Sad times

[french frank]

Mmm, I failed to delete that one. I suggest the matter rests there.

[Dave2002]

Really? I don't "wish" anything of the kind, but there's no smoking gun without gunfire. If US were a far more peace-loving nation, do you not think that it might be easier for it to tighten its gun laws without the dreaded gun lobby opposition?

Not necessarily. I may agree with your sentiments, but I think to try to link the gun laws within the US with its external foreign relations doesn't work. You may not like either.

[ahinton]

Not necessarily. I may agree with your sentiments, but I think to try to link the gun laws within the US with its external foreign relations doesn't work. You may not like either.

Changing one mentality without changing the other would, I believe, prewsent a fundamental problem. I don't "link" the two in any case; I merely draw a parallel between them.

[greenilex]

It is important to remember that there are many committed internationalists and indeed socialists in the US. Berni Sanders' current popularity is proof.

[ahinton]

It is important to remember that there are many committed internationalists and indeed socialists in the US. Berni Sanders' current popularity is proof.

True - and not news - but none's ever managed to deal with those gun laws...

[Beef Oven!]

True - and not news - but none's ever managed to deal with those gun laws...

It might be more instructive to acknowledge that Islamic State/Islamic State-
inspired terrorism has its own causal dynamic, rooted firmly in the Middle East, independent of US foreign policy or US domestic policy on gun law.

[teamsaint]

It might be more instructive to acknowledge that Islamic State/Islamic State-
inspired terrorism has its own causal dynamic, rooted firmly in the Middle East, independent of US foreign policy or US domestic policy on gun law.

Isn't ISIS mostly led by disaffected ex Iraqi army officers?

[Serial_Apologist]

It might be more instructive to acknowledge that Islamic State/Islamic State-
inspired terrorism has its own causal dynamic, rooted firmly in the Middle East, independent of US foreign policy or US domestic policy on gun law.

While this is true to some extent, one can nevertheless locate the eruptions in the Middle East, together with its following reverberations through the Islamic world, to US and US-allied interferences in defense, in military-strategic terms, of the interests of maintaining and spreading US capital around the world, particularly in the grooming of various ruling parties where oil remains the defining post-Cold War issue. Seen that way, with the once tried-and-tested national liberation movements all either smashed or succumbed to western carrot-and-stick tactics such as pressures from the World Bank and IMF, where Islam is conveniently present, some have seized upon it as a means to get back at the west for all its perceived sins, past and present.

Where I agree with you, if I've interpreted what you say right, is that a leftist movement, of the old-fashioned socialist, environmentalist, or some combination of the two, were it to grow to any influence beyond its present confines, would be as subject to attack from ISIS-type terrorist movements as any other alternative.

[Daniel]

As for the main topic of the terrible Orlando massacre it has been reported that the mass murderer was himself gay who used the venue regularly so 'homophobia' is not the issue here.

That's a rather debatable assumption I think. Though not gay myself, I would imagine if (as has been suggested as a possibility) this person's inability to accept his own sexual identity caused him to massacre other gay people in a grotesquely magnified act of self-revulsion, that act would very much have its roots in homophobia. Such self-hatred would not have the same fertile ground on which to grow if homophobia did not have such a virulent presence in the world.

(To be clear, I don't know if this 'was' the cause, I am simply responding to your dismissal of homophobia as a possible cause. Nor, if there is any doubt, do I think it in any way condones such an appalling act)

But whatever the cause of this and other mass shootings in the US, it is the relaxed gun laws that make them possible, far more so at least, arbitrarily handing out destructive power to almost anyone that wishes to use it. One insanity in the hands of another.

[ahinton]

It might be more instructive to acknowledge that Islamic State/Islamic State-inspired terrorism has its own causal dynamic, rooted firmly in the Middle East, independent of US foreign policy or US domestic policy on gun law.

I wouldn't argue other than that this is the case, but - well, never mind what I might have said next, since S_A has said it all far better in #86.

[ahinton]

That's a rather debatable assumption I think. Though not gay myself, I would imagine if (as has been suggested as a possibility) this person's inability to accept his own sexual identity caused him to massacre other gay people in a grotesquely magnified act of self-revulsion, that act would very much have its roots in homophobia. Such self-hatred would not have the same fertile ground on which to grow if homophobia did not have such a virulent presence in the world.

(To be clear, I don't know if this 'was' the cause, I am simply responding to your dismissal of homophobia as a possible cause. Nor, if there is any doubt, do I think it in any way condones such an appalling act)

But whatever the cause of this and other mass shootings in the US, it is the relaxed gun laws that make them possible, far more so at least, arbitrarily handing out destructive power to almost anyone that wishes to use it. One insanity in the hands of another.

I concur with all of that. As to the latter part, it seems that whenever a tragic act of inhumanity such as this one occurs in US, a momentary flurry of protest at the gun laws all too soon subsides into business as usual mode and nothing much ever gets done about the part played by those laws in enabling such acts - or at least in making them more easy to commit.

[Serial_Apologist]

I concur with all of that. As to the latter part, it seems that whenever a tragic act of inhumanity such as this one occurs in US, a momentary flurry of protest at the gun laws all too soon subsides into business as usual mode and nothing much ever gets done about the part played by those laws in enabling such acts - or at least in making them more easy to commit.

Lamentably as demonstrated in the otherwise understandably tearful response of one who had lost a loved friend in the carnage, to the effect that the only problem in US laws was in letting guns get into the hands of uninvestigated persons.

[Dave2002]

Lamentably as demonstrated in the otherwise understandably tearful response of one who had lost a loved friend in the carnage, to the effect that the only problem in US laws was in letting guns get into the hands of uninvestigated persons.

One can do some thing with statistics and probability. Easy to get a weapon means higher probability of such a weapon being (mis)used. The converse is also generally true. However, in some countries, probably including the UK, the difficulty of obtaining certain weapons has the effect of promoting the next level of weaponry, so knife crime is relatively common in the UK - and I mean relatively - it's still overall at a lowish level I think. Knives, though they can be deadly, can normally only kiil or injure people close by, and although multiple killings or injuries are possible, the kind of mass killing which can be done with an automatic weopon must be at least one order of magnitude lower.

I think many in Europe and the UK do not understand (cannot understand) the US mindset. The sort of minds which when there is yet another mass school shooting, clamour for there to be guards at the school gates armed with sub machine guns. I am sure that many in the US do not think this way, but there are sufficient who do who use every possible obstructive argument to impose far stricter control.

[Serial_Apologist]

One can do some thing with statistics and probability. Easy to get a weapon means higher probability of such a weapon being (mis)used. The converse is also generally true. However, in some countries, probably including the UK, the difficulty of obtaining certain weapons has the effect of promoting the next level of weaponry, so knife crime is relatively common in the UK - and I mean relatively - it's still overall at a lowish level I think. Knives, though they can be deadly, can normally only kiil or injure people close by, and although multiple killings or injuries are possible, the kind of mass killing which can be done with an automatic weopon must be at least one order of magnitude lower.

Off-topic, but still a terrible shock when it's close to home and just announced - I'm still shaking:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36550304

Let's hope they're doing all they can for Jo.

Thanks to Bryn for bringing us the notice of this on the other thread.

[ahinton]

Off-topic, but still a terrible shock when it's close to home and just announced - I'm still shaking:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36550304

Thanks to Bryn for bring us the notice of this on the other thread.

Yes, thanks indeed to him - and to you for posting this. We can only hope that she was airlifted to hospital swiftly enough and that NHS will do its utmost for her.

P.S...

Too late. There's an RIP thread started by Bryn. So very sad indeed.