Las Vegas mass shooting

[TGHusker]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/away-his-teleprompter-trump-causes-more-trouble-himself/amp

 

When Trump isn't reading a prepared speech, he speaks from his heart.  We may not like what it reveals.

[BigRedBuster]

Well....I don't like what many people have to say about this.  What on Earth makes people say things like this?

 

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

Terrorist is a word that is both overused and underused.  It is contentious and politically charged.  Many countries/ regimes use the term in order to stigmatize and delegitimize opposition groups.  Some Americans use the term to justify racist/xenophobic anti-muslim beliefs.

 

The UN has attempted to create a universial definition of terrorism for decades, without success.  The US State department has a definition that requires the "terrorist" to be a subnational or clandestine group.  This, of course, ignores domestically-sourced killers that use terror as a tactic.

 

I would be fine just scrapping the term altogether and using less emotionally-charged terminology, like mass-shootings or mass-killings.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

I'm sorry, but it's not. It's pretty much exactly the point your trying to make. But you're  hung up on the fact that one group over generalizes/ over reacts, and you (sarcastically I think) are suggestion the antithesis of that group to do the same.

 

I agree it's BS that people automatically jump to calling it terrorism.

 

 

 

It absolutely is beside the point. I'm the one making the point - albeit probably badly, since you think that your argument that he's not a terrorist is on point.

 

It's not really relevant whether he's a terrorist.

 

What's relevant is that if he was Arab or Muslim, he would be called a terrorist.

 

That's my point, and I think it's BS. Call these people who don't belong to an organization terrorists or don't call them terrorists, but don't change the definition because the person is Muslim/Arab/Christian/White/Other.

 

I'd be fine with them hesitating to or never calling him a terrorist, if they'd do the same thing when a non-White person hurts/kills 2+ people.

 

Kiyoat mentioned the word stigmatize. That's what happens to Muslims/Arabs when the word terrorist is used every time there's an attack by an Arab person, and never when it's a White person. When it's a bunch of armed White people taking over a federal building or killing others, everyone has to deliberate for days/weeks and then not use that word. When it's only used for Arabs and always used for Arabs, the rest of the population starts to equate all Arabs with terrorism. I've seen it on this forum in previous discussions.

[schriznoeder]

Just to clarify, I generally try and steer away from conspiracy theories (except when it comes to the Trump-Russia narrative ). And just like any other major event, the Las Vegas shooting already has its fair share of them. From an unknown women telling concertgoers that they were all going to die almost an hour before the shooter opened fire, to eyewitnesses spotting gunfire coming from both the 4th and 32nd floor of the hotel, there's a whole slew of conspiracy theories popping up. The author of this article brings up some interesting points...

 

Based on the Early Reports, the Las Vegas Shooting Is Very, Very Strange

 

I'm not prescribing to anything Mr. French says (he and I generally don't see eye-to-eye on most major political issues), but it's definitely intriguing to think about.

[B.B. Hemingway]

On 10/2/2017 at 0:52 PM, knapplc said:

 

It would take a societal change, one that I don't think will happen without some awful trauma.

 

For Australia, it was a mass shooting. Just one.  They all collectively realized that guns weren't worth it, and with the support of the citizens they enacted tough gun control.

 

America is not yet mature enough as a society to do this. 

 

Maturity? 

 

Is the American government willing to implement a buyback program? Because that's what the Australian government did. And the participation in that program was mandatory. It had nothing to do with maturity, or some moment of enlightenment by the Australian people. They had to do it.

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Maturity? 

 

Is the American government willing to implement a buyback program? Because that's what the Australian government did. And the participation in that program was mandatory. It had nothing to do with maturity, or some moment of enlightenment by the Australian people. They had to do it.

 

 

 

Did they sell the guns to the U.S.?

[B.B. Hemingway]

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

Did they sell the guns to the U.S.?

 

The Australian government? I have no idea.

 

They purchased somewhere around 1 million guns (?)from the Australian civilians. 

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

I'm sorry, but it's not. It's pretty much exactly the point your trying to make. But you're  hung up on the fact that one group over generalizes/ over reacts, and you (sarcastically I think) are suggestion the antithesis of that group to do the same.

 

I agree it's BS that people automatically jump to calling it terrorism.

Yep and yep.

[Moiraine]

12 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yep and yep.

 

 

Nope.

 

I don't disagree with what you said about Gacy. If this dude killed a bunch of people for the hell of it he's not by definition a terrorist.

 

What I want is for the same definition of terrorism to be used regardless of race/religion. That's not what happens. This isn't the only example.

[B.B. Hemingway]

30 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Nope.

 

I don't disagree with what you said about Gacy. If this dude killed a bunch of people for the hell of it he's not by definition a terrorist.

 

What I want is for the same definition of terrorism to be used regardless of race/religion. That's not what happens. This isn't the only example.

 

I get that to a point, but I think we're all aware that anyone who does this is a terrible person. We all get that right? So why get hung on on terms to describe them.

 

 

Edit: And for the record, I've heard this Paddock guy referred to as a domestic terrorists multiple times on the news networks.

[Moiraine]

4 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I get that to a point, but I think we're all aware that anyone who does this is a terrible person. We all get that right? So why get hung on on terms to describe them.

 

 

Edit: And for the record, I've heard this Paddock guy referred to as a domestic terrorists multiple times on the news networks.

 

 

It matters to me that there's a double standard. I didn't say it matters as much as people dying. It's a forum. People can talk about things without thinking they're of monumental importance. People do that in real life too.

 

I happen to think it's less useful to state the obvious.

[B.B. Hemingway]

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It matters to me that there's a double standard. I didn't say it matters as much as people dying. It's a forum. People can talk about things without thinking they're of monumental importance. People do that in real life too.

 

I happen to think it's less useful to state the obvious.

 

????

 

Never said you thought it was more important than people dying. People are saying on here/Twitter that 'nobody is calling him a terrorist", yet I've heard him called just that multiple times on CNN/MSNBC/etc.

 

My point was: terrorists are terrible. Paddock was terrible. I think we're all aware of those two facts. Why what we call them matters doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

(Edit: For the 'Huskerboard record', I think he should be universally labeled a terrorist)

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Well....I don't like what many people have to say about this.  What on Earth makes people say things like this?

 

 

 

What in the world point is Inhofe trying to make here? It seems pretty evident that he was completely BSing...

 

He tries to deflect to sanctuary cities (and presumably a larger liberal culture that apparently isn't tough enough on crime), which is sad but not surprising from him.

 

But the premise he ultimately reaches is that people aren't following the law and that's the source of all our ills. He also seems to think we need a cultural change.

 

But gun laws? No. That's a horse of a different color. He's not willing to implement any more of those to change the culture. And obviously everyone is following every single gun law to a T.

 

I think Moiraine is right when she says most politicians are no smarter than you or me. What a weird, rambling, pointless blurb from him.

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

It absolutely is beside the point. I'm the one making the point - albeit probably badly, since you think that your argument that he's not a terrorist is on point.

 

It's not really relevant whether he's a terrorist.

 

What's relevant is that if he was Arab or Muslim, he would be called a terrorist.

 

That's my point, and I think it's BS. Call these people who don't belong to an organization terrorists or don't call them terrorists, but don't change the definition because the person is Muslim/Arab/Christian/White/Other.

 

I'd be fine with them hesitating to or never calling him a terrorist, if they'd do the same thing when a non-White person hurts/kills 2+ people.

 

Kiyoat mentioned the word stigmatize. That's what happens to Muslims/Arabs when the word terrorist is used every time there's an attack by an Arab person, and never when it's a White person. When it's a bunch of armed White people taking over a federal building or killing others, everyone has to deliberate for days/weeks and then not use that word. When it's only used for Arabs and always used for Arabs, the rest of the population starts to equate all Arabs with terrorism. I've seen it on this forum in previous discussions.

It tisn't (Monty Python skit)! Teach just gave you part of the definiton of terrorism, it's politically motivated. We both just agreed with you that people use the word far too much, and too soon.

 

What political motive do when know this guy had as of now?

 

When has the term terrorism been incorrectly applied before?