My thoughts as well. When people start seeing each other as members of a whole society and not as members of a special interest group things will start to get better. Until then enjoy the victimization and finger pointing.
Shootings in Orlando
- Thread starter Gryffindorian
- Start date
Angels block westboro protesters at funeral for the fallen.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/or...k-westboro-protesters-orlando-funeral-n595311
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/or...k-westboro-protesters-orlando-funeral-n595311
I think it is totally up to the group being victimized how they choose to show solidarity to each other. The LBGTQIA community has chosen the Rainbow Flag.
It isn't much different from Australian aboriginals or American Indians having their own flags.
The problem isn't that it is the LBGTQIA people who need to start seeing themselves as members of a whole society, it is the people excluding them and marginalizing them that are the problem and I fully support the LBGTQIA community using any legal method they can to make themselves more noticeable and that includes their flag.
Last edited:
Couldn't resist getting the last "shot" in, could you?
The truth is no matter what level of gun control you have you can't prevent incidnets such as this occuring. The question is would gun control reduce the risk of such incidents occuring. Unfortunatly you can't say for definitive if it would just as you can't say for definitive if it wouldn't.
The framers of the US consititution put in place measures that would allow and has allowed the US constitution to change over time, why did they put these measures into place was it perhaps so it could change and adapt to differing soceity needs as the years, decades and centuries passed? What was needed 240 years ago might not be needed today. But as has been pointed out we need to draw a line under the gun debate in the US at least in this thread.
There's a difference between asserting one's identity and drawing a division line with the rest of society. I'd find it hard to see the rainbow flag as falling into the second category but do see the point that the problems we face as a society need to be faced as a society, not as disparate groups.
The orlando shootings were clearly targeted and it is only reasonable for the targeted group to acknowledge that fact. The rainbow flag is exactly that, a sign of solidarity in the face of aggression. The danger would be if that solidarity were to become missapplied and become a bunker mentality.
History shows that minority groups do often have to proactively challenge being marginalised and exactly how that challenge manifests can take several forms, some of which seek to integrate the group into society as a whole, others serve to strengthen the divisions. Think Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.
Almost overwhelmingly the gay community have followed the former path and the positive effects of that choice can be seen in the aftermath of this tragedy. The grief and support shown has been inclusive of every group within society and displaying a flag to acknowledge and challenge discrimination by a violent minority is hardly fostering any form of self segregation.
I was already an adult when the rainbow flag was first flown and I have had a deep respect for it, and what is symbolizes, since then. I have seen so much change in the attitudes of people towards LBGTQIA people during that time but there have been many terrible events as well. Bashing and murders etc - there is still so much hatred. It isn't a hatred I can even begin to understand, I do not see why someone's sexual orientation should matter.
I know that the woman who I defriended is not accepting of gays by some other remarks she had made in the past. She latched on to the rainbow flag issue because it was a way she could be portrayed as saying something positive (Americans should stand united under one flag) while privately still disapproving of gay people.
I think that in my country some nasty times are to come especially if there is a plebiscite on gay marriage which is what the current government wants instead of them just changing the law to allow gay marriage. I am quite embarrassed that Australia doesn't have gay marriage yet as to me it is a clear cut civil rights issue.
I know that the woman who I defriended is not accepting of gays by some other remarks she had made in the past. She latched on to the rainbow flag issue because it was a way she could be portrayed as saying something positive (Americans should stand united under one flag) while privately still disapproving of gay people.
I think that in my country some nasty times are to come especially if there is a plebiscite on gay marriage which is what the current government wants instead of them just changing the law to allow gay marriage. I am quite embarrassed that Australia doesn't have gay marriage yet as to me it is a clear cut civil rights issue.
Last edited:
It took the U.S. years to finally recognize the right of gay people to marry. Progress may be slow, and I don't know if humanity will ever evolve to be tolerant of others, but it's important that we realize the march for equality and social justice must continue.
Our general manager recently sent out this message in a newsletter to all employees. By the way, I am a co-chair of our company's Pride committee.
Our general manager recently sent out this message in a newsletter to all employees. By the way, I am a co-chair of our company's Pride committee.
Nonsense. You can unequivocally say that gun control would reduce (not eliminate, but drastically reduce) the risk of mass shootings and gun homicides in general, because it's been proven time and time again.
How many mass shootings have you had in Britain since stricter gun control measures were instituted after Hungerford and Dunblane? How many in Australia since stricter gun control measures were put in place following Port Arthur? How many in Germany? Canada? Japan? The US has probably had more mass shootings since the start of 2016 than all of those countries combined have had since the start of the 21st century.
With the exception of Japan, which has a long history of public disarmament by local and state rulers dating back centuries to the time of the Shoguns (and increased during the demilitarization after WWII) and the strictest gun (and sword!) control measures of any democracy (only hunting rifles, shotguns, and air guns are allowed, and still strictly licensed), those other countries all had similar hunting, sporting, and gun collecting traditions to the US and still have plenty of legal gun owners, though not nearly as many as the US does. They're just much more heavily licensed and background checked, regulated, and restricted by type of firearm.
Japan had a total of 22 gun homicides in the entire country in 2007 and it was considered a national disgrace that prompted long term soul searching and further legislation proposals because it was a dramatic increase from the previous year's two gun homicides (it had dropped to 11 by 2008, but was still considered cause for alarm). You could get those numbers during a particularly bad week in Chicago.
Despite paranoid ravings from Wayne LaPierre and the NRA designed to frighten the dwindling number of gun owners into buying and stockpiling more weapons (the number of gun owners is way down but the number of guns owned remains high), no one here is proposing anything on the order of Japan's severe gun control measures. No one's "coming for your guns" or saying you (general you) can't hunt or target shoot or defend your home. All they want are reasonable restrictions like better background checks, longer waiting periods, greater regulation on types of firearms you can own and magazine capacity, etc. Measures which have been demonstrably effective in other countries.
But what about FREEDOM?!?
Reasonable gun control does not impinge on anyone's "freedom" in any way. Just screaming "2nd Amendment!" isn't a valid argument. What about ordinary citizens' basic right to live safely and securely in an environment not dominated by gun-love culture?
Hard to read sarcasm.
1 springs to mind in Cumbria in 2010 (I think). But how many did the UK have before Dunblane? I might be wrong but I think they were still rather rare. But after the killing pof Children the public in essence demaned action to be taken. And sure there were complaints from some who owned guns, but lives were placed above owning a gun.
Maybe we're finally going to get somewhere...
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ge-sit-in-on-house-floor-to-push-for-gun-vote
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/284510-top-senate-dems-back-compromise-gun-bill
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ge-sit-in-on-house-floor-to-push-for-gun-vote
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/284510-top-senate-dems-back-compromise-gun-bill
Similar threads
