2016 Election Thread

[Steve J]

You know, 

 

most gun deaths in the US are suicide.  

 

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/gun-suicides-mental-illness-statistics/

 

and a relatively very few people are killed by rifles of any kind.  More people are killed by knives and blunt objects.

 

you can play with the numbers here

 

https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

[TheLeviathan]

Democracy, remember?

 

Your interpretation of the words "well regulated" are a literalish re-interpretation that ignores the historical context of the meaning of the phrase.  The People bear arms so that the militias can be well regulated of their own accord, as opposed to an untrained rabble.  The Right to Bear Arms exists for The People to enable the well regulation of militia, even if the States have all but abrogated it.  The word "regulate" does not exist in the second amendment to grant the government the right to draw back a right it just acknowledged, and then follow it up with "shall not be infringed".  What you are suggesting is textual nonsense.

 

The conversation keeps coming up because we as different sides disagree, nothing more.  Making it up that the pro-civil rights side of the gun argument as being the perpetual initiators of this because you feel they have some obligation to compromise is simply inane.  If you don't like the debate, please stop having it.

 

 

First, speaking of inane - the idea that "Democracy" is buying politicians is about as inane as I can imagine.  Vote what you want.  Having an iron grip on Congress because you are an extremely powerful lobby?  I don't support that no matter what the issue is.  And it sure as hell ain't Democracy.

 

The 2nd amendment clearly states that arms are there for militia purposes which are clearly to be regulated by the government.  Especially since the right is stated as being contingent upon the need for a militia.  Which isn't some re-framing, when the Constitution was written the intention of the amendment was to allow individual white men to own a gun so that, when called on, they could come armed to protect the country.  It was never about inscribing an individual right - that came about through Constitutional interpretation later.  You should read this, it includes detailed notes from Madison and other framers that basically says the current interpretation is a complete load of bull.  

 

And that bull and the inability to acknowledge that you don't have to be The Punisher is why these debates happen.  The NRA can't even suggest compromises that might, you know, prevent no-fly potential terrorists from having conceal and carry permits.  There are plenty of mechanisms for it.

 

Well, banning the ideology would have quite plausibly stopped this.  Had we, say, banned all ideologies that had even a tertiary connection to terrorism some time before 9/11 it would likely have prevented this.  Once again, a terrible idea.

 

My second devil's advocate idea is not flimsy, unless you choose to reject the well understood tendency for copy-cat crimes and the media's role in them.

 

And no, there are certain sacrifices that should never be on the table.  I reject the idea that the  "certain inalienable rights" ought to be re-bargained because of notions that it will decrease crime.

 

 

He was born in New York long before 9/11 - so no, it wouldnt' have worked.  It also does nothing for the white kid who stole his mother's guns to massacre six year olds.

 

And yes, the second is flimsy for a variety of reasons - most notably for the fact that even if you did it, the effects would be impossible to measure and take a generation of people not witnessing it to probably even notice. 

 

You sacrifice your free speech every day by accepting a whole host of speech you aren't allowed.  You sacrifice your unadulterated right to freedom at someone else's nose every day by accepting where your rights end and their rights begin.  Hell, to be specific, you've accepted bazookas shouldn't be allowed for the betterment of society.  And most importantly, among those "inalienable rights" is your pursuit of happiness - which again MUST end where it infringes on others.  Gun culture is not only infringing on the happiness of others, it's taking the most inalienable rights of all - life.

 

As for this issue, let's be clear about your contribution so far -  you're going to sit here and say "Nope, not guns!" but offer no solutions?  And when asked, you just respond with lame devil's advocate hypotheticals?  You're not doing yourself any favors being taken seriously.  Cmon - actual solutions.  Not hypotheticals.  

[Squirrel]

 

I very much doubt that any "reasonable gun control laws" would leave privileges and freedoms unaffected, but throw out your ideas and I'll see if you are right.  many laws I've seen either infringe or would be worthless in their effect.

Since when are privileges a right not to be touched? Privileges should be removed when abused. Having a driver's license is a privilege. And that privilege can and should be revoked when abused and misused, such as drunk driving.

 

I wish gun ownership fell under that area. However, rights are not completely free, nor do I think they should be. Speech is not free and is regulated to a degree. I see no reason to limit the rights to own a gun, not remove it.

[twinsnorth49]

Curious as to when the last time the 2nd amendment served any useful purpose was, or how anyone being able to buy semi automatic weapons is.

 

When the social cost of maintaining a strict right to certain civil liberties is dead children, the cost has become too high.

[DaveW]

 

Curious as to when the last time the 2nd amendment served any useful purpose was, or how anyone being able to buy semi automatic weapons is.

 

When the social cost of maintaining a strict right to certain civil liberties is dead children, the cost has become too high.

Silly Canadians, with your logic and reason

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Curious as to when the last time the 2nd amendment served any useful purpose was, or how anyone being able to buy semi automatic weapons is.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY THIRD AMENDMENT

[TheLeviathan]

 

Curious as to when the last time the 2nd amendment served any useful purpose was, or how anyone being able to buy semi automatic weapons is.

 

When the social cost of maintaining a strict right to certain civil liberties is dead children, the cost has become too high.

 

Pfft, my hunting rifle has clearly kept the drones away.  I have a rock outside that keeps tigers away too.

[Craig Arko]

Before I gave my Glaive away to my nephew all varmints were easy to keep at bay. Now I'm limited to a katana for that purpose.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I very much doubt that any "reasonable gun control laws" would leave privileges and freedoms unaffected, but throw out your ideas and I'll see if you are right.  many laws I've seen either infringe or would be worthless in their effect.

That's not what I said. I said that for most gun owners, their privilege and freedom would be unaffected.  

 

Some ideas that shouldn't be controversial:

1) Extended background checks with mandatory waiting period.

2) Close the gun show loop hole.  

3) Limits/ban on high ammunition magazines.

4) Prohibited possession for people on the no-fly list (or for national security purposes).

 

Some ideas that are controversial but I think will be good anyway:

1) Mandatory licensing for gunowners that includes safety training and anger management courses.

2) Ban/limitation on semi-automatic (AR-15 style) weapons that can be easily altered to become fully automatic. 

3) Ban/limitation on body armor.

4) Take away the immunity of the gun industry.  Make them liable if they negligently manufacture and sell weapons to criminals. 

5) Limitation on arsenals. I don't think this could work without registry, but there's no logic in letting individuals stock pile.

6) Super high tax on ammunition. (Gun rangers, etc. would be exempt from the tax). 

7) Prohibited possession for people who have diagnosed mental illness connected to violence. 

8) Buy back program for semi-automatic weapons and hand guns at original cost (or maybe an additional 10%, provided there are means to prevent people from gaming the system for profit).

 

This is just a start and off the top of my head, and there's plenty of room for negotiation.  

 

For most gunowners, their actual ownership of guns would be unaffected by such changes.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

2) Ban/limitation on semi-automatic (AR-15 style) weapons that can be easily altered to become fully automatic. 

IMO, a more logical solution is to restrict all internal firearm modifications and require all major modifications - barrel, stock, magazines, etc - to the same rigors as gun manufacturers.

 

This kills a slew of birds with one giant stone.

 

If you can't sell a rifle with a short barrel length, military-style stock, or 25 round magazines, it only makes sense to apply the same rule set to aftermarket manufacturers of those items.

 

That way you can leave stupid terminology such as "AR-15" or "assault rifle" out of the conversation entirely. Restrict the things that make certain weapons more likely to be used to kill human beings en masse and the rest takes care of itself.

 

Added bonus is that this also has a similar effect on handguns. While we like to bluster and scream about "assault rifles", let's remember one key fact:

 

90% of gun homicides involve the use of a handgun.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I wish gun ownership fell under that area. However, rights are not completely free, nor do I think they should be. Speech is not free and is regulated to a degree. I see no reason to limit the rights to own a gun, not remove it.

The thing is gun ownership does fall under that area.  Felons can't possess guns.  People who have committed misdemeanor "crimes of domestic violence" can't posses guns.   Gun-advocates like to ignore these laws, because they generally agree with them, and they fly in the face that such laws would be unconstitutional. 

 

And gun-advocates like to read "shall not be infringed" as "there shall be no infringement whatsoever." If the government limits the type of guns you own and how you go about owning them, your right to own guns has not been infringed, as you still are able to bear arms.

[PseudoSABR]

 

IMO, a more logical solution is to restrict all internal firearm modifications and require all major modifications - barrel, stock, magazines, etc - to the same rigors as gun manufacturers.

 

This kills a slew of birds with one giant stone.

 

If you can't sell a rifle with a short barrel length, military-style stock, or 25 round magazines, it only makes sense to apply the same rule set to aftermarket manufacturers of those items.

 

That way you can leave stupid terminology such as "AR-15" or "assault rifle" out of the conversation entirely. Restrict the things that make certain weapons more likely to be used to kill human beings en masse and the rest takes care of itself.

 

Added bonus is that this also has a similar effect on handguns. While we like to bluster and scream about "assault rifles", let's remember one key fact:

 

90% of gun homicides involve the use of a handgun.

I'll defer to your technical prowess here.  Whatever it takes.  Although, I like the sound of an "assault weapon ban" more than a "modification ban." 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'll defer to your technical prowess here.  Whatever it takes.  Although, I like the sound of an "assault weapon ban" more than a "modification ban." 

You may like the sound of it but "modification ban" will do a hell of a lot more. This is one of those times where we need to avoid nice-sounding terms and actually fix the ****ing problem, even if it doesn't sound sexy.

 

This is the "legal" definition of an AR-15:

 

http://media.tumblr.com/0d96b0807e49275d1b2dcfa1607c2511/tumblr_inline_ml07zqR0wD1qz4rgp.jpg

[Vanimal46]

 

Sounds like the shooter himself may have been gay, he visited pulse 40+ times in the last 3 years and often has to be escorted from the bar when he drank too much.

Apparently his father (who gives some bizarre interviews and claims he is the president of Afghanistan) would berate his son for being gay etc

It looks more and more like this isn't "Islam" or "ISIL" to blame, it's unfortunately another unstable, paranoid and violent person who then bought an AR-15 and took out 49 people in the span of minutes.

We can't control someone's religion, their mental state, their feelings, their motivations etc, but we certainly could control a persons ability to get a freaking semi automatic assault rifle. It's really mind boggling that some still say "we can't fix anything" or "if we enact common sense laws, it will lead to Obama and Hillary taking all of our guns" and it's not just a few people, it's close to 50% of the country.

Embarrassing.

I had that thought in the back of my mind when I first heard about the situation. The ISIS thing I'm sure was a cover up as this guy was in serious denial about his sexual orientation, and didn't want people to question his orientation in death. 

Pretty sad that he was filled with such rage that his religious beliefs wouldn't allow him to be who he was that he decided to take other people's lives with him. 

[Craig Arko]

By the way; there are still ways to help the victims and their loved ones.

 

http://time.com/4365295/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-victims-help/

[PseudoSABR]

Since I've mentioned prohibited possession a few times, here's the actual federal law, there are nine different classes of people whom are prohibited.

 

18 USC 922(g)

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B )except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B ) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C )(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

 

States have their own such laws, as well.

[Craig Arko]

"Authorities in Amarillo, Texas confirmed reports of an active shooter at a Wal-Mart on I-27 and Georgia earlier this afternoon. The Amarillo Police Department asked the public to stay away from the scene and evacuated shoppers on the west side of the building."

 

"ABC 7 Amarillo initially reported that the shooter is 'believed to have taken hostages.'

Authorities have now confirmed that there are no confirmed gunshot victims and no ongoing shooting at the Wal-Mart."

[USMCTwin]

 

Sounds like the shooter himself may have been gay, he visited pulse 40+ times in the last 3 years and often has to be escorted from the bar when he drank too much.

Apparently his father (who gives some bizarre interviews and claims he is the president of Afghanistan) would berate his son for being gay etc

It looks more and more like this isn't "Islam" or "ISIL" to blame, it's unfortunately another unstable, paranoid and violent person who then bought an AR-15 and took out 49 people in the span of minutes.

We can't control someone's religion, their mental state, their feelings, their motivations etc, but we certainly could control a persons ability to get a freaking semi automatic assault rifle. It's really mind boggling that some still say "we can't fix anything" or "if we enact common sense laws, it will lead to Obama and Hillary taking all of our guns" and it's not just a few people, it's close to 50% of the country.

Embarrassing.

 

Interesting. I'm reading that the shooter may have had more ties to terrorism/radical Islam than the FBI even realized. They are suggesting he was scoping out potential targets. Sounds more like terrorism to me.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Interesting. I'm reading that the shooter may have had more ties to terrorism/radical Islam than the FBI even realized. They are suggesting he was scoping out potential targets. Sounds more like terrorism to me.

I don't understand why it matters when the person who does the shooting is an American citizen.  Does it matter that his violence was motivated by Islam, insanity, or gay-hate?  

 

When Dylann Roof gunned down people in church in Charleston, did we blame the KKK?  Or try to find a connection to other white supremacists to see if they encouraged him somehow?   (Or when Robert Lewis Dear shot up planned parenthood, did we try to trace that to the pro-life movement or Christianity?)

 

Outside of proof that Omar Mateen was acting on orders from ISIS, it doesn't make a difference whether you call it terrorism or a lone wolf mass shooting, in terms of how to prevent such tragedies from happening.   

[Mike Sixel]

Are you reading that he basically claimed allegiance to multiple groups, most of whom are enemies? Do people really think this isn't about hate of gays, and is an attack more on the US as a whole? Are people really that self centered? This was an attack on gay people. That it happened here makes it also an attack on the US, but let's be honest with each other here. This was about hate. 

 

From what I have seen, it may have been self hate.

 

Also from what I have seen, multiple people failed to do their duty, and let the authorities know about his hatred and plans. Those people are culpable also. 

[USMCTwin]

 

I don't understand why it matters when the person who does the shooting is an American citizen.  Does it matter that his violence was motivated by Islam, insanity, or gay-hate?  

 

When Dylann Roof gunned down people in church in Charleston, did we blame the KKK?  Or try to find a connection to other white supremacists to see if they encouraged him somehow?   (Or when Robert Lewis Dear shot up planned parenthood, did we try to trace that to the pro-life movement or Christianity?)

 

Outside of proof that Omar Mateen was acting on orders from ISIS, it doesn't make a difference whether you call it terrorism or a lone wolf mass shooting, in terms of how to prevent such tragedies from happening.   

 

I will strongly disagree. If he was on our radar as a potential terrorist or radical Islam threat he should have been vetted much better than he was. I personally think by the time this is done, the FBI will come off looking poor. Now whether that is because as you think they don't really care to track people who may be motivated by radical Islam or they don't want to have the appearance of being 'racist or bigoted', but no matter what it seems to me a huge failure and a tragedy that could have been prevented with a little more caution/action on the part of the FBI. If we can take any extra steps surely those 49 lives would have been worth it. To just throw our hands up and say who cares what the motivation was, seems reckless and doomed to go down this path again.

[USMCTwin]

 

I don't understand why it matters when the person who does the shooting is an American citizen.  Does it matter that his violence was motivated by Islam, insanity, or gay-hate?  

 

When Dylann Roof gunned down people in church in Charleston, did we blame the KKK?  Or try to find a connection to other white supremacists to see if they encouraged him somehow?   (Or when Robert Lewis Dear shot up planned parenthood, did we try to trace that to the pro-life movement or Christianity?)

 

Outside of proof that Omar Mateen was acting on orders from ISIS, it doesn't make a difference whether you call it terrorism or a lone wolf mass shooting, in terms of how to prevent such tragedies from happening.   

 

As an aside to the bolded part, not necessarily the KKK, but if you remember there was a huge purge of southern culture/racist symbols (whether perceived or real) immediately after that. So I think the answer to your question was kind of yes on that one.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't understand why it matters when the person who does the shooting is an American citizen.  Does it matter that his violence was motivated by Islam, insanity, or gay-hate?  

 

When Dylann Roof gunned down people in church in Charleston, did we blame the KKK?  Or try to find a connection to other white supremacists to see if they encouraged him somehow?   (Or when Robert Lewis Dear shot up planned parenthood, did we try to trace that to the pro-life movement or Christianity?)

 

Outside of proof that Omar Mateen was acting on orders from ISIS, it doesn't make a difference whether you call it terrorism or a lone wolf mass shooting, in terms of how to prevent such tragedies from happening.   

 

Yeah, you totally lose me here.  First, to USMC and others - the FBI did investigate him and couldn't find any evidence of his involvement.  

 

To this - really Psuedo?  You can't see the value in it?  I would sure as hell hope that Dylan Roof was investigated thoroughly to see if he had networked with other racists on future attacks.  Or with a group that believed that sort of thing was ok.  Because if we can find that, we may be able to prevent another one.  His motivations, his connections, and his path to this act are potentially a window to others planning the same thing.  So...holy s*#^ I can't believe I have to say this....it absolutely matters.

 

I don't care if he was a homophobe, a zealot, or whatever, but why so freaking afraid to call things what they are?   I mean, people are actively LOOKING to call this homophobia so they don't have to call is Islam.  I just don't have words for that level of denial.  We know ISIS and other groups coordinate, fund, inspire, and network these sorts of attacks.  Calling it what it is, identifying it for what it is, and giving people insight into how others may be doing the same thing absolutely helps us prevent future attacks.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yeah, you totally lose me here.  First, to USMC and others - the FBI did investigate him and couldn't find any evidence of his involvement.  

 

To this - really Psuedo?  You can't see the value in it?  I would sure as hell hope that Dylan Roof was investigated thoroughly to see if he had networked with other racists on future attacks.  Or with a group that believed that sort of thing was ok.  Because if we can find that, we may be able to prevent another one.  His motivations, his connections, and his path to this act are potentially a window to others planning the same thing.  So...holy s*#^ I can't believe I have to say this....it absolutely matters.

 

I don't care if he was a homophobe, a zealot, or whatever, but why so freaking afraid to call things what they are?   I mean, people are actively LOOKING to call this homophobia so they don't have to call is Islam.  I just don't have words for that level of denial.  We know ISIS and other groups coordinate, fund, inspire, and network these sorts of attacks.  Calling it what it is, identifying it for what it is, and giving people insight into how others may be doing the same thing absolutely helps us prevent future attacks.

1) I'm making a plea to resist the urge to affix labels to a complex situation.

2) We don't have all the facts, as you suggest.  We don't know how much Islam or homophobia or the two together motivated him. It's important to withhold making declaration that serve specific ideological interests.

3) People are super-eager to yell Islam and focus on eradicating ISIS rather than what can be done domestically.  (Take a look at Trump's tweets on this.)

4) We should explore all avenues of investigation to prevent these kind of attacks, but declaring this terrorism either terrorism or lone-wolf forecloses areas of investigation.

 

I don't see a lot of value in coming to determination that he was more motivated by Islam or his own struggles with homosexuality/homophobia; I think people are eager to ideological frame the issue to suit their preferred course of action (e.g. ban the Muslims, not the guns!).

[PseudoSABR]

 

As an aside to the bolded part, not necessarily the KKK, but if you remember there was a huge purge of southern culture/racist symbols (whether perceived or real) immediately after that. So I think the answer to your question was kind of yes on that one.

Hey if our culture begins to purge itself of homophobia, I'm all for it.  My point is that calling it "terrorism," (or not) hides the ball in terms of what we can do hear domestically to prevent mass shootings predicated upon hate.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

I will strongly disagree. If he was on our radar as a potential terrorist or radical Islam threat he should have been vetted much better than he was. I personally think by the time this is done, the FBI will come off looking poor. Now whether that is because as you think they don't really care to track people who may be motivated by radical Islam or they don't want to have the appearance of being 'racist or bigoted', but no matter what it seems to me a huge failure and a tragedy that could have been prevented with a little more caution/action on the part of the FBI. If we can take any extra steps surely those 49 lives would have been worth it. To just throw our hands up and say who cares what the motivation was, seems reckless and doomed to go down this path again.

I'm all for restricting gun ownership of those being investigated by the FBI for terrorist ties (or further the potential to commit hate crimes).  Clearly such a restriction would have had an affect here, even if the suspicions turned out to be not true.    The danger is what to do when investigations reveal that suspicions were unfounded, do we restrict such people anyway? 

 

My point is NOT that it wasn't motivated by Islamic hate; or that it was somehow more motivated by his own homophobia/homosexuality.   My point is that definitively calling the mass shooting either one forecloses how we go about solving the problem. 

[USMCTwin]

 

Hey if our culture begins to purge itself of homophobia, I'm all for it.  My point is that calling it "terrorism," (or not) hides the ball in terms of what we can do hear domestically to prevent mass shootings predicated upon hate.  

 

France has far more strict gun laws than us. The terrorist attack in Paris claimed more lives than the terrorist attack here. I'm all for examining gun laws, certainly one's that don't allow people on the no-fly list to purchase weapons, though I can understand some people being hesitant when the IRS, which should be non-political at the core targets Tea Party groups. However, as Levi pointed out if we can discover other networks that are related to this guy that are planning to carry out further attacks, I don't think we should ignore those solely in pursuit of gun regulations.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't see a lot of value in coming to determination that he was more motivated by Islam or his own struggles with homosexuality/homophobia; I think people are eager to ideological frame the issue to suit their preferred course of action (e.g. ban the Muslims, not the guns!).

 

See, I'd argue that's exactly your issue.  When a christian bombs an abortion clinic, liberals have no problem saying "christian".  When a homophobe attacks someone who is LGBT we have no problem saying "homophobe".  But if Islam motivates someone to attack someone else we bend over backwards to make it fit our frame of the issue.  Well, to whatever the hell you can call the common nonsense of liberalism these days at least.

 

I love Muslim families (they have, many times, rewarded my efforts as a teacher with some absolutely delicious food and every bit as much with their patience, understanding, and kind words), but this is Islam.  It's Islam that motivates people to throw gays off of buildings.  To "honor kill" rape victims.  To deny education to girls.  To flay dissenters.  To burn children.  I don't hate the religion or any of it's followers, but I won't shove my head in the sand either.  Religions have been distorted to evil before - the problem is finding a way to turn it back to what it truly is and as it is practiced by many.  But denying the role it plays?

 

That's obnoxiously dishonest.

 

[DaveW]

France has far more strict gun laws than us. The terrorist attack in Paris claimed more lives than the terrorist attack here. I'm all for examining gun laws, certainly one's that don't allow people on the no-fly list to purchase weapons, though I can understand some people being hesitant when the IRS, which should be non-political at the core targets Tea Party groups. However, as Levi pointed out if we can discover other networks that are related to this guy that are planning to carry out further attacks, I don't think we should ignore those solely in pursuit of gun regulations.

Compare the yearly gun deaths between France and The US.....

[PseudoSABR]

 

See, I'd argue that's exactly your issue.  When a christian bombs an abortion clinic, liberals have no problem saying "christian".  When a homophobe attacks someone who is LGBT we have no problem saying "homophobe".  But if Islam motivates someone to attack someone else we bend over backwards to make it fit our frame of the issue.

 

I love Muslim families (they have, many times, rewarded my efforts as a teacher with some absolutely delicious food and every bit as much with their patience, understanding, and kind words), but this is Islam.  It's Islam that motivates people to throw gays off of buildings.  To honor killer rape victims.  To flay dissenters.  To burn children.  I don't hate the religion or any of it's followers, but I won't shove my head in the sand either.  Religions have been distorted to evil before - the problem is finding a way to turn it back to what it truly is and as it is practiced by many.  But denying the role it plays?

 

That's obnoxiously dishonest.

You're being a bit dishonest about what actually trying to assert, yourself there. 

 

Islam's lack of tolerance, of course, is a huge part of the problem.  No one denies that. (Again, my issue was with the statement "Looks more like terrorism to me.")  It's too often that we speak of Islam not in terms of beliefs and cultures but as people that we can identify, exclude, or snuff out.    But Islam does not have a monopoly on hate; and it is hate, and the means to act on hate that I will continue to try to steer the conversation towards.  

 

It's important to investigate and prevent any kind of organized hate, whether foreign or domestic, whether religious or secular.