Gunman opens fire in Florida nightclub, many dead

[backontrack]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a saint. I do a lot of flying so I am a horrendously bad for the environment. I do drive a econobox, primarily because I want to save money.

Then drive an econodogbox, or Pacer - much more eco friendly and generates lots of helpful kinetic energy to satisfy all your vibration needs!

Prices start from 1p each.

 

[Gutfright]

And unless I am wrong, it is 49 people killed unless you insist on counting the killer himself

The killer was a gay man who was killed by a homophobe. Kinda.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Switzerland?

They have just lived off the back of all the world's dirty money.. the greed, graft, corruption, people trafficking, forced prostitution - all that kind of cash has gone through their grubby nasty little hands for decades but for some reason everyone loves them.

 

[EM2]

The problem is angry young men. Angry young men killing other people, and angry young men killing themselves (over 60% of gun deaths are suicides).
Find out why angry young men are angry, help them to not be angry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is angry young men. Angry young men killing other people, and angry young men killing themselves (over 60% of gun deaths are suicides).
Find out why angry young men are angry, help them to not be angry.

Would be a start, particularly as in this case alternative evidence is building (to the point that the BBC now mention it) that it perhaps wasn't a traditional homophobic attack as people thought, and indeed perhaps wasn't Islamic extremism either, but was perhaps a depressed and mentally unstable gay or bisexual young man who perhaps couldn't accept what he was (given that he was married).

Which would, if true, going back to the earlier discussion, make both Sky News and Owen Jones look a little silly.

But, of course, making it hard for angry young men to own guns might just have prevented it.

 

[DarloRich]

But, of course, making it hard for angry young men to own guns might just have prevented it.

Exactly: See Leyton tube station attacks. UK lunatic is armed with a knife and is tasered and arrested. USA lunatic is armed with a machine gun.

 

[Harbornite]

I didn't say that the USA shouldn't sort out their gun laws. It goes without saying. What I'm saying is that there are far more important things to do.

Over 90% of the population does not live in the USA.

I don't care about how many people live there, the problem still needs sorting. What "more important things" are there to do, other than obviously banning cars and staying at home for the rest of your life?

 

[jon0844]

I'm borrowing a car at the moment that makes it hard for me to wander lanes, flashes and alerts me to vehicles in my blind spot, has adaptive cruise control and can also warn if I'm too close to a car in front. It will warn if there's a chance of a head-on collision, warn me if there's a pedestrian or bike to my side if I'm about to pull out, has a camera and sensors to tell me if anything is coming when I reverse beside a solid object (like a big van parked next to me) and alerts if I feel drowsy.

It also has a bonnet designed to reduce injuries, as best as possible, for any pedestrian that still finds a way there.

What are we doing to make guns safe? Removing the ammunition might be a start, as there's not much else you can do.

The motor industry has been working to make cars safer for years, and as we get smarter cars the risks will reduce even more.

I don't see anything to suggest the gun industry is making things any safer. Indeed, these assault rifles seem to be doing the exact opposite. And now they're somehow sexy, must-have, items - with the NRA convincing everyone that with more shootings every day, you absolutely must get one for your own protection.

How this thread can have become about cars vs guns beggars belief.

 

[Harbornite]

I'm borrowing a car at the moment that makes it hard for me to wander lanes, flashes and alerts me to vehicles in my blind spot, has adaptive cruise control and can also warn if I'm too close to a car in front. It will warn if there's a chance of a head-on collision, warn me if there's a pedestrian or bike to my side if I'm about to pull out, has a camera and sensors to tell me if anything is coming when I reverse beside a solid object (like a big van parked next to me) and alerts if I feel drowsy.

It also has a bonnet designed to reduce injuries, as best as possible, for any pedestrian that still finds a way there.

What are we doing to make guns safe? Removing the ammunition might be a start, as there's not much else you can do.

The motor industry has been working to make cars safer for years, and as we get smarter cars the risks will reduce even more.

I don't see anything to suggest the gun industry is making things any safer. Indeed, these assault rifles seem to be doing the exact opposite. And now they're somehow sexy, must-have, items - with the NRA convincing everyone that with more shootings every day, you absolutely must get one for your own protection.

How this thread can have become about cars vs guns beggars belief.

It stemmed from this idiotic post.

On the other hand so far today more people have died on America's roads than died in the Orlando shooting. I don't hear any calls to ban cars.

 

[shyanthony]

It's 1755GMT on June 14th, or 1355 on the East Coast of America.

So far today more people have been killed by guns in the USA than were killed in Orlando.

Since the Orlando shootings finished, about 200 people have died from guns in the US, with about 60 of them being murders.

Not in a mass shooting...

The insensitivity in this feed is absolutely shocking and pathetic views about Owen Jones' conduct are shadowing the facts.

He stormed off because he was being belittled in a discussion.
The presenters were the ones with a narrow minded view and what seemed like a personal vendetta against Owen.

Until being a volunteer at the Vigil in Old Compton Street with 13,000 people, I didn't understand how much it has tore through the LGBT community.

Please show some compassion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not in a mass shooting...

Does it matter? They were all killed unnecessarily using a device, legal in the US and mostly not legal in the UK, the primary purpose of which is to kill people.

The insensitivity in this feed is absolutely shocking and pathetic views about Owen Jones' conduct are shadowing the facts.

He stormed off because he was being belittled in a discussion.

The presenters were the ones with a narrow minded view and what seemed like a personal vendetta against Owen.

Rubbish. They were having a discussion with him, and their views were strongly opposed to one another, as is often the case in most such discussions. He got angry, they didn't. That says it all.

He should have stayed and argued back, politely but firmly. Not run away. He could then have proceeded to write and publish articles about what happened. That would have backed up his case much more strongly than what he actually did.

He is a journalist. He must accept that he will be argued strongly against, and must accept that he needs to counter that in a mature manner. If not, he's not cut up for the job. That, FWIW, has nothing whatsoever to do with his sexuality; it would have been the same if the presenters were arguing pro-war and he was a pacifist (or for that matter vice-versa).

Until being a volunteer at the Vigil in Old Compton Street with 13,000 people, I didn't understand how much it has tore through the LGBT community.

Please show some compassion.

Compassion for those feeling a loss is not incompatible with trying to get to the root of the issues. If all the issues are not considered, we fail the victims. And the fact is that there is a very high chance that UK-style gun control in the US would have prevented the attack, or at the very least made it harder to arrange or easier for police to spot. And if it indeed turns out to be the case that he was gay and needed help, he might have got it.

 

[radamfi]

I don't care about how many people live there, the problem still needs sorting. What "more important things" are there to do, other than obviously banning cars and staying at home for the rest of your life?

The "more important things" IMO are the things that cause the most misery to the most people. Different people become passionate about solving different problems. They have a particular hobbyhorse which has become their chosen issue. For example, in my youth I was passionate about saving the environment and getting people out of cars and onto public transport. I'm not that bothered about that now. I would still support policies in that direction, but I've become a typical western consumer to an extent, so continuing to be very passionate about those things would be a tad hypocritical. Gun control wasn't really on my radar. If you were to ask me whether I was in favour of banning guns I would have replied yes and I would reply yes today, but it wasn't really what I was that bothered about.

It is possible to have such tunnel vision about a certain thing but have ambivalence or opposition to other more potentially damaging things. For example you might care passionately about gun control but disapprove of homosexuality, or not care about global warming, or may even not believe in it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems it may at least in part have been a homophobic attack. We (as a society) need to discuss and address homophobia. Many people are affected by homophobia individually, not just in a large attack.

It was done using an easily accessible (in the US) gun. We need to discuss and address gun control in the US. Many people are shot, particularly in the US, other than at large attacks.

It may have been connected to Islamic fundamentalism (though it increasingly seems like it may not). We need to discuss and address Islamic fundamentalism - it causes many issues in society.

It was an attack on people. How do we stop that?

It has wider issues than just the LGBT community. They have been heavily affected by it, but a straight person going to a nightclub may also feel a whole lot less safe now in the US at least, maybe also here.

I genuinely don't see why that is insensitive.

As for Owen, he left, with anger, a discussion he could have calmed down and partaken in, and used his media connections to talk about afterwards (revenge, as they say, is best served cold). I do see why he got cross, but it wasn't in his, nor the LGBT community's interest for that to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, what you are doing is demanding "calm, rational discussion", which itself is usually a euphemism for "containing no inconvenient emotions that people directly affected through their community express, so I can easily dismiss them when they disagree with me".

Emotions are not, however, the best way to influence and make a rational decision.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Emotions are not, however, the best way to influence and make a rational decision.

They aren't separable. No-one is really "emotionless", and if everyone is able to recognise that we can move forward in a much more productive way than if those who are least affected by the tragedy feel most able to comment on it.

 

[Clip]

Exactly.

It seems it may at least in part have been a homophobic attack. We (as a society) need to discuss and address homophobia. Many people are affected by homophobia individually, not just in a large attack.

Well its good to see you changing your mind about this now as I am pretty sure earlier you were claiming it wasnt a homphobic attck.

 

[NSEFAN]

No, what you are doing is demanding "calm, rational discussion", which itself is usually a euphemism for "containing no inconvenient emotions that people directly affected through their community express, so I can easily dismiss them when they disagree with me".

I'm in no position to demand anything, but being highly emotional about any issue clouds our judgement about what to do next. Do you believe that nobody should be able to comment on an issue unless it directly affects them personally?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm in no position to demand anything, but being highly emotional about any issue clouds our judgement about what to do next. Do you believe that nobody should be able to comment on an issue unless it directly affects them personally?

Of course I don't think no-one should be able to comment: what I object to is dismissing those close to it because they are emotional about it.

Our relative position to other people and our life experiences do give us understanding that it is difficult/impossible to achieve otherwise. We understand this all the time with many things, but it gets denied or dismissed as soon as it comes to marginal groups like the LGBTQ community.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They aren't separable.

They are to a fairly usable extent. The best way is to leave making long-term decisions for a while after a tragic event, or if this cannot be done have those decisions made by people not directly involved in the event.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course I don't think no-one should be able to comment: what I object to is dismissing those close to it because they are emotional about it.

I didn't dismiss Owen; I simply feel that he made himself look stupid unnecessarily. If he felt that emotional, as well he might, he might have been best to instead express his views in writing - he is a journalist, that option was open to him.

Our relative position to other people and our life experiences do give us understanding that it is difficult/impossible to achieve otherwise. We understand this all the time with many things, but it gets denied or dismissed as soon as it comes to marginal groups like the LGBTQ community.

Yes, but that understanding is through experience and knowledge, not through raw emotion.

 

[Gutfright]

Our relative position to other people and our life experiences do give us understanding that it is difficult/impossible to achieve otherwise. We understand this all the time with many things, but it gets denied or dismissed as soon as it comes to marginal groups like the LGBTQ community.

You may find it difficult/ impossible to empathise with people who don't share your sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean that everybody else does.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You may find it difficult/ impossible to empathise with people who don't share your sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean that everybody else does.

Empathy does not solve everything. Can you perfectly empathise with and understand what it is like to be a Chinese peasant from 400AD? No.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Empathy does not solve everything. Can you perfectly empathise with and understand what it is like to be a Chinese peasant from 400AD? No.

Anger solves even less.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Anger solves even less.

Absolute rubbish. Anger is legitimate and often necessary. Dismissing someone because they are angry displays a genuine lack of empathy here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolute rubbish. Anger is legitimate and often necessary.

I fear we will disagree irrevocably here. Anger is a very negative emotion - one that comes from our animal roots, and one that as rational beings we should seek to avoid.

Dissatisfaction, disagreement etc are valuable, but anger is not, unless an animal style instinctive response is required, e.g. fight or flight. Beyond that it is of very little benefit to anything.

Dismissing someone because they are angry displays a genuine lack of empathy here.

I can empathise with someone without agreeing with their conduct. Empathy does not require agreement. It can be "I see why you feel that way, but regrettably until things calm down we won't be able to do anything for you".

Customer services staff on the telephone are instructed to hang up on people who will not discuss things rationally and simply express raw anger, and rightly so. Railway staff will often consider raw anger as abuse, and in most cases rightly so. "Calm down, then come back and we will hold a rational conversation" is more likely to help.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I fear we will disagree irrevocably here. Anger is a very negative emotion - one that comes from our animal roots, and one that as rational beings we should seek to avoid.

Dissatisfaction, disagreement etc are valuable, but anger is not, unless an animal style instinctive response is required, e.g. fight or flight. Beyond that it is of very little benefit to anything.

No, this is simply false. Anger really can be legitimate and justified - righteous anger can be a very productive tool when channeled properly, and it is simply wrong to think we can artificially separate ourselves away from our emotions. Rationality itself is built upon a non-cognitive base, with much of our rationality occurring post hoc to explain why we feel the way that we do: to attempt to separate it out of our psyche just denies the reality of how the human brain actually works.

I can empathise with someone without agreeing with their conduct. Empathy does not require agreement. It can be "I see why you feel that way, but regrettably until things calm down we won't be able to do anything for you".

Customer services staff on the telephone are instructed to hang up on people who will not discuss things rationally and simply express raw anger, and rightly so. Railway staff will often consider raw anger as abuse, and in most cases rightly so. "Calm down, then come back and we will hold a rational conversation" is more likely to help.

The very issue is why you have an issue with the conduct in the first place. Why does he have a duty to behave in a manner that pleases you when 50 people were killed?

Also, equating the anger over this with the anger people display to call centres is, frankly, absurd. When your viewpoint is continually shut down for ridiculous reasons displaying no empathy or attempt to understand as happened to Owen Jones, him walking off in disgust is not "abuse", and it is not the "raw anger" which you are referring to.

But the real core to the issue can be found if we look at why you have an issue with his conduct, which itself seems to be a reaction of disgust due to disagreeing with his opinion, which you then rationalise with the arguments you are making now. This is exactly what I was referring to in the first part of my post in how rationality is built post hoc on an unconscious, non-cognitive base, and the fact that you think you are immune from it is exactly why it is both false to think we can separate our emotions out, because it just means we aren't consciously aware of them anymore, and why it is dangerous to tell those who express righteous anger not to, because it is both impossible and displays a lack of understanding of the position they are in, which simply erases their viewpoint from the discussion altogether.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The very issue is why you have an issue with the conduct in the first place. Why does he have a duty to behave in a manner that pleases you when 50 people were killed?

Because in society there are behavioural norms that help us all live together.

Also, equating the anger over this with the anger people display to call centres is, frankly, absurd. When your viewpoint is continually shut down for ridiculous reasons displaying no empathy or attempt to understand as happened to Owen Jones, him walking off in disgust is not "abuse", and it is not the "raw anger" which you are referring to.

It was anger, look at his face. And he wasn't "shut down", he was argued with.

 

[EM2]

I fear we will disagree irrevocably here. Anger is a very negative emotion - one that comes from our animal roots, and one that as rational beings we should seek to avoid.

Without anger, the Iron Curtain would not have fallen, apartheid would not have been dismantled, segregation in the US would not have ended and there are numerous other examples through history.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Because in society there are behavioural norms that help us all live together.



It was anger, look at his face. And he wasn't "shut down", he was argued with.

"behavioural norms that help us all live together"

That should never, ever be challenged? This is absurd.

You've also utterly failed to address anything I've said about how what you're arguing for is impossible, either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"behavioural norms that help us all live together"

That should never, ever be challenged? This is absurd.

Of course it can be challenged, but I think he will find that the majority is against child-like outbursts of anger on a television news programme. There are talk shows where that kind of approach is more welcome.

Perhaps he could challenge it now, by writing a well-thought-out article for the Guardian? He has that access. Indeed, notably he wrote an article:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/sky-news-homophobia-orlando-sexuality

which only touched on it (perhaps to avoid his conduct clouding the issue, which was perhaps a more mature take on it in retrospect).

You've also utterly failed to address anything I've said about how what you're arguing for is impossible, either.

In your opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In said article:

To imagine LGBT people who may have endured distress and internalised prejudice – just because of who they are – spending their last moments in terror as a homophobic terrorist hunted them down is just unbearable.

I'm afraid I am not with him at all here. To imagine any people "spending their last moments in terror as a [...] terrorist hunted them down" is just unbearable. To say that that applies more to LGBT people than it does to Jews, Christians, Muslims, nightclubbers, pubbers, diners in a restaurant, schoolchildren, youth club members or whatever (choose your location) is in my mind not right. As I recall the Sky News presenters saying, that is almost tantamount to devaluing the terrible experiences of those at the Bataclan.

If anything, that line from his article causes my view to tend yet more towards that of the Sky News presenters.

Yes, LGBT people have a very hard time of things (which is not OK), but they are by no means the only part of society who do.

 

[bb21]

Let's just say that swearing is out of bounds, no matter how high emotion ran, so please, don't swear at people, as it places us in a difficult position.

To lighten up the mood a little, I guess I should start offering people lottery numbers, seeing that I probably wasn't far off with my comments in the very first post.

Any takers?