Attack on gay nightclub in Orlando leaves 50 dead.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Hate murder is aggravated murder, which carries a sentence of death. An assault that is a hate crime is aggravated assault, et cetera. If a crime is motivated primarily by prejudice or bias against a particular orientation, ethnicity, race, or gender, then it is a hate crime. On the other hand, the biblical definition of hate is to wish death upon, so murder is the fulfillment of hate.

@eclipse: tolerance and progress do not equate to safety. I would feel more safe 50 years ago because "the bad guys" were off in a frozen wasteland playing chicken with DC. Now they could be your neighbor on a bad day. I have no explanation, although it certainly isn't a coincidence that the world isn't black and white anymore.

on the subject of tolerance and progress, its very hard to show these traits to people that are not only the opposite of it, but would kill you because they disagree with you.

think about it like that, do you have to in live in fear of your live because of your sexuality? if not then you have no idea what me and other fellow LGBT's are feeling right now because of this attack.

how am i suppose to know who i can trust about opening up to if the conquence for talking to the "minority" of this culture is a decapitation or a shooting or a stoning, because i like men and women.

i'd honestly rather stay holed up in my house only coming out for shopping and working out and avoiding anyone that i think might want to kill me, i know its paranoia, but i think i have some basis for this.

Edited June 14, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Tryhard]

I'm biased toward treating it with more weight because I'm an Orlando resident who is also a member of the LGBTQ community... so it affects me more than the average person.

Understandable. I hope the community there can recover as quickly as possible.

[Moblin Major General]

on the subject of tolerance and progress, its very hard to show these traits to people that are not only the opposite of it, but would kill you because they disagree with you.

think about it like that, do you have to in live in fear of your live because of your sexuality? if not then you have no idea what me and other fellow LGBT's are feeling right now because of this attack.

how am i suppose to know who i can trust about opening up to if the conquence for talking to the "minority" of this culture is a decapitation or a shooting or a stoning, because i like men and women.

i'd honestly rather stay holed up in my house only coming out for shopping and working out and avoiding anyone that i think might want to kill me, i know its paranoia, but i think i have some basis for this.

People like me used to rot in prisons and sanitaria just for being born. In some places, they still are, and even where they aren't, people are quick to blame them when one is pushed too far. I don't excuse violent autistic people, but when you have no ability to even speak, you physically cannot voice your opinions, meaning that under most circumstances, they cannot defend themselves from suspicion or hate. The worst part is, most prejudice against the disabled starts in the home, much like homosexuality, but much earlier in life, early enough that it's, to them at least, fact. Worse still, they could be more easily and more harshly abused, and nobody would know, nor could they physically get away. For every person killed for their sexuality, how many more have been killed for their disability? Note that it was not the Jews or LGBTs that Hitler killed first: it was the disabled and the invalids.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

i'd honestly rather stay holed up in my house only coming out for shopping and working out and avoiding anyone that i think might want to kill me, i know its paranoia, but i think i have some basis for this.

Trust me, if you do that, then you let the homophobes win.

There have been oppressors to us since we existed from all angles of life, and they aren't going to stop. Showing that you're not afraid sends a message that things like this won't stop you from being who you are.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

People like me used to rot in prisons and sanitaria just for being born. In some places, they still are, and even where they aren't, people are quick to blame them when one is pushed too far. I don't excuse violent autistic people, but when you have no ability to even speak, you physically cannot voice your opinions, meaning that under most circumstances, they cannot defend themselves from suspicion or hate. The worst part is, most prejudice against the disabled starts in the home, much like homosexuality, but much earlier in life, early enough that it's, to them at least, fact. Worse still, they could be more easily and more harshly abused, and nobody would know, nor could they physically get away. For every person killed for their sexuality, how many more have been killed for their disability? Note that it was not the Jews or LGBTs that Hitler killed first: it was the disabled and the invalids.

i wanna make clear that wasn't entirely directed towards you, infact i agree with what you say.

i'm kinda scared for my life and further terrified that people are looking at this and going " your fine, these people don't wanna harm you, it was just that one person i swear, its a minority i swear"

just, do people care more about murderers then the victims?.do people care more about that guns were used in the attack rather then the ideals behind the attack?

how many people have to be thrown under the bus to avoid the underlying issue? its scary, man.

Trust me, if you do that, then you let the homophobes win.

There have been oppressors to us since we existed from all angles of life, and they aren't going to stop. Showing that you're not afraid sends a message that things like this won't stop you from being who you are.

oh man your a brave guy, i respect you dude.

honestly i'll try to regather my courage about this, but for now i think it'll take afew days to fully relax and live my normal life.

Edited June 14, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Water Mage]

What he did was evil and it affects me a deeply personal level, but it would have been just as bad if he had targeted Disney world.

If he had targeted Disney World, it might actually even bother me more. Attacking the night club is targeting a trait I attribute to myself, while if he had targeted Disney World, I might see it more as a potential attack on my children. After reflecting, the latter bothers me more, but I think the fact that he senselessly killed 50 people is deplorable no matter what, and should be treated equally in the hypothetical court of law.

Rather interesting that you used Disney as an example, because apparently there is evidence that Omar, the shooter, was also targeting Disney World, and the police is currently investigating the shooter's computer for further proof. Edited June 14, 2016 by Water Mage

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Rather interesting that you used Disney as an example, because apparently there is evidence that Omar, the shooter, was also targeting Disney World, and the police is currently investigating the shooter's computer for further proof.

I won't trust that source until I hear more about it, as PEOPLE is not a reliable news source, and some of the facts are not adding up.

[Water Mage]

I won't trust that source until I hear more about it, as PEOPLE is not a reliable news source, and some of the facts are not adding up.

Oh, I agree that it's not a reliable source, but it's a frightening possibility.

Especially considering that Downtown Disney's security is rather lax compared to the main parks.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Oh, I agree that it's not a reliable source, but it's a frightening possibility.

Especially considering that Downtown Disney's security is rather lax compared to the main parks.

I'm not trying to get too off-topic here, but I do believe that Disney could afford to have some more security measures: while the measures currently in place are working and I do feel safe whenever I go to work or into the parks to play, I think it wouldn't hurt to have extra measures; I work for Universal as well, and every guest goes through metal detectors there. I don't see the harm in Disney also doing the same.

[Naughx]

ISIS attacking people in their 20s who are having fun. (Bataclan, Pulse...)

I guess that's because they don't expect to get killed... So that makes an easy target. (Also that millenials are more likely to champion equal rights)

Edited June 14, 2016 by Naughx

[Water Mage]

I'm not trying to get too off-topic here, but I do believe that Disney could afford to have some more security measures: while the measures currently in place are working and I do feel safe whenever I go to work or into the parks to play, I think it wouldn't hurt to have extra measures; I work for Universal as well, and every guest goes through metal detectors there. I don't see the harm in Disney also doing the same.

I also apologize for going off-topic, doesn't Disney Parks choose people at random to go through the metal detector?

That strikes me as unsafe and even silly.

Like they're making a gamble.

Which they actually are, when you think about.

[eclipse]

@eclipse: tolerance and progress do not equate to safety. I would feel more safe 50 years ago because "the bad guys" were off in a frozen wasteland playing chicken with DC. Now they could be your neighbor on a bad day. I have no explanation, although it certainly isn't a coincidence that the world isn't black and white anymore.

I'd feel less safe 50 years ago because I'd be a target due to my gender and race.

oh man your a brave guy, i respect you dude.

honestly i'll try to regather my courage about this, but for now i think it'll take afew days to fully relax and live my normal life.

The only time I'll care about which way you swing is if you're flirting with me, or I'm interested in you (right now, neither of these apply). Otherwise, it's none of my business. If you really, REALLY need to talk about stuff, feel free to PM me.

That goes for anyone else who's reading this. I may not respond immediately, though.

---

The Disney World stuff is pertinent to the topic, since it relates to the shooter's motives. . .so feel free to discuss that, as long as it's in that context!

[Tryhard]

ISIS attacking people in their 20s who are having fun. (Bataclan, Pulse...)

I'm not sure it's correct to label him ISIS right now. One, because we have no confirmation yet that he was/wasn't just acting of his own accord. The FBI had investigated him on two prior occasions but did not take action, if he was active in ISIS rhetoric you don't think they would investigate further? Two, ISIS took responsibility for it but it's not like they wouldn't, it only serves to further their goals. Three, he apparently only phoned moments before the shooting and so it probably only serves as an evil person that is doing what they can to justify their actions at the very end, not that they necessarily been part of a terrorist group that may not even know who he is.

Edit:

In this case, given the homophobia and wife-beating, I suspect he might've been conflicted about his own sexuality.

Probably right:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html

Edited June 14, 2016 by Tryhard

[Magical CC]

Religion can get pretty homophobic too at times, actually i'm not sure there's too many religions where gay's are liked or tolerated.

Back then, when Islam was cool, young boy prostitution was a thing. Many sultans had their young boy harem.

You DO realize that Daesh's main target. . .is other Muslims, right?

I am pretty sure the targets of the two cases in France and one case in Belgium are not Muslims.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Magical CC

[Time the Crestfallen]

Probably right:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html

That would explain a lot. If it turns out that his motivations were (at least partially) motivated by religion, than I can see his own homosexuality (if he actually is) playing a major part in his decision to attack the nightclub.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Phillius

[Moblin Major General]

Back then, when Islam was cool, young boy prostitution was a thing. Many sultans had their young boy harem.

That's the hypocrisy of religion sometimes, even mine. The more a religion calls something taboo, the more it is done behind closed doors.

I am pretty sure the targets of the two cases in France and one case in Belgium are not Muslims.

ISIL has a much higher kill count when it comes to Yazidis, Kurds, and Shia, and even other Sunnis. They aren't "Islamic" terrorists, they are a syndicate, one with a goal not unlike that of Cerberus.

[Duff Ostrich]

Right, so I've got some harsh words, and I'm not sure how they would be received.

America is a country full of cowards, for as much of their boasting of 'home of the brave'. Not cowards that would run from gunfire mind you, no, I'm sure all of us would. Intellectual cowards.

People act as though it somehow has to do with your political views, as if people dying should be discarded to talk about the real issue - how those 'libtards' or 'nutjobs' are just ruining everything. Why their views are superior, followed by sneers or jabs after every possible event that may undermine what a person thinks. How they might put forward their political views about banning Muslims, a totally illogical and unenforcable course of action, despite that the father said that the attack had nothing to do with religion for what his word is worth. Not that it should even matter.

I'm going to break and say that while this event makes me feel horrible, I also feel an anger because of how the average American person reacts.

Normally, I expect these things. But I have to admit, the way people react in regards to blaming Muslims, that steams me. Terrorists (and we can argue on whether this is or is not terrorism, irrelevant, though it is without a doubt a hate crime) thrive on their ability to get you to fear them, and yet you will generalise a fear for all of a supposed freedom of religion in your country? Eh, the First Ammendment isn't important anyway, it already takes enough of a hit because people just don't care. The way people yell out that guns should have heavier restrictions (which they should), "trying to take our guns", over and over again every time this happens, NRA rushing to justify it even though they know they have people in their back pocket because they crave protections, scared and paranoid, and they're going to sell it to them, nothing ever changes and innocent people die in the name of people's supposed liberty. How the average person would rather pay slightly less taxes over actually putting forth their money to help people in their times of need. Such a humane country, feels like one without a shortage of psychopaths to me.

My heart goes out to both those affected by the attack and those trapped in America's systems who are powerless. Just a very sad day.

This post deserves to be mercilessly dissected, but I'll stick to a couple brief paragraphs.

On the one hand you call Americans "intellectual cowards" for using this event as a platform to discuss politics when you go right on to do the exact same thing. Self aware much, or is the name "Tryhard" meant to be descriptive? The reality is that most Americans, quite unlike yourself, have not made this political. Those that do however have a variety of motivations. Some agree with you; that the perennial religion of peace is not at all relevant to this discussion, and indeed would rather legislate against the evils of inanimate objects that use the principles of combustion to fire metal projectiles.

There are others, like myself, that believe knee jerk policymaking is unwise, as it always seems to manifest as an assault on our most precious liberties. It is not cowardice to argue against this, and some of the bravest men and women that have ever lived have fought in service of the ideas that inform the laws of this great nation. They fight so that I don't have to, but I will not apologize for doing what little I can as an American citizen to oppose the dogmas of tyranny in whatever form they take. Be it Sharia or Socialism; an attack on the first amendment or the second, it's all the same to me. It has no place in these United States.

[Tryhard]

On the one hand you call Americans "intellectual cowards" for using this event as a platform to discuss politics when you go right on to do the exact same thing. Self aware much, or is the name "Tryhard" meant to be descriptive? The reality is that most Americans, quite unlike yourself, have not made this political. Those that do however have a variety of motivations. Some agree with you; that the perennial religion of peace is not at all relevant to this discussion, and indeed would rather legislate against the evils of inanimate objects that use the principles of combustion to fire metal projectiles.

There are others, like myself, that believe knee jerk policymaking is unwise, as it always seems to manifest as an assault on our most precious liberties. It is not cowardice to argue against this, and some of the bravest men and women that have ever lived have fought in service of the ideas that inform the laws of this great nation. They fight so that I don't have to, but I will not apologize for doing what little I can as an American citizen to oppose the dogmas of tyranny in whatever form they take. Be it Sharia or Socialism; an attack on the first amendment or the second, it's all the same to me. It has no place in these United States.

The mass amount of people that I've seen talking about it on forums and places on the internet disagree. Maybe some do agree with me, the religion is irrelevant. But considering what I've seen is a scary number of people willing to whip themselves into a frantic rabble, I would say my statements were quite suitable.

I didn't say anything about Sharia. I said about people that are wanting to outlaw Muslims, which definitely falls into the category of knee jerk policymaking and one that goes against the First Ammendment of freedom of religion, which I have seen many Americans endorse since this shooting and before it. As for your Second Ammendment, yes, your country was built on the principle that a well-regulated militia should have the right to bear arms, not an arms race free-for-all where everyone, mental health permitting or not, can acquire firearms with no formal checks and with no courtesies of this being strange. Well-regulated, indeed. But this isn't about me trying to say that regulation is smart, is it? This is about you trying to cling onto your guns in desperate anguish, projecting it to be Socialism that is your enemy.

I also wasn't going to argue so I was just leaving that post as that was it.

And apologies. I forgot I did actually say this. Edited June 14, 2016 by Tryhard

[solrocknroll]

Yeah, guns are definitely the real enemy here. When the same gun killed people in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and now Orlando and also so many other places, the guns are the real problem.

It's also disgusting that gun stocks and sales rose after this tragedy to me.

[Moblin Major General]

Yeah, guns are definitely the real enemy here. When the same gun killed people in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and now Orlando and also so many other places, the guns are the real problem.

It's also disgusting that gun stocks and sales rose after this tragedy to me.

...No.

It's not disgusting. It seems as though the gay community is considering personal defense as well as home defense in the wake of Pulse, which is surprising given the usual leanings of LGBT people. Gun manufacturers are aiming towards 3 particular groups, all of which depend on them: security and policing forces, armed forces, and defense contractors. Any one of these 3 can sell their surplus, which can easily make their way in to the hands of their enemies, both by legal or illegal means. The Russian Mafia was a thing in the Soviet Union, after all. Gun control has also led to increases in knife-related crimes, and knives can't be banned because that would absolutely butcher (pun not intended) the meatpacking and butchery industries.

[Duff Ostrich]

Yeah, guns are definitely the real enemy here. When the same gun killed people in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and now Orlando and also so many other places, the guns are the real problem.

It's also disgusting that gun stocks and sales rose after this tragedy to me.

When the same religion is held by people that committed the atrocities in Fort Hood, San Bernadino, Paris, Brussels, New York, the streets of innumerable Muslim majority countries and now Orlando, it suggests to me that attempts to talk about guns are a pointless smokescreen to avoid the uncomfortable truth.

Invoking a correlation is not an argument in and of itself.

I didn't say anything about Sharia. I said about people that are wanting to outlaw Muslims, which definitely falls into the category of knee jerk policymaking and one that goes against the First Ammendment of freedom of religion, which I have seen many Americans endorse since this shooting and before it. As for your Second Ammendment, yes, your country was built on the principle that a well-regulated militia should have the right to bear arms, not an arms race free-for-all where everyone, mental health permitting or not, can acquire firearms with no formal checks and with no courtesies of this being strange. Well-regulated, indeed. But this isn't about me trying to say that regulation is smart, is it? This is about you trying to cling onto your guns in desperate anguish, projecting it to be Socialism that is your enemy.

No one wants to "outlaw Muslims". How do you outlaw a person? The discussion, at least as offered by Donald Trump and his supporters, is to restrict Muslim immigration. I personally don't think that would accomplish much, but nevertheless discriminatory immigration policies are not strictly unconstitutional or even necessarily unethical. We undoubtedly already have fairly strict limits on who we accept and how many we accept from various regions. This is in fact why I think Trump's proposal is meaningless.

The second amendment is written in plain English that anyone can understand. "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.". I'll repeat the important part: "...the right of the people... shall not be infringed.". Militias don't have rights; that's stupid. And governments do not grant rights. We are endowed with these rights by our creator, or (if you prefer) by nature.

If you continue to insist on improperly interpreting the text, perhaps you'll put more stock in the analysis of an expert on the English language. Here are a few excerpts:

"Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

"The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

"Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

"No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

"If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

"To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Isn't it interesting that the text insists that the right is not only to "bear" arms but also to "keep" them as well? Where are these civilian militiamen keeping their arms? At home, and on their person, and presumably wherever else they feel is necessary. These firearms are not the property of the state, but of the people that are bearing them in defense of themselves, their communities, and of their country. The founders certainly would not have created a document called the Bill of Rights with the intent of enumerating the various ways state power was going to be centralized. That's precisely the sort of thing they were trying to avoid!

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

I feel like anyone thats trying to make this look like a gun problem is being very disrespectful to the people that died not because guns grew arms and legs and went on a shooting spree, but because one man couldn't tolerate people different from him and decided to murder.

humans have been killing each other since the dawn of time with sticks and stones, banning one way to kill people isn't going to stop murders from happening.

also more people die from car accidents then shootings every year, we should clearly get rid of cars if they are a bigger danger then guns, right?

or how about 9/11, where terrorist attack were carried out with planes, should we ban all planes because bad people used them to kill people?

how much a man beats another man to death with a bowling ball, time to ban bowling am i right?

Man kills other man with Baseball bat, time to ban baseball as a sport.

there's a slippery slope here once rights get removed, that i don't think people are thinking about.

With that said, this isn't about gun control, this is a hate crime that would've been carried out by Knife, or bombs, or any other thing because one man didn't agree with a lifestyle.

Edited June 14, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Water Mage]

Speaking of gun problems, apparently the gun the shooter used was an outlawed type, that even the biggest gun nut wouldn't want normal people wielding it.

So if it is true, this incident is not really related to gun laws.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Water Mage

[solrocknroll]

As a whole, Muslims are not the only people who can commit hate crimes. This was certainly a hate crime. But do you know what else was a hate crime? The attack on a black church by a white man. Why aren't white men getting banned from entering the country. That in itself is also a slippery slope.

It's definitely annoying how tragedies are used to push agendas, but many LGBT people have also started crying out against guns, and there are also lots of people who get that pitting two minorities against each other (LGBT and Muslim) is a horrible thing to do. There are just as many innocent Muslims out there.

[Espinosa]

I feel like anyone thats trying to make this look like a gun problem is being very disrespectful to the people that died not because guns grew arms and legs and went on a shooting spree, but because one man couldn't tolerate people different from him and decided to murder.

What was the difference there though, with the gunner being gay himself? I guess the visitors of the club being happy people or having social skills would be that difference? Can't call it much of a hate crime though.

Victims' orientation makes it stand out in some way for a lot of people, but it's really the same story as behind your regular mass shooting, except the sheer proportions of it are disastrous. A guy was losing his mental stability and the only place where he sought comfort rejected him for being weird and unpleasant. The club's visitors' responsibility in neglecting one of their own LGBT folk is somewhat comparable to people who in one way or another drive people to suicide, for example. I mean, the guy had nobody else to turn to for help and relief. He attacked those whose attention and time he craved the most.

I'm also surprised that nobody seems to find anything relatable in this story, instead finding some sort of excuse to talk about religious extremism or gun ownerships or whatever. The perpetrator being a gay man with poor social skills makes him resemble so much an average user of this forum (or many other places on the internet), and yet we completely discard the man's relation to humanity and think we would never have acted differently if driven to despair by life. Well, how can you be so sure?