - but it has some of the bits from the piece I listened to (and more). http://www.npr.org/2016/06/13/481853366/in-wake-of-orlando-shooting-clinton-suggests-broader-terror-watch-listsShe also called for creating more "integrated intelligence use" between local, state, and national law enforcement, "strengthening communication" with other countries, and working with Silicon Valley to "prevent online radicalization."
IN MY OPINION: If the FBI has had a sit-down with you twice, and decided that there's nothing they can hold you for, all the 1984 Minority Report Brave New World Zardoz psychic violence thoughtcrime monitoring in the world isn't going to make anyone one iota safer. Frickin' Russian intelligence sent the FBI a mash note saying "Hey, this guy Tsarniev - we think he's really fuckin' dangerous" and he still filled a pressure cooker full of nails. Are we really going to get more actionable intelligence by monitoring everyone's Facebook feed?
http://digg.com/2015/why-mass-surveillance-cant-wont-and-never-has-stopped-a-terrorist Excuse the Digg. I figure Schneier's worth it.
Schneier's a policy guy, and in my opinion, he gets it. Bamford is far more of a history/strategy geek and he says much the same thing. years before Snowden he pointed out that the intelligence community's approach to finding a needle in a haystack is to collect as much hay as humanly possible on the assumption that there's a needle in there somewhere. However, the actual needle-finding techniques have experienced zero advancement since the time of the OSS. There are better ways. What they mean is: Will Muslims turn in other Muslims? Haddad has a ready answer. “Not only would they, they do,” he says. “They’ve done it.”Ron Haddad is Dearborn’s chief of police, and he says he gets one question a lot when he travels around the country. “Someone will come up to me and put their finger in my face, and they’re already angry,” he says. “They say, ‘Will the people in your community report acts of terror to you?’“
It's a really upsetting thing. It hits closer to home to know that it was something I and a lot of the people I know could have been targeted for. Maybe that's selfish. I just pray that something comes from this that isn't more retaliation against Muslims, but even that might be too much to ask at this point.
When you say that you pray, do you mean this in a literal or figurative sense?
I realize that he's a comic so isn't necessarily out to make a logical argument, but I wish just once people who bring up Australia's restrictions (wasn't a ban) could explain why their homicide rate remained pretty much unchanged after 1996.
So being murdered only matters if you were killed along with a bunch of other people?
You brought up Australia's homicide rate which has nothing to do with the reason for their strict gun restrictions. Gun restrictions were put in place in Australia to halt the use of firearms in mass shootings, not to stop homicides. Homicide rates are rarely the target of gun reform because people will just find new ways to kill one another, gun reform is mostly put in place to stop tragedies such as these from occurring which under most circumstances it does a good job of.
Right, and I'm saying that even if that's true, that's a meaningless distinction. How well did France and Belgium's gun laws stop mass killings there? Know what the worse school massacre in U.S. history involved? Explosives.
How is it meaningless? If I'm going to compare the effectiveness of legislation I'm not going to use a statistic that is unaffected and not even the target of said legislation. Because a mass shooting happened in a state that has strict gun control does not mean the legislation was ineffective in doing what it was supposed to. Legislation rarely works absolutely. If we look at frequency of incidences many of the states have deflated numbers in comparison to the U.S. Are you saying that if guns are strictly regulated people will switch to explosives?
You're saying there's some qualitative difference between 10 people being killed all at once versus 10 separate incidents?
One person killing 10 people in one incident? And 10 people killing ten other people in separate incidents? The difference between them is that the mass killing is catalyzed in many cases by the same variable, a firearm, which can be regulated and thwarted (not in every case, nothing is perfect). Those 10 murder victims while it is tragic that lives were lost there is no variable that exists in every case that could help in thwarting future incidents. Now of course we could argue that the firearm is not the variable, but if we look at the frequency of events in other states with strict gun regulation we see that these massacre's are actually combatted pretty well by the legislation.
That's an awfully random reading of the evidence. How do we know that they were thwarted? Just because they don't happen as often (that we know about)?
I'm not sure what it is we are discussing anymore if I'm being completely honest. It may be because I've been sitting at the courthouse since very early this morning waiting for them to decide if I will serve on a jury which I don't think they are. I think the number of times a mass killing occurs is a good metric to work off of, is it perfect not really, but it's something.
Jury duty is a pain...for some reason ever since I became a lawyer I've never been called :) I guess to me it's just kind of arbitrary. It's like saying we should base policy on the number of killings that happen on Tuesdays.
I first heard of this through a Daily Show segment: The whole series is pretty interesting. In this video above, it says the conservatives made the move against their base's will. In other words, (as you can see in the other parts of the multi-part segment) that it jeopardized the conservative officials' careers. But zero massacres since? ZERO? I know America is attached to their guns, but to state that there is absolutely no way to get around it is pretty silly given that it's been done before (ref: other posts here). To be fair, I can understand the argument of the complexities of the issue. Given the evidence, though....
As kleinbl00 so eloquently reminds us, nothing about the world is different than it was two days ago, except that 50 people are dead before they should be. No ideas are more right than they were, no group of people is more wrong. That's not how good and evil work. Everything is the same. Where's the discussion?
That is a deceptively simple question. These tragedies are opportunities for people to broadcast their allegiances, their politics, and, really, themselves. And that can be frustrating to witness, especially if you come from "the other side of the aisle." But I take solace in the fact that by rubbing up against one another, we learn a thing or two. That said, it's heartbreaking how rote some of my reactions feel to this tragedy. Yet, I don't think that's what you mean when you say there ought to be no discussion. It's not that we've been habitualized and desensitized to this (though to some extent, we have been), but that these freak occurrences are part and parcel of a large, heterogeneous society. So what am I supposed to do with all these hurt thoughts?Where's the discussion?
a severely confused and self-loathing person latched onto extremism as a way to vent. i'm not sure that the particular ideology matters here; these people will find radical islam or neo-nazism or anti-whatever and use it as the conduit for their anger. i'm sure that further gun regulations are a helpful step. at the very least, it would've been much more difficult for him to commit this crime if he were not able to obtain those guns legally. a different weapon may have led to much less bloodshed than a semi-automatic; denying guns might save lives, even if it doesn't save all of them. the root cause, though, seems to be mental illness. i don't know how you prevent and treat mental illness, but dealing with those issues seems like the most important thing to do.
I'm pretty horrified by the situation - it is a clear hate crime, and the body-count is ridiculously high. At the same time though, I not only see this as a terrorist attack (it clearly is, though) by someone self-affiliated with ISIS but I also as part of a rather sad trend of the mentally ill in the United States having access to weapons the likes of which most developed nations have completely restricted access to. The Bataclan attacks in France were seen as an aberration, a once-in-a-generation attack, but the fact that we have similar events to the Orlando shooting happening in our country nearly every year in terms of scale indicates that there's a pretty big problem, at least to me. I dunno man. Social programs and mental health systems have to be put in place for sure, but at least something must be done about our excessive love for arms. Because the idea that they somehow protect our freedoms seems a bit nonsensical when parity with the government's hegemony over violence will never, ever be attained. As to the radicalization of this shooter, haven't heard much word about it. But his ex-wife from five years ago said that he wasn't too religious but was very mentally unstable and violent. Organizations like ISIS thrive off of the poor, the marginalized, and the mentally ill, and I do honestly believe that if someone were to have so much hate in them to go into a club and kill fifty innocent people that clearly there is something wrong with them. Yes, the ideology is violent and problematic but I cannot think of a way to just 'deal' with the problem - we have to deal with its roots (much like the IRA, the roots are political - our meddling in the Middle East, the marginalization of 2nd generation Muslims in the West, but also our collapsing mental health infrastructure and social safety net and whatnot) and eradicate it over the long-term. That means that these sort of attacks throughout the West are not something we're going to be able to just end, regardless of the security measures - all we can hope to do, I think, is to decrease their frequency but also avoid overreacting. I mean, last I heard, France is still in a state of emergency. That shouldn't be the case. I think, like the Troubles,this is a problem that will stretch out for at least last another 2 decades.
Yet for some reason we aren't allowed to blame the one that hasn't, even though the shooter outright told the world why he did what he did. Even though we have video of the imam from the Orlando Mosque saying that homosexuals deserve violent death. Christianity has had its fangs pulled, it's claws removed and it's balls cut off. Islam has yet to be civilized in such a manner. This is the bigotry of low expectations. Treat them as equal.many branches have evolved to be more accepting.
Yet for some reason we aren't allowed to blame the one that hasn't Well, to look at the shooter's own Imam (Syed Rahman) from his childhood Mosque, I'd argue the opposite. He's utterly denounced the act from multiple news sources. Like here: And here: In fact, it seems as though Rahman was on the money with regards to being radicalized over the internet: Now if you click on the article and continue to read onward, you'll notice this: Which, again, disproves his own spiritual upbringing (by association) influenced by his childhood mosque. . You're right. He pledged allegiance to ISIS. Which is both an extremist and comparably small faction of Islam, not widespread in terms of population by any means. . Ah, yes. This guest Imam? Who is similarly a fundamentalist? . Fundamentalism is by its very definition opposed to the evolution of ideology. To cite one data point and use it to draw a line-of-best-fit can drastically skew the context, re: the guest Imam. It ignores Florida's Imam Muhammed Musri: It ignores Mateen's own Imam Rahman: Rahman agreed. "My personal opinion is that this has nothing to do with ISIS," he said." It ignores a gay Imam, Imam Daayiee Abdullah: “The actions of ISIS in killing gays is fueled by a perverted understanding of Islam. An understanding typically learned by word of mouth, not an actual reading of the text and understanding of the principles of Islam,” Abdullah added." If this hasn't made my point, I don't know anything that will at this time. EDIT: I don't intend for the examples of Imams at the end to be sweeping, although I'm sure there is more evidence for both sides. Frankly, I can't be arsed to discuss much more considering the situation in general, let alone the fact that it feels too soon being so close to it all. I'd be content to settling with "This is a problem, lets work toward a solution" at this point.many branches have evolved to be more accepting.
"It might be some psychological problem or some anger at direction with somebody because, if this is his mosque, we never promoted any kind of extremism," Rahman said. "He might be radicalized by the Internet."
"As for the horror Mateen unleashed, Rahman said, “I condemn it, and I disown it. This is our country. This makes it very hard for us.”
“It is no coincidence that this happened in Orlando,” said a law enforcement source familiar with Robertson’s history of recruiting terrorists and inciting violence. “Mateen was enrolled in [Robertson’s online] Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary.”
"Robertson's school may not have been the only source of Mateen's spiritual guidance. The gunman was at the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce with Imam Shafiq Rahman two days before the nightclub attack, according to The Washington Post. That mosque was frequented by American-born suicide bomber Monar abu Salha, who blew himself up in Syria in 2014, and the two knew each other, according to officials. Mateen's association with Salha led the FBI to interview him in 2014. Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Mike McCaul told Fox News law enforcement determined at the time their contact “was minimal.”"
, even though the shooter outright told the world why he did what he did.
"Mateen was, however, a devout Muslim beholden to the scriptural mandates of Islam. He reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS during the massacre in a phone call to police. The FBI suspects that he was motivated by jihadism."
(Source here)Even though we have video of the imam from the Orlando Mosque saying that homosexuals deserve violent death.
"Strict Islamic purist groups, like ISIS, follow the letter of the law and carry about these Quranic mandates regularly. For months now, the Islamic State has publicly executed alleged homosexuals by throwing them off of ten-story buildings and then stoning their bodies."
"On Twitter and Facebook, Musri wrote: “On behalf of American Muslims, I want to express our outrage and shock of the mass shooting in DT Orlando, FL. Our thoughts and prayers are with victims & their families.”"
"Yusufiy said she was "devastated, shocked, started shaking and crying" when she heard about the shooting, but she attributed the violence to Mateen's mental illness, not any alliance with terrorist groups.
"he said, “I can’t deny some Muslims do” have a serious problem with gays, and that some Muslims have been taught that gays need to be punished or even killed. ISIS has murdered homosexuals, and five Muslim countries (out of more than 50) still have a death penalty for homosexuality on the books.
This is clearly true, to anyone who studies history and does not major in theory of religious equality, or whatever. However you will be hard-pressed to find agreement here or anywhere else. It is an ugly truth and has no ready solution. That said, the problem with mass shootings in the US is mental illness, not Islam. Broadly speaking.Christianity has had its fangs pulled, it's claws removed and it's balls cut off. Islam has yet to be civilized in such a manner.
As a student of history you are of course aware of who kept civilization going while Christianity was clawing up the furniture and pissing on the carpets in Europe. "That's not fair, that wasn't about religion, that was about politics, see Christianity was a better method of social control than the big mess of every conquered people's religions that preceded it because a monotheistic state religion doesn't leave room for dissent and it was close enough to the cult of Mithras to not alienate the army, so it was encouraged to be violent and repressive from the start to keep the proles in line and that was ingrained by the time it was all that was left of the Empire..." Sure, but using most of the Middle East as proxies for the cold war was politics too.
Who knows what I'm aware of, really. The problem with saying things like this is that it reinforces surface-level history, and people share it, and then other people come later and read it, etc, etc. It is a vast oversimplification. However, I'm not about to take you to task for that because I oversimplify every single post I make on purpose, mostly to see who I can provoke into spewing bullshit. Tonight I was hoping someone would wander by who had majored in theory of religious equality but no dice. Anyway, it continues to take a hell of a lot of rationalization to mount what might be called the progressive position in this particular debate. Aside, I don't think Mithras gets mentioned enough. Something that should be on everyone's bucket list is the Vatican Necropolis, which shelters a lot of "pagan" rock drawings which were possibly/probably Mithraic. It's literally directly under the high seat of Catholicism on earth. That's so fantasy.As a student of history you are of course aware of who kept civilization going while Christianity was clawing up the furniture and pissing on the carpets in Europe.
Hermes is my shepard Meanwhile at Siena Cathedral
This is so bitterly, hilariously, obviously different than saying 'most mass shootings are perpetrated by people non compos mentis'. Withal, in my life I have read a great many studies focusing on humans and the conclusion I have drawn more than any other is -- studying humans is flawed and difficult. I choose to fall back, as ever, on common sense.Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent.
Yes. You're right. That's the point. Call me dense, but I don't see your point. If anything, the only thing I'm gathering from this is that you're pulling on your own readings of studies - which, I wholeheartedly agree are inevitably bound to be bias, fragmented, or otherwise - from these studies you've decided leave it to your own beliefs of common sense... which is a variable to culture?This is so bitterly, hilariously, obviously different than saying 'most mass shootings are perpetrated by people non compos mantis'.
That's also the only real issue that we can address coming out of this. We can as a country work towards getting better more sane laws, programs and systems for dealing with mental illness. Unfortunately I dont think politicians are really all that interested in solving the mental illness problems and are instead more interested in blaming guns (Democrats) and Islamic terrorists (Republicans) .US is mental illness, not Islam