Thank you. There have been others though, just probably not as vocal.
I’ve been outspoken (in east Texas, no less) about gay rights ever since I knew it was something worth fighting for. People who know me, in real life and online, know I don’t shy away from discussing firearms and how dangerous I believe they are.
But you know what? Occasionally there is a time and a place to hold one’s tongue. Dear God, it hasn’t even been 24 hours and I’ve lost track of all the various incarnations of “So what if I am, so are you!!” The gun debate has been raging on for a good while now, would it truly hurt anything to put it aside from one thread / a single day? If it hasn’t been resolved yet, does anyone honestly believe this will be what does the trick? The other side will finally see the light?
No, this is just about scoring points. Getting in digs to the opponent before they can get a hit on you. And look, we have a member HERE who very easily could’ve been dealing with this tragedy personally and apparently, even that wasn’t enough to give most a second’s pause. I just do not understand. Because even if the Dope denizens all came to a mutual decision, it’d do fuck all to the greater world at large. Sheesh.
I can imagine, Iggy. Tell him an Internet stranger is very thankful he decided to have a night in last night. Then give him a hug for me.
That’s pretty ironic given that the same debate over “politicization” also happens after every major tragedy.
The truth is, “if the Dope denizens all came to a mutual decision, it’d do fuck all to the greater world at large” is a truism as to virtually all of our debates. By that principle, we’d discuss little more than what to make for dinner.
faithfool: Perhaps, but for some people, the political IS personal, especially when you are a member of a group that many feel are being targeted by those in power. (I wrote that about gay people, but I just realized that gun owners probably think the same.) When you feel under siege, of course you’re going to make sure that you aren’t caught up in the latest news event.
I know you were mostly talking about the gun debate, but I would guess that there are few gay or Muslim people who don’t appreciate a firm acknowledgment at a time like this.
Did France allow assault rifles? Seems to me that the bigger problem in both cases is the existence of a radical ideology that can influence and direct young men from anywhere in the world to commit atrocities.
A society that claims constantly to want to “eradicate racism” suddenly would rather talk about guns when a racist, homophobic ideology is running rampant around the world.
I don’t see how a terrible event like this would move you from wanting someone sane and competent to wanting someone insane and incompetent. I think it helps Hillary, but I’m not sure she needs it (and certainly wouldn’t have wanted it this way).
Competence at the minimum is being able to recognize and name the enemy. To listen to some liberal commentators, this act was committed by the Faceless Men(GoT reference).
Whoever says “ISIS” first, wins this round. Has anyone said it yet? Obama? Clinton? Trump? Johnson?
This is what I’m most curious about right now. The ex-wife made that statement as if it should have been obvious that this guy was unstable. Well, sure it was to her, but did she ever report to the police and have him arrested? If she was unsafe to do so, what about neighbors who may have heard the beatings happening, or friends or family who may have seen evidence on her or heard from her that he beat her? As a neighbor, I WILL call police if I hear violence happening. The couple may tell me to mind my own business, and guess what? When I can hear or see it, it IS my business. There’s a culture of not getting involved in the US, it’s part of the dark underbelly that doesn’t get talked about much.
There are a lot of what if’s and unanswered questions. But I would think this guy’s legal means to possess weapons and have a state security guard license, would have been revoked if he had the arrests he should have had, on record. Not that those things would have prevented illegal possession of same firearms. Like the gun problem in Chicago - yeah, banning guns here did fuck-all. They’re legal now, but the criminal possessors still outnumber the legal ones by a large percentage.
As I said in another thread, that’s because I’m skeptical that that organization (okay, that was deliberate this time) was materially involved in either the planning or execution of this attack, except maybe for a little extra inspiration in the shooter’s mind.
You’re mostly right, but apparently he was in communication with them and they would have given him advice. That advice was quite successful given the results. A record setting murder spree.
they had enough of a hand in it to officially take responsibility, and the government is regarding it as a terrorist attack, not merely a lone wolf.
There was also a probable foiled attack on gays in LA by another heavily armed man. Which means ISIS could even have set the date for these two.
But my question is, considering that, IIRC, they said nothing until the shooter’s SELF PROCLAIMED loyalty to ISIS became known, why do they have to have a hand in it to claim any responsibility at all?
I appreciate you both giving a thoughtful reply and I understand where each of you are coming from. But really, I don’t think it’s too far out of the bounds of courtesy to assume a thread for news be bereft of politicalism of whatever stripe. No one is preventing the discussion. No one is stopping it from going on simultaneously with what’s happening. No, one hopes it just doesn’t have to take over here.
And my point that we’re not solving the world’s problems by yammering on about this wasn’t to stifle debate. Instead it was to encourage a little respect for the tragedy and the people it has effected. Especially since there’s nothing stopping anyone from pitting the possible reasons (Muslim! Anti-gay! Fundamentalists! Trump! Obama!) why this nutjob did this. Or conversely, starting a thread in IMHO about theories or one in GD to come up with solutions. I mean, even a moderator has stepped in repeatedly to try to get everyone to simply stick to the facts. Far as I can tell, all the rhetoric bandying here and fro is just speculation, so there’s that.
Lastly, I’m not really sure with the points people are attempting to score how that translates to them feeling under siege. As a matter of fact, I think we’ve only had one gay poster chime in and that wasn’t with accusations, but with praise for the police and how they handled the matter. If our LGBT brethren aren’t decrying the hatred-du-jour out of fear (as would they have every right to), why is everyone else?
It’s possible they didn’t have anything useful to do with the attack. We won’t know for awhile. But he was investigated for talking to some pretty bad people. A man doesn’t drive over 100 miles to select a target. Plenty of places to hit in Fort Pierce.
It’s actually worse if he wasn’t talking to ISIS, but rather, to radical Muslims not connected with ISIS. Then we actually do have to say “radical Islam” to describe what happened.
That’s what I meant by “became known.” Granted, there may not have been actual meaningful time between the attack and the 911 call contents being made public, but that was my intent with that phrasing.
