Poll: GOP sees Orlando as terror, Dems see it as gun violence

[Grand Mal]

It's Islamic terrorism, but there are also a variety of factors that also played into this situation. But still, I think Islam was the main motivation for why the perpetrator committed this heinous act of violence.

The guy was a complete nut-case, how it looks to me. Islam, I think, chose his targets for him. I've heard of the cliche about a guy who heaps abuse on gays, maybe beats one up, being conflicted by his own latent homosexuality but this was a really spectacular case of it. It takes religion to produce that level of rage and vengeance. I don't know if the guy was ever in touch with ISIS but lunacy plus religious fundamentalism equals high explosive.

 

[SDET]

Maybe if you don't support gay rights, you should stop pretending you give a **** about them now. You're part of the problem.

Maybe if our country just focused on promoting rights, not targeted rights we would be better off as a country.

 

[eohrnberger]

I see an insane person go on a killing spree...that is all I see.

Everything that I've seen in the media coverage would lead one to this conclusion, unless and until there is other evidence uncovered that makes a compelling case otherwise.

Rather unsurprising that each party sees what they want to see, their most favorite interpretation, a national security threat and a gun threat.

Also not surprising that their ply their same old ineffective remedies and solutions to the same old problems that they see with their partisan blinders.

I think that's the definition of establishment politics, probably at it's worst.

 

[Grand Mal]

Maybe if our country just focused on promoting rights, not targeted rights we would be better off as a country.

Promoting rights starts with removing burdensome, illogical laws that take away rights. Hey, fewer laws is better, right? Government off the backs of citizens 'n all?

 

[upsideguy]

Everything that I've seen in the media coverage would lead one to this conclusion, unless and until there is other evidence uncovered that makes a compelling case otherwise.

Rather unsurprising that each party sees what they want to see, their most favorite interpretation, a national security threat and a gun threat.

Also not surprising that their ply their same old ineffective remedies and solutions to the same old problems that they see with their partisan blinders.

I think that's the definition of establishment politics, probably at it's worst.

Poll on Orlando: GOP sees terror, Dems see gun violence - CNNPolitics.com

Most Republicans see a terrorist attack and call it a terrorist attack. Most Democrats see the same terrorist attack and call it "domestic gun violence".

What do you think? Islamic terror or domestic gun violence?

All of the above.

There are a lot of things at play here. Calling this one thing over the other is a bit of ignorance. We have issues of mental illness, ISIS, homophobia and gun violence that all seem to have worked in concert to allow this to happen. Without the mental illness, a typical American, Muslim or not, is not going to be influenced by ISIS to commit mass murder. This guy seems to have a personal troubled past with gays, perhaps even dealing with homosexual feelings himself. Finally, in the end, it was gun violence. It took the bravery that often comes with being behind a semi-automatic weapon with extended magazines to pull this off: to make him feel like he could do this and allowed him to do this.

People that chose to focus on only one aspect of this are using this incident to further their own political agenda. People that want to discuss and understand this event will consider all of it, as otherwise they will go off half cocked and just further their own ignorance.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Poll on Orlando: GOP sees terror, Dems see gun violence - CNNPolitics.com

Most Republicans see a terrorist attack and call it a terrorist attack. Most Democrats see the same terrorist attack and call it "domestic gun violence".

What do you think? Islamic terror or domestic gun violence?
Comments?

I see it as hatred.

 

[truthatallcost]

The problem here is the individual who killed and wounded 102 people was an American citizen.

Mateen was a disgruntled American citizen who's parents were immigrants. I've discussed in at least a dozen threads how the children of immigrants are more likely to join radical Islam groups than their parents.

They grow up not fitting into American culture, and decide to join Radical Islam as an answer. This is why I say that we're creating terrorists today.

 

[Ontologuy]

What do you think? Islamic terror or domestic gun violence?
Comments?

It's neither.

It was simply a man, who suffered from bipolar disorder, who himself was homosexual, who was conflicted about it, whose Muslim fundamentalist father condemned it (and homosexuals to die), and a wife who urged him on to do the unspeakable martyr act to punish himself and those like him, which could have easily been done with C4, a truck full of fertilizer out front, nitroglycerin, etc., killing even more, the weapon of choice being merely that.

The assault weapon focus is erroneous, merely a political tool by the left.

The Islamic terror connection, meaning some group dedicated to wiping out American infidels or the like, was non-existent -- it was an isolated act. Such an erroneous focus is merely a political tool by the right.

The more significant causative problem for this tragedy, one that we can actually do something about .. is as follows: Orlando Horror Shows Liberals Must Change Their Attitude Toward Homosexuality

 

[truthatallcost]

It's neither.

It was simply a man, who suffered from bipolar disorder, who himself was homosexual, who was conflicted about it, whose Muslim fundamentalist father condemned it (and homosexuals to die), and a wife who urged him on to do the unspeakable martyr act to punish himself and those like him, which could have easily been done with C4, a truck full of fertilizer out front, nitroglycerin, etc., killing even more, the weapon of choice being merely that.

The assault weapon focus is erroneous, merely a political tool by the left.

The Islamic terror connection, meaning some group dedicated to wiping out American infidels or the like, was non-existent -- it was an isolated act. Such an erroneous focus is merely a political tool by the right.

The more significant causative problem for this tragedy, one that we can actually do something about .. is as follows: Orlando Horror Shows Liberals Must Change Their Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Very well said. I agreed with the majority of what you wrote, and viewed your link, which was also well written.
The only part I'd disagree with is:

The Islamic terror connection, meaning some group dedicated to wiping out American infidels or the like, was non-existent -- it was an isolated act. Such an erroneous focus is merely a political tool by the right.

We know that Isis has been using the internet and social media to encourage Muslims from around the world to go on killing rampages. We've seen this play a role in several attacks and attempted attacks, such as San Bernardino, and the attempted attack that occurred in 2015 on an art exhibit in Texas.

Does a person have to belong to an officially recognized terrorist organization to be a terrorist? Timothy McVeigh was certainly a terrorist and I'm unaware of him belonging to any such group.

 

[shrubnose]

I'll bet you think 9/11 was a case of several plane accidents occurring, with substitute Muslim pilots.

You lose that bet.

9/11 was a terrorist attack on the USA which was committed by Al Qaeda,a Sunni Muslim terrorist group.

 

[chromium]

any time you gun down a bunch of unarmed innocents who have DONE ABSOLUTELY nothing to the shooter it is a HATE crime. nothing quite says hate like shooting someone in the head at close range

hate crime means that if they were not gay, they would still be alive

surprising you don't understand it in this context, especially since you were arguing that gays need to arm themselves. Why is that if not at greater risk?

 

[Ontologuy]

We know that Isis has been using the internet and social media to encourage Muslims from around the world to go on killing rampages. We've seen this play a role in several attacks and attempted attacks, such as San Bernardino, and the attempted attack that occurred in 2015 on an art exhibit in Texas.

Does a person have to belong to an officially recognized terrorist organization to be a terrorist? Timothy McVeigh was certainly a terrorist and I'm unaware of him belonging to any such group.

There's a bit of a problem these days with the use of the word "terrorism" and/or "terrorist".

Some use it to refer to an organized group in some way actually using their power to make a mass tragedy occur, truly having a hand in it.

Others use it to refer to an act where there's a reference to an ideology of some kind by the perpetrator, even if no organized group took actual part.

And then there are those who use it to refer to any activity perpetrator where people experience terror in that act.

No matter what the nature of the perpetrator, those at Orlando's Pulse nightclub were in terror during the ordeal.

One might argue that McVeigh wasn't a terrorist because his attack happened so fast and then was over .. then again, many of the survivors were in terror for awhile afterward, if they weren't to deep in shock.

I think the word "terrorism" and/or "terrorist" may have become such a large umbrella word that it's lost specific meaning. For some, use of the word is like deploying a cluster bomb -- it'll hit someone in some way.

I think everyone is apprehensive of copycats or ideologues or those suffering a pathologically great degree of idealization or contempt for a parental figure they might act out from ...

If we try to think about what preventative measures we can employ to guard against terrorism and terrorists, I'm not sure there's much we can do when we think of these words in their new big umbrella meaning.

In Omar Mateen's case, the FBI had been watching him. A lot of good that did. What about the more silent first-timers -- when they did their deed, the Columbine shooters terrorized their school, but they were prior unknowns, and, they weren't associated with any group that had any real hand in their act.

Thus I really believe that we would all be better served with regard to the use of the word "terrorism" and/or "terrorist" if we restrict that use contextually to mean that a specific group had a real hand in the relevant act .. like al Qaeda had in 9/11 .. .. and, no, ISIL "taking credit" for something they really had no specific hand in or "applauding" the act would not cause the act to be "terrorism".

I believe the suggestion I'm making here would be helpful in not rendering the word "terrorism" and/or "terrorist" almost non-specifically meaningless.

 

[chromium]

All of the above.

There are a lot of things at play here. Calling this one thing over the other is a bit of ignorance. We have issues of mental illness, ISIS, homophobia and gun violence that all seem to have worked in concert to allow this to happen. Without the mental illness, a typical American, Muslim or not, is not going to be influenced by ISIS to commit mass murder. This guy seems to have a personal troubled past with gays, perhaps even dealing with homosexual feelings himself. Finally, in the end, it was gun violence. It took the bravery that often comes with being behind a semi-automatic weapon with extended magazines to pull this off: to make him feel like he could do this and allowed him to do this.

People that chose to focus on only one aspect of this are using this incident to further their own political agenda. People that want to discuss and understand this event will consider all of it, as otherwise they will go off half cocked and just further their own ignorance.

well a lot of people with homosexual feelings and mental illness do not commit mass murder

this was a kid who celebrated on the bus during 9/11

i think it's certainly possible for religious extremism to create mental illness and, in the west, isolation in someone who would otherwise be healthy, but also to create a mandate towards violence aside from that. Honestly even without the other factors, it's entirely possible for extremism to motivate an act like this all on its own. You can't convince me that everyone in ISIS and everyone who commits violence against lgbt is closet gay + mentally ill. They are encouraged by outside forces

 

[iguanaman]

You think shooting 49 people at a gay club is "good old-fashioned homophobia"? :doh

I was hoping the left would learn from this unfortunate event that ISIS should be a bigger deal to the LGBT than bakers not wanting to bake them a wedding cake.

We have a society where wannabe mass murderers are offered the most efficient mass killing machine man can devise at any gun shop. And then we are shocked and surprised when that machine does it's job. All it has to do is find itself in the hands of a twisted and deranged man like Omar or the Sandy hook maniac. We are bringing this on ourselves and men like him do not have to have anything more than his own personal demons as we have seen again and again. If you think our founding fathers had any idea that "bearing arms" would mean a machine that can mow down a room full of people in seconds you are sadly mistaken. Since we cannot detect and detain all such mentally ill people either we limit the efficiency of the weapons available to them or resign ourselves to higher and higher numbers of fatalities in incidences such as these.

 

[truthatallcost]

There's a bit of a problem these days with the use of the word "terrorism" and/or "terrorist".

Some use it to refer to an organized group in some way actually using their power to make a mass tragedy occur, truly having a hand in it.

Others use it to refer to an act where there's a reference to an ideology of some kind by the perpetrator, even if no organized group took actual part.

And then there are those who use it to refer to any activity perpetrator where people experience terror in that act.

No matter what the nature of the perpetrator, those at Orlando's Pulse nightclub were in terror during the ordeal.

One might argue that McVeigh wasn't a terrorist because his attack happened so fast and then was over .. then again, many of the survivors were in terror for awhile afterward, if they weren't to deep in shock.

I think the word "terrorism" and/or "terrorist" may have become such a large umbrella word that it's lost specific meaning. For some, use of the word is like deploying a cluster bomb -- it'll hit someone in some way.

I think everyone is apprehensive of copycats or ideologues or those suffering a pathologically great degree of idealization or contempt for a parental figure they might act out from ...

If we try to think about what preventative measures we can employ to guard against terrorism and terrorists, I'm not sure there's much we can do when we think of these words in their new big umbrella meaning.

In Omar Mateen's case, the FBI had been watching him. A lot of good that did. What about the more silent first-timers -- when they did their deed, the Columbine shooters terrorized their school, but they were prior unknowns, and, they weren't associated with any group that had any real hand in their act.

Thus I really believe that we would all be better served with regard to the use of the word "terrorism" and/or "terrorist" if we restrict that use contextually to mean that a specific group had a real hand in the relevant act .. like al Qaeda had in 9/11 .. .. and, no, ISIL "taking credit" for something they really had no specific hand in or "applauding" the act would not cause the act to be "terrorism".

I believe the suggestion I'm making here would be helpful in not rendering the word "terrorism" and/or "terrorist" almost non-specifically meaningless.

I agree with you that some meaning has been lost, but for different reasons that you specified. My opinion is that terrorism has become a much more common fact of life in the western world. I've come to expect these kinds of events to occur, as the population of the country changes, resulting in more extreme ideology.

I remember how truly shocking 9/11 was. Today, as sad as mass murder is, its not really shocking anymore. For that reason, the word 'terrorist' doesn't pack the same punch that it did 15 years ago. However, I believe that the definition of the word should still be a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political, societal, or religious aims.

The Columbine killers wouldn't fall under this umbrella, as I think their crime was actually a part of the then burgeoning phenomena within American society, that of the spree killers who act out for reasons other than personal convictions or political ideology. People like the Columbine killers act out due to being unhappy with their place in society, usually mixed with mental illness, and medication issues.

As far as preventative measures go, we have 2 choices that I can see; either introduce immigration reform that puts our own safety above the wishes of potential immigrants/refugees, or accept the coming police state, where our freedoms will continue to be altered in the name of upholding outdated ideas about what the country stands for. You can probably tell that I support the former of those two options, as I really think that the framers of the country didn't anticipate an underclass of anti-American residents who accept the limitless opportunities we have, while hating the country.

 

[DA60]

I don't think Omar Mateen was insane at all. I think he simply hated himself.

From accounts given by his father, his ex-wife, and those who claimed he was a frequent visitor to the Pulse night club, I think the man was a closet homosexual who simply could not reconcile his deeply held religious beliefs that homosexuality was a sin that demanded being snuffed out with his ideals of what defined being a "man". He hated himself and took his aggression out on those around him using anti-homosexual propaganda as espoused by ISIS as justification to commit mass murder.

I see your point and agree with what he probably thought.

But to me, you have to be mentally disturbed to the point of insanity to knowingly murder dozens of innocent people. Sure, there are reasons you snap. But the difference between the sane and the insane is the former don't snap under pressure and mass murder while the latter do.

Every serial killer/mass murderer is nuts to me...no exceptions.

 

[William Rea]

This type of violence against gays is new. I've never heard of 49 people being singled out for death in one fell swoop, based solely on their sexual orientation, in the western world.

I believe that it is important to distinguish between this case and the average case of anti-gay violence, which might amount to a few scrapes or bruises for someone.

What if more people of the same faith commit copy cat crimes?

BBC ON THIS DAY | 30 | 1999: Dozens injured in Soho nail bomb

 

[William Rea]

Orlando was about cultural upbringing, self-hatred, prejudice and finding a place to park it in a country that is increasingly narrow-minded and intolerant. Fundamentalist Islam was all too happy to step up and offer a cause. Finding the exact cause is like trying to untangle a box of coat hangers. I don't believe there was one reason.

It is a problem with extremist conservative religiosity.

 

[William Rea]

I see you're English and thus pathologically averse to liberty, but the fact that the killer could obtain a weapon is not the problem. The problem is that he was motivated to kill that many innocent people in the first place. Some cultures are just more or less violent than others, and we don't really know why. We should study cultures that are less violent than ours and see what we can learn from them. There are a lot of obvious steps we can take to reduce the violence in our society, and none of them involve violating our human rights.

It appears to me that the only human right that gets overlooked in these cases is the right to not be gunned down.

 

[Hawkeye10]

It appears to me that the only human right that gets overlooked in these cases is the right to not be gunned down.

We have laws for that, and we use them, so you are wrong.

ALSO the 2014 USA murder rate was at a 51 year low, so dont be fantasizing that our gun problem is getting worse, MKay?

I think I am right in saying that were guns ARE increasingly used is in suicide, but providing guns for that is a ****ing public service.

Guns are not a problem needing our attention right now, but we have longs lists of others that do.

 

[upsideguy]

well a lot of people with homosexual feelings and mental illness do not commit mass murder

this was a kid who celebrated on the bus during 9/11

i think it's certainly possible for religious extremism to create mental illness and, in the west, isolation in someone who would otherwise be healthy, but also to create a mandate towards violence aside from that. Honestly even without the other factors, it's entirely possible for extremism to motivate an act like this all on its own. You can't convince me that everyone in ISIS and everyone who commits violence against lgbt is closet gay + mentally ill. They are encouraged by outside forces

And a lot of people that watch ISIS videos do not commit mass murder. I am not certain as to your point. Many people did this sort of thing before there was an ISIS or do this sort thing with zero connection to ISIS. There is no evidence this is one thing or the other, but plenty of evidence that there was a lot going that probably worked in concert. To focus on one thing shows a political agenda that you want to see this fit..... kind of like the ISIL approach.

 

[Ontologuy]

I agree with you that some meaning has been lost, but for different reasons that you specified. My opinion is that terrorism has become a much more common fact of life in the western world. I've come to expect these kinds of events to occur, as the population of the country changes, resulting in more extreme ideology.

I remember how truly shocking 9/11 was. Today, as sad as mass murder is, its not really shocking anymore. For that reason, the word 'terrorist' doesn't pack the same punch that it did 15 years ago. However, I believe that the definition of the word should still be a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political, societal, or religious aims.

The Columbine killers wouldn't fall under this umbrella, as I think their crime was actually a part of the then burgeoning phenomena within American society, that of the spree killers who act out for reasons other than personal convictions or political ideology. People like the Columbine killers act out due to being unhappy with their place in society, usually mixed with mental illness, and medication issues.

As far as preventative measures go, we have 2 choices that I can see; either introduce immigration reform that puts our own safety above the wishes of potential immigrants/refugees, or accept the coming police state, where our freedoms will continue to be altered in the name of upholding outdated ideas about what the country stands for. You can probably tell that I support the former of those two options, as I really think that the framers of the country didn't anticipate an underclass of anti-American residents who accept the limitless opportunities we have, while hating the country.

Well stated.

Yes, sadly, we've had far too many mass murders in recent times.

Sometimes the perpetrators reference an ideology, like fundamentalist religion, or something.

I don't believe that we have a religious issue there, it's just that someone with a significant mental disturbance cited a reference, and that reference could have been something other than religious.

The schizophrenic on the street corner directing traffic may reference "God" talking to him .. but does that mean that's what's happening, or that "God" is at fault and to be indicted as a co-conspirator in his condition and resultant behavior?

I too, however, am concerned about the very thing you also state, about a lax or liberal interpretation of immigration administration not taking a more critical look at who we let in here.

Granted, we can't outlaw religion, ideology, or even mental illness. And we can't deport our own citizens who so exemplify such.

But we can scrutinize those who aren't in our country and who want to come to our country and make more intelligent decisions, not only with respect to our personal safety, but our economic safety as well.

Our citizens must come first over potential immigrants, work visa recipients, foreign students, etc.

This is also what makes illegal aliens (roughly 22 million of them) currently in this country so scary -- we don't know who they are and what their mental state is. The last thing we would intelligently want to do is simply legalize them all en masse.

 

[danarhea]

You think shooting 49 people at a gay club is "good old-fashioned homophobia"? :doh

I was hoping the left would learn from this unfortunate event that ISIS should be a bigger deal to the LGBT than bakers not wanting to bake them a wedding cake.

Omar Mateen = Muslim = Terrorist

Dylan Roof = White guy = Crazy

Jim Jones = White guy = Crazy

Timothy McVeigh = White guy = Crazy

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It appears to me that the only human right that gets overlooked in these cases is the right to not be gunned down.

Your idiotic belief that the people have a "right" to security is the source of all tyranny. The world is a dangerous place and the government cannot make it safe for you. It can make it safer for you, at the expense of your liberty, but once you accept that trade off, where does it end? Your people have already sacrificed your right to keep and bear arms and your right to privacy; what human rights will you not sacrifice in the name of your cowardice?

 

[William Rea]

Your idiotic belief that the people have a "right" to security is the source of all tyranny. The world is a dangerous place and the government cannot make it safe for you. It can make it safer for you, at the expense of your liberty, but once you accept that trade off, where does it end? Your people have already sacrificed your right to keep and bear arms and your right to privacy; what human rights will you not sacrifice in the name of your cowardice?

The data supports my position, I like data driven decisions rather than rants, outbursts and irrational attachment to the 17th, 18th and 19th century.