Hate is Hate
It doesn’t matter if the killer hated gays, or was inspired by ISIS, or if it was both (and it probably was both).
Of all the fines levied against him, how much will Donald Trump actually pay?
Recent Comments
- El Somnambulo on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- Nunya on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- Hobo on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- El Somnambulo on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- Know on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- SussexWatcher on DL Open Thread: Friday, April 26, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Friday, April 26, 2024
- BLT on General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Thurs., April 25, 2024
- KCdem on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- Eric Blair on DL Open Thread: Thursday, April 25, 2024
- Jason on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- El Somnambulo on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- Jason on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- Paul T on DL Open Thread Wednesday, April 24, 2024
- BLT1 on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- puck on DL Open Thread: Thursday, April 25, 2024
- Rufus Y Kneedog on DL Open Thread: Friday, April 26, 2024
- Deeel on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- Eric Blair on DL Open Thread: Thursday, April 25, 2024
- Arthur on DL Open Thread: Friday, April 26, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Friday, April 26, 2024
- El Somnambulo on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
- puck on DL Open Thread: Friday, April 26, 2024
- Jason on DL Open Thread: Friday, April 26, 2024
- Jason on Delaware Political Weekly: April 19-25, 2024
The Vault
Follow Us
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
© 2024 Delaware Liberal. All rights reserved. Theme by Solostream.
Oh please.
I know Tom Kline. Those gays had it coming, right?
It’s rather too bad that the assault weapons ban wasn’t renewed in 2004.
LE, you do realize that an “assault” weapons ban wouldn’t of stopped this right? Even during the ban, there were legal weapons with the same capabilities they just didn’t have the black metal look. The first mainstream mass shooting, columbine, was committed with handguns specifically made to be legal under the ban.
Oh, doesn’t Paris and Brussels have “assault” weapon bans?
@Bob J: You realize that not having an assault weapons ban didn’t stop this either, right? You realize that once the shooting starts, your gun isn’t going to protect you, right? You realize that one of the cops wasn’t saved by his weapon but by a Kevlar helmet, right?
You realize you’re a dick for even making the argument today, right?
ah yes. here they come to defend the terminology of their penis-stand-ins.
I suppose if everyone in the club (which are usually poorly lit and full of alcohol) were armed, this wouldn’t have happened.
” you do realize that an “assault” weapons ban wouldn’t of stopped this right?”
I do. That is why the ban needs to be reimplemented and expanded to include most semi-automatic weapons based on capacity and rate of fire, even if they are disguised as hunting or sport rifles. There is no game or sport that requires rapid fire and quick-change extended magazines.
NRA talking points come out so quickly because they’ve been memorized through frequent repetition.
…And gun nuts who don’t see that Assault Weapons make this sort of attack much easier are simply not living in reality.
In fact many gun nuts have been banned here for being out of touch with reality and they will not be invited back in. Life is simply to short to entertain the ravings of lunatics ans simpletons who live in some paranoid fantasy world.
Q: What kind to tribe leaves weapons sitting around the perimeter of their camp ’cause they believe that everyone should have access to weapons?
A: A tribe that’s going to take a LOT of casualties.
Hey! That’s us!
@BJ “LE, you do realize that an “assault” weapons ban wouldn’t of stopped this right?”
Do you realize how idiotic you sound???
Let’s see. The guy was born in New York of Afghan heritage. Worked right up until the time of the massacre as an officer with one of those mega-‘security’ firms. Both he and his father, who appears to be a serious nut, have made virulent anti-gay statements. His co-workers have discussed the kinds of racist and anti-female anti-gay screeds he made at work. Yet, he kept his job and was able to buy all sorts of weaponry.
You can talk ISIS all you want, as he did, but this was a hate crime targeted specifically at gays and designed to inflict the maximum amount of damage that he could.
That’s the story.
You can talk ISIS all you want, as he did, but this was a hate crime [facilitated by our ludicrously porous gun access laws] targeted specifically at gays and designed to inflict the maximum amount of damage that he could.
That’s the story.
I’m not going to argue with you guys because your minds are made up. That’s fine. But the “hate” has a source and action has a motivation. You can chalk it mental illness or gun accessibility, again, that’s fine. It’s certainly a big chunk of it.
…But the “hate is hate” meme is so incredibly vapid and meaningless. It’s just as unhelpful as a minutes’ silence or a prayer. I know I should just shrug and write a poem about love conquering hate or reflect on Muhammad Ali life, but it’s just not how I choose to distract myself.
“…But the “hate is hate” meme is so incredibly vapid and meaningless. It’s just as unhelpful as a minutes’ silence or a prayer.”
I think the point is to not allow gun violence apologists to shunt this off into a public relations silo called “Islamic Terrorism” and thereby dismiss it.
To me it is more helpful than a minute of silence.
It is completely remarkable to me that the people who aren’t at risk to experience hate crimes can be so certain in their judgments as what is a hate crime and what isn’t.
This shooter’s father noted that the shooter was angered by seeing two men kissing awhile back. This shooter went to a famous gay club, entered it and started hunting down patrons. He didn’t just go to the town square and randomly shoot people. He picked a specific target and shot them. That counts as a hate crime. You can get your jailhouse lawyer on all you want, but homophobia is pretty clearly a predicate here.
But ignoring that predicate and ignoring the target is incredibly vapid and meaningless. Unless you are defending your entitlement to decide for oppressed groups when they are — you know — being oppressed.
Via Twitter:
If we are going to discuss the problem with radical Islam with this shooting then we better start discussing the problem with white men with other shootings. We discuss all of it, or none of it. That’s fair. No more “lone wolf” white guys.
Just for the record, I never said the killer didn’t hate gay people. I said that the hate has a source and the decision to act on it had a motivation. So, no, I didn’t ignore the hate, did I? I said it really doesn’t explain anything.
Pandora – I have no issue discussing our dangerous gun laws. They’re based on a very strange gun fetish and I’ve said as much. I just object to ignoring the other factors, like motivation/inspiration.
If you can’t see to difference in the motivation of these incidents (say Planned Parenthood, Charleston Church and Islamist inspired ones like San Bernardino & Orlando) and you want to just shrug and say “hate is hate” then we have nothing really to discuss.
Source of the hate aside, (clearly his father, and possibly some perverted reading of his religion) he wouldnt have been able to carry this out without access to the guns he used.
Yes, this could have been a white person who thinks their Christianity commands them to do the same thing.
Dylan Roof had a source. Adam Lanza had a source. Elliot Rodger had a source. Jared Loughner had a source. Robert Lewis Dear had a source. Like I said, we discuss all sources and shooters or none of them. To me, this shooting (other than the horrific death toll) is no different than the other mass shootings. All of them have so much in common.
This idea that it’s a “perverted reading” of the Qu’ran is false. It is certainly an overly biased reading, choosing to prioritise some verses over others for example. But that’s not a perverted reading. Trust me, it’s in the source material. You can borrow my copy if you’d like. (It also includes the original Arabic with commentary.)Most religious people ignore the nasty bits, but this act (ignoring) isn’t for accuracy. It’s for humanity. Let’s not pretend that the text doesn’t say exactly what it says.
Pandora… To me they are quite different. I don’t understand why it’s so shocking to say so.
We really have nothing left to say on this one.
DG, i get what you’re saying… but if I follow your line of thinking out, the solution is to profile Muslims and Christians… assume they are murderous homophobes/bigots/racists/etc until they prove otherwise. There’s got be a different approach.
@DG “Most religious people ignore the nasty bits, but this act (ignoring) isn’t for accuracy. It’s for humanity. Let’s not pretend that the text doesn’t say exactly what it says.”
Let’s not pretend that we know that the guy actually read the Qu’ran either correctly or incorrectly.
@J “I think the point is to not allow gun violence apologists to shunt this off into a public relations silo called “Islamic Terrorism” and thereby dismiss it.”
That is EXACTLY what they are trying to do. It’s a vile and disgusting portrayal.
I said that the hate has a source and the decision to act on it had a motivation.
In which case, your comment is pretty meaningless. There’s plenty of explanation in the plain facts here. It’s like saying that crowds of white people lynching a black man for looking the wrong way at a white woman wasn’t a hate crime — it’s just those bad Jim Crow laws.
Let’s not pretend that we know that the guy actually read the Qu’ran either correctly or incorrectly.
Because we certainly don’t do this to Christian lawbreakers.
We DO flat out blame the Bible for Christian Terrorists….. but we can, in the same breath, say tha tmost Christians wouldnt not do the same thing.
We can both accept that Islam (like Christianity or Judaism and so forth) leaves open the … ability?… opportunity?…. to interpret it’s doctrine as permission to kill people… AND that most Muslims dont read it that way/ wouldnt carry out acts like this. The problem with focusing on his faith is, it is EXACTLY what Trump and the rest of the BrownShirts want us to do, in order to back up their plan of expelling/excluding/and worse all Muslims.
I see no evidence at all that “radical Islam” has anything to do with this. If a mentally disturbed person says that ISIS inspired him, why take him at his word? If there’s no other evidence that he was “self-radicalized,” why are we treating this as if Islam held an explanation?
Indeed, can anyone show me any meaningful difference between Christians hating on homosexuality and Moslems doing the same? Didn’t think so.
Men are incredibly frightened by anything that reminds them of homosexuality. So yeah, there’s a reason here. I don’t see how it has anything to do with Islam specifically. If you want to condemn our lovely “religions of the book,” have at it. But if you think Islam alone fosters this kind of hate and intolerance, look harder at your Christian and Jewish roots, because that’s where Islam came from.
The Bible says exactly what it says, too, and if you read the Old Testament, what it depicts is a shit show.
I was in line at the Starbucks in Rehoboth with several other men and I was only straight guy in line. Didn’t bother me a bit but I was checking out the girl behind the counter.
We need to deport white men
so, some people think a devout, anti-gay muslim is no more likely than an american anti-gay right-wing christian to kill 50 people because of his religious beliefs? i don’t think that’s true. right-wing christians want to control our minds, and female bodies, but i’m pretty sure fanatical muslims are more likely to try to kill us. if they’re not mad at the gays, there’s always something else. and the culture of extreme muslims (not the mainstream) encourages violence against what they disapprove of even more than the know-nothing culture of christian fundamentalists, who — probably against their will — have absorbed some of the civilizing tendencies in the west over the past few centuries. no, i don’t know what to do about it.
@ea “…but i’m pretty sure fanatical muslims are more likely to try to kill us.”
Gun death statistics in the US don’t support this view at all… at least not as applied to the past.
And now we have this:
If this is true, then this doesn’t seem to be about “radical” Islam.
Maybe he was a radical self-loathing closeted gay-hating bigoted Islamic terrorist. Why do we have to choose one?
Jason330 says:
June 12, 2016 at 8:57 pm
I know Tom Kline. Those gays had it coming, right?
My comments were directed ALi’s silly words not homosexuals.
Sorry to disappoint you..
Why would anyone need an assault rifle? Other than to kill numerous people.
@ex-anon: You’re right. I expect right-wing Christians to shoot up abortion clinics, not gay nightclubs. I expect them to patronize gay nightclubs.
“Assault Rifle + Intolerance
Assault Rifle + Zealotry
Assault Rifle + Mental Health Issues
All = mass shooting.
There IS a common factor.”
Please check your math. The majority of mass shooting did not occur with the use of a modern styled rifle. What you call an “Assault Rifle” is no more than an emotional tag line used to deflect attention from the root causes of such events.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0
@Jenr-
Why would anyone need a semiautomatic shotgun like the Remington 1170?
What is an “Assault Rifle” in your mind? Is it different than a hunting rifle just because it looks more menacing?
@hwga “Please check your math. The majority of mass shooting did not occur with the use of a modern styled rifle.”
It’s not about math. It’s about definitions. Here’s you’re playing a cutesy game with your definition of “mass shooting” to make a ridiculous point.
I guess I should rephrase my question. Why would anyone need an AR-15 (or similar weapons)? Doesn’t seem very sportsmen-like to use them for hunting. Just wondering why anyone would need one (not want one).
There is a line today between weapons which are exclusive to the military vs weapons available to civilians. Is it possible that the line should be moved to limit certain weapons which are currently available?
@puck You’re right. We don’t have to choose one, but that’s what a lot of people are doing. And they wouldn’t be doing that if the shooter weren’t Muslim.
When the story of the shooter possibly being gay broke last night (and more and more people are confirming this possibility today) I realized the only person who said Mateen hated gays and was disgusted by them was his father – the father who feels badly, but also feels the need to say that god will punish gay people.
Sure, Mateen could have said that to his father. Maybe he was self-loathing. Maybe he was telling his father what he wanted to hear. Maybe he was a religious zealot and supported ISIS. Maybe religion’s role in this had more to do with suppression of who he was and how he couldn’t be part of his family. Maybe he was a hateful, evil person. Maybe all, or none, of the above. I don’t know.
What I do know is how quickly we (general “we”) label Muslim’s “terrorists” in situations like these – a term we rarely apply to other mass shooters, even when they leave manifestos. We need to stop doing this. That’s what kills discussion.
I don’t know what caused Mateen to do what he did, but as details emerge it seems far more complicated than “Muslim terrorist”. And that’s the discussion worth having, because this is going to happen again and again and again.
Jenr, your question was fine. This “your gun terminology is wrong” game is one these guys love to play. Everyone with a brain understood your point. They understood it as well. They just can’t answer your question, so they deflect.
The gun defenders are just as insecure about their masculinity as Mateen was.
Just to be clear (again), I never diminished the role of gun accessibility, homophobia, mental illness, etc. in any of these incidents. What I object to is the out-of-hand dismissal of the radical Islamist rationale. It’s very real and very much part of the equation here. To willfully ignore it and/or demand that it doesn’t exist is a discussion stopper.
That’s what makes say the Orlando and San Bernardino attacks different from the Planned Parenthood or Virginia Tech attacks for instance.
So I’m on record saying that all these are factors. This doesn’t implicate all Muslims (which for some reason needs to be the caveat each time the point is made).
What kills the discussion in my view is the idea that an individual madman’s manifesto (something like Dear’s PP stuff) is basically the same as the ISIS philosophy. The latter is far more dangerous because it’s actually based on a valid interpretation (albeit not universally accepted) of a “holy book.”
If you think Robert Dear’s philosophy (such as it is) is just as dangerous as say the philosophy that got those French police assassinated last night, or the Bangladeshi bloggers and activists hacked up, or Theo van Gogh murdered, or the Boston marathon blown up, or a Canadian beheaded in the Philippines,* etc.., etc., etc. then we disagree on the basic premise and there’s really nothing else to say.
I heard on NPR this morning that Hillary R Clinton used some derivation of the phrase “radical Islamist extremist” yesterday. How do you all feel about that?
——–
*N.B. Atrocities were conducted sans guns
Please also note… I know there is violent shit in the Old Testament…
… I know less people are killed without guns than with guns in these incidents… I know that the Muslim you know are perfectly peaceful…. etc… etc… etc… so please spare me the boilerplate. I’m really not interesting in neoliberal checklists responses.
Except there’s no evidence that a conflicted gay Muslim actually adheres to any “radical Islamist” philosophy, or any philosophy at all. In fact, by talking before the facts were in, all you’ve really done is let your fears out for a run in the park. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t dress it up as anything more substantial than it is.
There is no evidence that this “very real” threat that you cite is indeed “very” real, and there’s no evidence at all, other than a single phone call made by the gunman himself, that it played any role in this, except perhaps by adding to Mateen’s self-loathing.
The gunman “swore allegiance” in recent years to three different branches of “radical Islam,” some at odds with each other.
As for the language, only a Republican cares about calling it radical Islam. Neither W nor Obama would do so for fear of alienating the vast majority of Muslims who want nothing to do with this. I don’t think it makes any difference, and only Republicans are worked up over it.
Robert Dear, unless I’ve been misinformed, was also informed by a movement that claims its basis in religion, and it’s one that has shown no qualms about murdering its opponents in the name of its holy book. And that movement is far more organized than any Muslims in this country are.
So when an ill person like Dear does it we see the philosophical connection it but when it somebody else we aren’t sure. I see you thinking is quite cloudy on this. That’s too bad.
So that’s that. We disagree on this one narrow part of it.
Last thing, I’m not a Republican. I’m a radical leftist and a socialist, and I’m quite happy Clinton used the phrasing. Your assumptions about things are not correct on that score. If Muslims who aren’t adherents to a radical philosophy are offended by pointing out that there are some that do that’s really on them not me.
By the way, the Robert Dears of the world, people who’d look to assassinate abortion providers, are a very real threat to people I love and who are very close to me. So don’t think for one second that I’m not concerned about that. I just think it’s ridiculous ignore what’s perfectly plain so I won’t. You do what you like.
I don’t think anything’s “plain” yet. If Mateen left a manifesto (or some sort of statement, like some of the other mass shooters) then we can discuss what motivated him.
It’s why Trump’s language worries us. He’s giving angry/mentally ill (fill in the blank) people directions. No one is saying that ISIS, the Taliban, fundamentalists, etc. and their ideology aren’t a problem. It is a problem. Just like “pro-lifers” posting doctors addresses and saying if they didn’t exist a “baby” would be saved is a problem.
Do I “think” Mateen’s religion factored into this? Yes. What I’m not sure about is how. Did it factor in because he believed in the radical side? Did it factor in because of his religious upbringing and his (alleged) homosexuality? I have no idea. But the difference between the two is the difference between a national terrorist threat level increase (that impacts all Muslims) and national gun debate (which impacts all of us).
I believe Mateen was an “ill person” as well. So yes, when an ill person does it we see the connection, or at least you do.
My thinking isn’t confused in the least. Yours is. You want to talk about Islam when there’s no evidence it had anything to do with this incident except that the shooter — whom, it appears, was also quite possibly gay and conflicted about it, as well as at minimum a social misfit — was Muslim.
In your interpretation, all those other factors are less important than the fact that he was Muslim.
If you’re going to indict Islam, you should indict all religions. If you do that, I’ll line up with you. If it’s just Islam, sorry.
On the other hand, I see no reason to crank up the gun debate nonsense, either, unless liberals are going to go Jason’s route and call for disarmament, which won’t happen until tens of millions of gun lovers suddenly turn rational.
“Why would anyone need an assault rifle? Other than to kill numerous people.”
1). Because the AR-15 platform is the most appropriate & versatile firearm for the shooting sports in which I participate.
2).Because the AR-15 is most appropriate for customization & experimentation.
3). For the same reason that others engage in hobbies which include things that don’t otherwise have an application in the real world.
You can read either the Bible or the Quran and walk away with whatever messaging suits you if you have the need for validation of an action or a POV. Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, claimed he was a member of Hezbollah and also a supporter of Jabhat al-Nusra. That’s multiple “radical ideologies” and in conflict with one another. That’s why it is so stupid to use a broad brush (which just presumes that all radical Muslim ideologies are exactly the same — which they are to DG and others who are just plain scared of a thing they don’t and won’t try to understand). And, frankly, someone who is a known bigot, wife abuser, and probably in the closet who invokes this much confusion for “radical ideology” is someone who is using “radical ideology” to work out his very deep-seated issues.
Radical “Christians” in the anti-abortion movement are just as dangerous. These people have read their Bibles in a way that gives them permission to break Commandments. The difference in reaction to them vs the Mateens of the US is that violence against women is not as high a priority and if you aren’t getting or giving an abortion, you are OK. Plus there is much less opportunity to make an abortion terrorist into an Other which just invokes privilege to give abortion terrorists further cover.
@Pandora That’s fair enough. All I’m arguing is that the ISIS Islamist philosophy influences these attacks. One needn’t “adhere” to a philosophy to be heavily influenced by it. The contortions people go through in their discourse to ignore this is embarrassing.
I certainly don’t think that policies restricting or eliminating Muslim immigration is an appropriate response. Nor do I think this philosophy is widely adhered to by Muslims in the US. (Strong polling indicates that the Islamist philosophy is met with wide sympathy across the Muslim world however.)
We do ourselves no favors in ignoring this unique detail.
Cass… you’re intellectually confused and your writing, such as it is, indicates this. We have nothing further to discuss.
And you’d find Christians sympathetic to Christian extremists. Sorta like, “I would never shoot up a planned parenthood or kill LGBT people, but PP and LGBT people are wrong.”
There are so many moving parts in this story. I have no idea which one mattered most, or if they all mattered equally. It’s this jumping to the Muslim faith while ignoring other factors that bothers me – it’s a standard we (general we) only apply to Muslims.
And I agree with Cassandra’s point about abortion. It’s like I said above, people can relate to what they know. For some reason we give these non-Muslim shooters “lone wolf” status, but as soon as a shooter is Muslim it’s an international act of terrorism – even before the facts are in. That’s the problem.
@DG “We do ourselves no favors in ignoring this unique detail.”
Yes, but the gun nuts want to use this detail as an excuse for doing nothing. And THAT is why we ARE doing us a favor by ignoring it.
Their whole argument is steeped in racism and mendacity.
you’re intellectually confused
As usual, you want to attribute to me your own serious flaws in this area. I think we all get this and we get that you do this when you have nothing to actually say in response.
Don’t mind that you are standing down here, but let’s be clear that you’re not up to this discussion.
I would think that the sporting enthusiast who uses an AR-15 etc for sport would have an increased sense of responsibility and desire for ensuring that we have laws and processes in place to ensure that such weapons do not fall in the wrong hands.
@J “I would think that the sporting enthusiast who uses an AR-15 etc for sport would have an increased sense of responsibility…”
Really? This weapon is the poster child of irresponsibility. I think that’s what attracts the “sporting enthusiast” to it.
You know it just occurred to me… a few of you love this fake criticism “moving the goalposts.” I read Cass use it pretty consistently. I do notice that you all love to do that very thing when it suits you though.
I make observations about a specific thing, but you don’t like that thing so you just cut the discussion to some other thing. Cute. Hypocritical and cute.
And again, I am neither a “gun nut” nor a racist. I am not trying to deflect attention from one thing to another. I’ve written that three times already but I suppose that’s not enough. I am making a accurate observation that you can’t parse intellectually and so attribute it to racism. Very strange.
@DG “I am not trying to deflect attention from one thing to another.”
FTR — I didn’t accuse you of doing that. I simply pointed out that that is exactly how this tragedy is being used by Trump and many others to promote racism and avoid making the hard choices that would actually solve this problem.
If you cannot see that, then look harder. And do try to not play into that “game”.
You should have stopped with your previous post, instead of digging deeper. Seriously.
cassandra, the part about hating western ideas is the same for all three groups you cite. and a willingness to use violence. all three groups might in some cases be using naive religious ideas to work up the troops, but apparently that’s pretty easy to do. also, i’d think mateen was particularly self-loathing because of what he thinks the quran (or its interpreters) says about homosexuality. some christian fundamentalists probably feel the same about the bible, but i would bet the percentage of them that would kill 50 people over it is much smaller than it is for radical muslims. fundamentalist christians might be just as stupid, but i don’t think they’re just as dangerous to our physical well-being.
“I would think that the sporting enthusiast who uses an AR-15 etc for sport would have an increased sense of responsibility and desire for ensuring that we have laws and processes in place to ensure that such weapons do not fall in the wrong hands.”
If you have an AR-15 for sport, it is already in the wrong hands. the civilian version is a fetishist’s weapon and ownership is an indication of some level of antisocial emotional disturbance.
Your 1st point was… “But the “hate” has a source and action has a motivation. You can chalk it mental illness or gun accessibility, again, that’s fine. It’s certainly a big chunk of it.” So your “source” is the Muslim faith. Right?
You go on to say, “This idea that it’s a “perverted reading” of the Qu’ran is false. It is certainly an overly biased reading, choosing to prioritise some verses over others for example. But that’s not a perverted reading. Trust me, it’s in the source material.”
Right here is where you are making the jump to the shooter’s motivation.
I point out: “Dylan Roof had a source. Adam Lanza had a source. Elliot Rodger had a source. Jared Loughner had a source. Robert Lewis Dear had a source. Like I said, we discuss all sources and shooters or none of them. To me, this shooting (other than the horrific death toll) is no different than the other mass shootings. All of them have so much in common.”
You counter with: “Pandora… To me they are quite different. I don’t understand why it’s so shocking to say so.”
I don’t understand why these incidents are different to you. The only difference is religion (all of which I find bogus). That seems to be what you’re basing your comments on. So if this guy wasn’t a Muslim the conversation would be different?
cassandra, the part about hating western ideas is the same for all three groups you cite.
Actually, it isn’t the same. And all you are doing is trying to rationalize your own prejudices here. You could have used the energy to 1) actually address this topic and 2) educate yourself.
fundamentalist christians might be just as stupid, but i don’t think they’re just as dangerous to our physical well-being.
This might be true for you, but it would look very different if you were at an abortion clinic. Still, the biggest threat to any average American are right-wing militias. But we never make white men into scary boogiemen who are a threat to our communities.
“If you have an AR-15 for sport, it is already in the wrong hands. the civilian version is a fetishist’s weapon and ownership is an indication of some level of antisocial emotional disturbance.”
Is this your personal opinion?
If not, what facts are you using to support this statement.
“@J “I would think that the sporting enthusiast who uses an AR-15 etc for sport would have an increased sense of responsibility…”
Mine are all locked up behind a 1/2” of plate steel.
Why do you assume that all gun owners are irresponsible?
Why do you assume that all gun owners are irresponsible?
Good question.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/instructor-at-nra-convention-recommends-keeping-guns-in-kids-bedrooms-for-safety-reasons/
I don’t. However I do not understand why enthusiasts don’t feel an increased sense of responsibility or desire to ensure that our laws and processes protect all of us from these weapons falling into the wrong hands. I would think that they would be the ones driving the solutions not the ones fighting restrictions. Example: If you feel such weapons should be legal, how long should the waiting period be to purchase an AR-15 type weapon? Not looking for a specific answer. Just trying to determine if there are any points of compromise.
@hwga “Why do you assume that all gun owners are irresponsible?”
I would say that the mental gymnastic that led such to become a gun owner puts most in the irresponsible camp.
After all, 90% of all gun deaths in the US are family and friends… Those who buy a gun to protect themselves and their family are far more likely to see their family members die by that very gun…
Also, whenever the second amendment comes up, the gun owners are the first to remind us that they have them so that they can rise up against the government.
Good times!
“Also, whenever the second amendment comes up, the gun owners are the first to remind us that they have them so that they can rise up against the government.”
Yes, this has always puzzled me. Under this logic civilians should have access to the same weaponry as the military. Tanks, fighter jets, missles, etc, correct? All other distinctions or restrictions would be arbitrary.
cassandra, i believe they call that a distinction without a difference.
God, what God? I didn’t vote for him
Jenr….. It’s like they think Obama will personally come to their shack in the woods to take their guns.
I heard Obama is driving a train through every town to load up guns and to take people to FEMA camps
“Why do you assume that all gun owners are irresponsible?”
Not all gun owners. Just the gun owners who think shooting such a weapon is a “sport.”
“Because the AR-15 platform is the most appropriate & versatile firearm for the shooting sports in which I participate.”
That doesn’t mean it’s not exactly what it is and that you aren’t exactly what you are.
You know, there apparently are sexual deviants who get off on large plush stuffed animals. For them, stuffed animals aren’t quite the same thing as they are for your 2-year-old.
Same with guns. If you enjoy shooting “sports,” you’ve got a psychological problem, whether you realize it or not. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t feel so empowered by the use of a gun of any sort.
Too bad we can’t lock you all in a secure facility and see who comes out alive.
It was fun to shoot an AR-15, RPG, 50 cal. and other arms at various points in my life, but I never considered it a sport, nor would I ever own one because to me, gun owners are like a hammer for which everything is a nail. If I owned a gun, everything would be potential target.
There is a difference between a self defense weapons and firearms that are offensive weapons. The real reason that people want weapons like the AR-15 was accurately and succinctly stated by Kelly Alwood, a firearms trainer and consultant who said “We need these rifles because the government has them.” Any other stated use or need is lipstick on a pig.
The problem with that purpose is that regardless of the firepower represented by military in civilian hands, those civilians are so outmatched and outclassed by today’s military, especially with stand off weapons where a soldier at a console in Nevada can take out hwga in his house without messing up hwga’s lawn, that any such arguments regarding defense against tyranny become ludicrous.
If you do not trust your government, then you had better participate in the political process to get the government you want because you would not win a revolution.
Dave: More succinctly, their attachment to their weapons is emotional, not rational. I find emotional attachments to inanimate objects like guns or the flag to be among the most resistant to reason.
Yep. Emotion informing choices is why people die.
@anonymous
I’m guessing that you are a football fan. Football is one of the most violent & sexist sports ever invented. It also leads to hundreds more serious injuries every year than all of the shooting sports combined.
“If you enjoy shooting “sports,” you’ve got a psychological problem”
Fascinating, you obviously know nothing about shooting sports. These links might help you learn:
https://www.gunowners.org/op0302.htm
http://www.nssf.org/shooting/sports/
BTW, shooing sports are one of the few competitive events in which both men and women of any age can effectively compete against each other. It great to see a 16 year old girl out shoot a 30 year marine veteran.
@a “I’m guessing that you are a football fan.”
For me, only real football. And that’s not as violent, and watching women play is fun too (esp. Team USA).
“Fascinating, you obviously know nothing about shooting sports.”
And I don’t know too much about Bo-taoshi or Cheese rolling or Buzkashi or Curling either, but somehow, that’s all OK with me.
“It great to see a 16 year old girl out shoot a 30 year marine veteran.”
That sounds so exciting.
In traditional Buzkashi, maybe it’s exciting to guess whether the match will end before the carcass rots.
That is true. Watching team sports is just weird. Wearing your teams jersey to work, painting your face, and what about fantasy football….just weird. But I guess its safe, except in Philly.
Unless you or your kid are competing, tis weird.
Nope, not a football fan. Sorry. In fact I want to stop using taxpayer funds on it.
What a weak comeback in the first place. Guns have one use, and the “sports” involving them are simply target practice for their actual use; otherwise you could just use laser beams.
Just admit it: You like the power. They make you feel powerful. It’s OK, it’s not unusual. All us monkeys are like this. But don’t insult me by pretending this is something rational.
It’s my motto here: Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.