50 dead at Orlando club shooting.

[mustafur]

Now don't dismiss it out of hand just yet. The punishment for homosexuality across all schools of Islam is indeed death.

 

[Michael88]

Stupid people doing stupid things out of stupid reasons. I see, the world hasn't changed-

 

[McLaren]

Also, I am Muslim. I am Sunni. So from my perspective where does this attack fit into my ideals? Answer? It does not. So Islam has a stance that homosexuality is a sin. Well so does pretty much every other religion.

It doesn't fit your ideals just as it doesn't fit the ideals of most Muslims. But, you can't ignore that several Muslim countries have people in power who do support the idea that homosexuality is punishable by death, & carry out those punishments. The videos that get leaked online of gays being tossed from roof tops & whatever else unfortunately helps fuel those who see this attack as a man who condemns them due to his religion and took extreme measures. And retaliate by calling for all Muslims' to be held accountable. The media reporting stuff such as him being disgusted when his 3 year old son watched 2 men kiss doesn't help.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

When you kill 50 people, you're a terrorist. Period. No matter what your motive is.

Tell that to Donald Trump - he's assigning a very specific motive for a political purpose without any evidence to support it. Even if he is ultimately proven right, it's still a very dangerous precedent to be setting. You're granting Trump an extraordinary amount of latitude, which I find rather odd, given that you have been highly critical of Erdogan when he has done exactly the same thing with the Ergenekon group.

 

[Winters Noble]

The facts are out there making headlines on a daily basis (if you are willing to see them that is).

I don't think it's proper to judge based on frequency of headlines. The news are not much different than a sales pitch, taking advantage of sentiments for profit. There are probably just as many that paint Islam in a good light. However, in this juncture in time, the "Islamic Terrorist" bandwagon is what sells.

 

[mister dog]

I don't think it's proper to judge based on frequency of headlines. The news are not much different than a sales pitch, taking advantage of sentiments for profit. There are probably just as many that paint Islam in a good light. However, in this juncture in time, the "Islamic Terrorist" bandwagon is what sells.

Seems like quite the global trend to me. It's also hard for Western Media to not make a headline out of it when people are shot en masse or blown to bits inside their own countries.

 

[ECGadget]

It doesn't fit your ideals just as it doesn't fit the ideals of most Muslims. But, you can't ignore that several Muslim countries have people in power who do support the idea that homosexuality is punishable by death, & carry out those punishments. The videos that get leaked online of gays being tossed from roof tops & whatever else unfortunately helps fuel those who see this attack as a man who condemns them due to his religion and took extreme measures. And retaliate by calling for all Muslims' to be held accountable. The media reporting stuff such as him being disgusted when his 3 year old son watched 2 men kiss doesn't help.

You are quite right, of course. I'm not here to really talk about those laws and stuff, as I do not know how they are applied in Muslim counties and what not. But I am here to safely say that the way these things happen is not how this should be happening. Not one bit. Not by Muslims. Not to Muslims. Not to anybody, whether they are Black, or gay, or whatever. We need to work together in the countries we are to get to an understanding of peace and love, regardless of who we are.

 

[Sanji Himura]

View attachment 557681

Thank you. I was looking for something in the Quran, but I couldn't find it in the only Jihad related news site that I trust, only the references that I found.

 

[CodeRedR51]

But then, there's no practical reason for anyone to own a Ferrari now is there? Thus, just because there isn't a practical reason to own it doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Are you kidding right now?

 

[GTboyz]

Thoughts and prayers goes to the victim's family.

What an 🤬.

Should have tortured that guy to death instead of killing him right off.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Should have tortured that guy to death instead of killing him right off.

Well, that's a disgusting thing to say. He might have done something heinous, but that doesn't give society the right to lower itself to his level.

 

[ToyGTone]

Ugh ... If they believe in something that such particular act done by any person is a sin and should be punished (Talking about acts that doesn't harm any others of course) ,then just leaved it up between the person and god. It's not up to you to judge everything in life unless in cases where you really have to.

And of course since this is about some Islamic Terrorist Group ending life's of plenty Homosexuals, everyone over here started arguing to each other over the social media about who's right and wrong.

This year sucked so far, plenty of people had died from various reasons. I hope it get's any better for this point on but it's unlikely.

 

[CarBastard]

My wankel-powered God in the heavens above...that's just insane. Utter insanity. Worst thing is that I can picture some hillbilly going "Yeee cuz! I hate 'em towel-heads bu' gays are much worse, amiright?", things in the social environment can only get worse with things like this. I'm seriously apalled thinking that in this day and age homosexuality isn't tolerated. The dullest homophobe should realize homosexuality benefits him: it's less competition!

On a serious note: We all need to think of a response to terrorism different than the traditional one because that's just fueling the fire. A war on terror will just give more reasons to the "terrorists" to keep doing what they're doing, it justifies them in their own eyes and those of the people surrounding them that see more and more reasons to irrationally hate on the entire western world.

Well, that's a disgusting thing to say. He might have done something heinous, but that doesn't give society the right to lower itself to his level.

"Will we responde to evil with a greater evil and call it justice?", said a better man than us that went my the name of Khalil Gibran.

 

[Snaeper]

Are you kidding right now?

Elaborate

 

[McLaren]

On a serious note: We all need to think of a response to terrorism different than the traditional one because that's just fueling the fire. A war on terror will just give more reasons to the "terrorists" to keep doing what they're doing, it justifies them in their own eyes and those of the people surrounding them that see more and more reasons to irrationally hate on the entire western world.

And what do you propose? Talking won't work. You can't reason with a group of people who are willing to kill themselves as the first option in order to kill you in return. I don't think leaving them alone & going, "Alright, we're leaving and never coming back" is going to work either after the last 15 years.

Obama has said it himself, "The brutality of terrorists in Syria and Iraq forces us to look into the heart of darkness … the only language understood by killers like this is the language of force". I believe there is also an old saying from someone of the Asian descent who bluntly said the only thing these kind of groups understand is violence & that's the only way to stop them.

Arguing to be a bigger man or taking the moral high ground doesn't mean squat if your opposer would have you dead just the same.

 

[CarBastard]

Elaborate

A Ferrari's raison d'etre, though impractical, isn't deadly by logical necessity. Can a Ferrari kill? Well, yes, in the same sense an overly-sharp pencil can kill but it wasn't made for killing. An assault's rifle only reason to exist is being a device to kill others faster and more efficiently than other devices. Ok, let's skip the whole "A man's right to own a gun" thing, surely we can agree that most people have no need for a device that kills much more and much better than your regular killing device and that the only possible consequence of such ownership is excess?

 

[Snaeper]

A Ferrari's raison d'etre, though impractical, isn't deadly by logical necessity. Can a Ferrari kill? Well, yes, in the same sense an overly-sharp pencil can kill but it wasn't made for killing.

Please understand that I wasnt comparing the lethality of a Ferrari to an AR-15.

GTPorsche had stated that there was no practical reason to own an AR-15 when you can use a handgun to defend yourself, and a shotgun or rifle for recreational and hunting purposes.

In that regard when purchasing a car, a compact sedan, pickup Truck and van are the only practical vehicles that anyone should consider purchasing, especially since faster cars are often driven at illegal speeds and could pose greater risk to their drivers and others, especially since the limits of a car like Ferrari are not legally under those of road laws.

But people buy AR-15s for the same reason others buy Ferrari's. Because they look cool and represent the pinnacle of what is capable in its category. Even if they have little practical useage.

And just like most Ferrari owners, AR-15 owners dont exercise the design of their instrument to its fullest limits.

Is there any practical reason to own an AR-15? No. Does that mean it should be illegal? Absolutely not.

Thus: Is there any practical reason to own a Ferrari? No. Does that mean it should be illegal? Absolutely not.

An assault's rifle only reason to exist is being a device to kill others faster and more efficiently than other devices. Ok, let's skip the whole "A man's right to own a gun" thing, surely we can agree that most people have no need for a device that kills much more and much better than your regular killing device and that the only possible consequence of such ownership is excess?

Relating back to my first response to this thread, an Assault Rifle, by technical definition, is banned from private ownership in this country. Assault Rifle's key feature is the ability to select burst or fully automatic fire. AR-15's do not feature this and are Semi-Auto, similar to some shotguns, all magazine-fed handguns and many other rifles.

The particular gun is hated simply because it looks like the M4/M16. In actuality, the AR-15 isn't just one gun but a very wide range of weapons that can fire a wide range of ammunition (not all at once, mind you) at a variety of effective distances depending on bullet type and charge. Let me make something to give you an idea on what people wade into when they call for banning the AR-15 and why gun owners get so adamant about not doing that.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Elaborate

.....

A Ferrari's raison d'etre, though impractical, isn't deadly by logical necessity.

This pretty much, which makes it a bad example.

 

[Snaeper]

.....

This pretty much, which makes it a bad example.

A Ferrari is not a practical car to own. The closest thing to a practical Ferrari is the FF and even that does a job that is better served by a station wagon or SUV.

Please tell me how a Ferrari is a practical vehicle.

 

[GTPorsche]

In that regard when purchasing a car, a compact sedan, pickup Truck and van are the only practical vehicles that anyone should consider purchasing, especially since faster cars are often driven at illegal speeds and could pose greater risk to their drivers and others, especially since the limits of a car like Ferrari are not legally under those of road laws.

You're taking your initial bad example and making it even worse. The limits of every single car on the road exceed those same road laws.

By that logic, we'd all still be walking.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Please tell me how a Ferrari is a practical vehicle.

I'm not. But what I am saying is exactly what @CarBastard said: A Ferrari isn't a weapon designed to kill people in large numbers.

 

[CarBastard]

Please understand that I wasnt comparing the lethality of a Ferrari to an AR-15.

GTPorsche had stated that there was no practical reason to own an AR-15 when you can use a handgun to defend yourself, and a shotgun or rifle for recreational and hunting purposes.

In that regard when purchasing a car, a compact sedan, pickup Truck and van are the only practical vehicles that anyone should consider purchasing, especially since faster cars are often driven at illegal speeds and could pose greater risk to their drivers and others, especially since the limits of a car like Ferrari are not legally under those of road laws.

But people buy AR-15s for the same reason others buy Ferrari's. Because they look cool and represent the pinnacle of what is capable in its category. Even if they have little practical useage.

And just like most Ferrari owners, AR-15 owners dont exercise the design of their instrument to its fullest limits.

Is there any practical reason to own an AR-15? No. Does that mean it should be illegal? Absolutely not.

Thus: Is there any practical reason to own a Ferrari? No. Does that mean it should be illegal? Absolutely not.


Relating back to my first response to this thread, an Assault Rifle, by technical definition, is banned from private ownership in this country. Assault Rifle's key feature is the ability to select burst or fully automatic fire. AR-15's do not feature this and are Semi-Auto, similar to some shotguns, all magazine-fed handguns and many other rifles.

The particular gun is hated simply because it looks like the M4/M16. In actuality, the AR-15 isn't just one gun but a very wide range of weapons that can fire a wide range of ammunition (not all at once, mind you) at a variety of effective distances depending on bullet type and charge. Let me make something to give you an idea on what people wade into when they call for banning the AR-15 and why gun owners get so adamant about not doing that.

You're missing the point.

Again. There's no harm in allowing the public to operate an impractical and exaggerate mean of transport, because it's a device meant for transport that accidentally can be deadly (much like anything can be accidentally deadly). There IS harm in allowing the public to operate an impractical and exaggerate mean of killing, because it's a device meant for killing that can only accidentally do something other than killing. See the difference?

Something shouldn't be illegal just because it's impractical, agree with you there. But something that is impractical AND designed exclusively for killing? That should categorically be illegal.

And what do you propose? Talking won't work. You can't reason with a group of people who are willing to kill themselves as the first option in order to kill you in return. I don't think leaving them alone & going, "Alright, we're leaving and never coming back" is going to work either after the last 15 years.

Obama has said it himself, "The brutality of terrorists in Syria and Iraq forces us to look into the heart of darkness … the only language understood by killers like this is the language of force". I believe there is also an old saying from someone of the Asian descent who bluntly said the only thing these kind of groups understand is violence & that's the only way to stop them.

Arguing to be a bigger man or taking the moral high ground doesn't mean squat if your opposer would have you dead just the same.

Well, if I knew I wouldn't be posting here and would rather be ringing the Nobel Prize comittee, wouldn't I? But to give you something that's remotely similar to an answer I want you to consider the following example: the civil war that's been raging for over a century in my country.

The language of force that 🤬 oaf named Obama proposes has worked for absolutely nothing here, it has only aggravated things between the military, landlords, druglords, comunist guerillas and paramilitary corps. The landlords pay paramilitary forces to deal with any opposition to mantain social inequity in this rural nation, then guerillas respond in the same language of force and revolt killing a landlord, then the military comes to answer in the same language of force in response to the death of the landlord (who coincidentially is a member of the ruling goverment who has passed laws to keep his economic power) and it all becomes a stupid cycle of violence and revenge. Well done there, Mr. Obama. What could work here? What could possibly be a mean of communication besides the logic of violence? Well, that's our challenge right now. Some people propose a historical approach and remind us where the problem came from, a very unfair and unequal feudal state in this exact scenario. They say that giving the people in the countryside actual development opportunities instead of leaving them in the misery would give them reasons not to join either left-wing or right-wing illegal belligerant forces. Would it work for sure? I have no idea. Is it a better idea than what we've been doing so far? 🤬 yes.

 

[-Cheezman-]

So, banning guns bans terrorism?

Last time I checked, the worst terrorist attack on American soil involved box cutters and airplanes.

It's sad what has happened. But, it's going to continue to happen, and no amount of laws have prevented, or will prevent it here, or anywhere on this planet from happening again.

When people stop choosing to kill others over literal interpretations of their chosen fairy tales and stop waging war over who's imaginary best friend is better; then we'll see some peace.

 

[CodeRedR51]

It's sad what has happened. But, it's going to continue to happen, and no amount of laws have prevented, or will prevent it here, or anywhere on this planet from happening again.

Pretty much. This is the world we live in now and nothing will change it...

When people stop choosing to kill others over literal interpretations of their chosen fairy tales and stop waging war over who's imaginary best friend is better; then we'll see some peace.

...except for this. Which we all know will not happen in our lifetimes.

 

[CarBastard]

So, banning guns bans terrorism?

Last time I checked, the worst terrorist attack on American soil involved box cutters and airplanes.

It's sad what has happened. But, it's going to continue to happen, and no amount of laws have prevented, or will prevent it here, or anywhere on this planet from happening again.

When people stop choosing to kill others over literal interpretations of their chosen fairy tales and stop waging war over who's imaginary best friend is better; then we'll see some peace.

Yes, but until that happens it helps if we keep those lunatics who keep fighting over imaginary friends away from devices invented to efficiently kill others. Think about it, the frequent shootings at campuses all over the US, were they organized by ISIS or Osama Bin Laden? Or, rather, they were odd circumstances in which a deranged, untreated psycopath was able to get a gun while going for bread in the morning and suddently felt a shooting was a good idea?

 

[Obelisk]

Yes, but until that happens it helps if we keep those lunatics who keep fighting over imaginary friends away from devices invented to efficiently kill others. Think about it, the frequent shootings at campuses all over the US, were they organized by ISIS or Osama Bin Laden? Or, rather, they were odd circumstances in which a deranged, untreated psycopath was able to get a gun while going for bread in the morning and suddently felt a shooting was a good idea?

Here's the thing I want to point out that everyone misses regarding gun control.

The laws that govern how firearms are acquired or obtained only have an effect on those who abide by said laws. Criminals will have their own shady methods for getting weapons.

 

[CodeRedR51]

The laws that govern how firearms are acquired or obtained only have an effect on those who abide by said laws. Criminals will have their own shady methods for getting weapons.

Except this guy wasn't a criminal.

 

[McLaren]

Well, if I knew I wouldn't be posting here and would rather be ringing the Nobel Prize comittee, wouldn't I? But to give you something that's remotely similar to an answer I want you to consider the following example: the civil war that's been raging for over a century in my country.

The language of force that 🤬 oaf named Obama proposes has worked for absolutely nothing here, it has only aggravated things between the military, landlords, druglords, comunist guerillas and paramilitary corps. The landlords pay paramilitary forces to deal with any opposition to mantain social inequity in this rural nation, then guerillas respond in the same language of force and revolt killing a landlord, then the military comes to answer in the same language of force in response to the death of the landlord (who coincidentially is a member of the ruling goverment who has passed laws to keep his economic power) and it all becomes a stupid cycle of violence and revenge. Well done there, Mr. Obama. What could work here? What could possibly be a mean of communication besides the logic of violence? Well, that's our challenge right now. Some people propose a historical approach and remind us where the problem came from, a very unfair and unequal feudal state in this exact scenario. They say that giving the people in the countryside actual development opportunities instead of leaving them in the misery would give them reasons not to join either left-wing or right-wing illegal belligerant forces. Would it work for sure? I have no idea. Is it a better idea than what we've been doing so far? 🤬 yes.

Missing an important issue.

Terrorists are willing to kill themselves. There is no cycle there except terrorist leaders sending its followers to a willing death. Terrorists do not give 1 ounce of care for getting opportunities from us. They do not want what we have. The people in your country can reasoned with because they do not kill each other out of pure hate; there's agendas to fulfill to protect their own interests, you've said so your self in your 2nd sentence.

Yes, but until that happens it helps if we keep those lunatics who keep fighting over imaginary friends away from devices invented to efficiently kill others. Think about it, the frequent shootings at campuses all over the US, were they organized by ISIS or Osama Bin Laden? Or, rather, they were odd circumstances in which a deranged, untreated psycopath was able to get a gun while going for bread in the morning and suddently felt a shooting was a good idea?

People can not just walk willy nilly into a store, and say, "You know what? I'll take a gun as well" when asked, "Is that all for you today" at the checkout. The gun laws are not that lenient.

 

[CarBastard]

Here's the thing I want to point out that everyone misses regarding gun control.

The laws that govern how firearms are acquired or obtained only have an effect on those who abide by said laws. Criminals will have their own shady methods for getting weapons.

*sighs*

Your average mobster/cartel gunman/religious fundamentalist on a holy war will always be able to get a gun, regardless of legislation. Nobody misses that. BUT, your average psychiatric patient that just wants to shoot the people who bully him in college or the local gay club wouldn't because he woulnd't be able to get through the shady world that deals with guns in illegal countries.

 

[mustafur]

To be fair from what I have read the shooter got his gun legally and had a permit for concealed carry.