Another mass shooting at a college in America

by Fernando Thu 01 Oct 2015, 8:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

Umpqua Community College was locked down Thursday morning after reports of a shooting on campus.

The Douglas County Sheriff's Office said the 911 center received reports of an active shooter around 10:38 a.m.

An Oregon State Police spokesman told CNN there were 10 confirmed deaths and more than 20 wounded. Hospitals as far away as Eugene were preparing to take patients.

The shooter was reportedly detained.

The FBI was sending agents from several offices around the state to Roseburg, and the ATF said it was sending additional units from Portland and a K-9 team to assist in the investigation.

Fire District No. 2 in Douglas County tweeted a warning for people to stay away from the area.

According to the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, students, faculty and staff were being transported to the Douglas County Fairgrounds.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 03 Dec 2015, 5:58 pm

"Increasingly appear that armed US police aren't fit for purpose. ."

That's just garbage and hyperbole..

by westisbest Thu 03 Dec 2015, 10:27 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Alistair wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Meanwhile, elsewhere in America, how many armed police does it take to kill an unarmed (no firearm) random lone black dude?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3343872/It-looks-like-execution-Cops-surround-gun-black-man-San-Francisco-street.html

10+ apparently....

That is horrendous.

Can you imagine that over here??? We had uproar over a drunk smackhead getting a backhander when not getting out of the way of riot police.

This is 10+ armed cops versus a single guy with no firearm and no other distractions cowering with his back to the wall.

Its fkng shocking Toppy.

by **Pr4wn** Fri 04 Dec 2015, 9:15 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Increasingly appear that armed US police aren't fit for purpose. ."

That's just garbage and hyperbole..

Again, who said that?

by Derbymanc Fri 04 Dec 2015, 9:42 am

It is starting to look that way unfortunately Truss, there has to be a problem somewhere if this continues to keep happening.

It's the wider issues you have to look at with this as well, people need to have faith in their protectors, especially those in 'downtrodden' areas. If you don't think your going to be protected then you'll turn to others to do it for you (especially as youngsters) adn so on and so forth.

I don't for a second think that the 'majority' of US Police are bad, I just think the training needs to be better or reforms need to happen to stop incidents like this from happening.

by GSC Fri 04 Dec 2015, 9:59 am

Kinda an impossible job to have that kind of oversight in a Country the size of America where every citizen can be armed and they struggle to go a month without some nutter murdering a group of people so they can get on Fox news.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 04 Dec 2015, 1:43 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Increasingly appear that armed US police aren't fit for purpose. ."

That's just garbage and hyperbole..

Again, who said that?

I did (which I take back as the vast majority do a very good job in difficult situations) but Truss, as usual, ignores the fact this was an aside to the main issue i.e. the apparent murder of an unthreatening black U.S. civilian by ~10 retarded, armed, U.S. cops. All part of the same, silly, Second Amendment nonsense.

by Alistair Fri 04 Dec 2015, 1:58 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Increasingly appear that armed US police aren't fit for purpose. ."

That's just garbage and hyperbole..

Again, who said that?
I did (which I take back as the vast majority do a very good job in difficult situations) but Truss, as usual, ignores the fact this was an aside to the main issue i.e. the apparent murder of an unthreatening black U.S. civilian by ~10 retarded, armed, U.S. cops. All part of the same, silly, Second Amendment nonsense.

The fairest assessment possible i think.

by Scottrf Fri 04 Dec 2015, 2:02 pm

The 'retarded, armed' part is superfluous though.

by Alistair Fri 04 Dec 2015, 2:04 pm

But accurate.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 04 Dec 2015, 2:52 pm

Alistair wrote:But accurate.

You seem to hate the US my friend....You are popping on the ISIS thread too..

Apparently we should have ignored 9/11..

Wasting my time debating you..

by Alistair Fri 04 Dec 2015, 2:54 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Alistair wrote:But accurate.

You seem to hate the US my friend....You are popping on the ISIS thread too..

Apparently we should have ignored 9/11..

Wasting my time debating you..

You are an idiot, aren't you?

Where have i stated i hate the US, or that we should've ignored 9/11?

I don't hate anyone, at the same time, i certainly don't have time for trigger happy cops who take innocent lives.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 04 Dec 2015, 4:01 pm

In fairness Raffa may be wrong about Agassi pressing 400 for 2 and that it is sometimes okay to slap white women around...

But he's probably right about the futility of this exchange....Alistair.

Most Cops do a good job in hard conditions...period...

by Alistair Fri 04 Dec 2015, 4:13 pm

Agreed.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 04 Dec 2015, 4:17 pm

Good to agree on something..........

Have a good weekend..

by Alistair Fri 04 Dec 2015, 4:23 pm

Yes, and you Trussman!

by westisbest Fri 04 Dec 2015, 4:35 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Cops are there to protect the public..

Guy had a knife in a public place..what was he doing ..peeling potatoes..??

What weapon did that guy on the train have again ??

10 cops can't restrain one bloke with a knife, have to shoot him dead.

C'mon.
Can't see how anyone thinks this is ok.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 04 Dec 2015, 4:46 pm

The only thing wrong with the incident for me...is that it wasn't my Father in law holding the knife..

by TopHat24/7 Fri 04 Dec 2015, 5:26 pm

Numerous reports suggesting this was in fact Islamic terrorism on US soil, with one of the murderers (the wife) having openly pledged allegience to ISIS and the husband having been in connection with known terrorists.

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 05 Dec 2015, 2:24 pm

Scottrf wrote:The 'retarded, armed' part is superfluous though.

"retarded" - arguable. "armed" - entirely pertinent.

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 05 Dec 2015, 2:25 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The only thing wrong with the incident for me...is that it wasn't my Father in law holding the knife..

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 11 Jun 2016, 4:39 pm

Christina Grimmie, who came third on the American version of The Voice, has been shot and killed signing autographs for fans after a concert in Orlando. Only 22 years old, Grimmie had been YouTube famous before her appearance on the Voice. The shooter had travelled to confront her with two handguns, a hunting knife and ammunition. He was tackled to the ground by Christina's brother, but shot himself and died.

by Guest Sat 11 Jun 2016, 7:31 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Christina Grimmie, who came third on the American version of The Voice, has been shot and killed signing autographs for fans after a concert in Orlando. Only 22 years old, Grimmie had been YouTube famous before her appearance on the Voice. The shooter had travelled to confront her with two handguns, a hunting knife and ammunition. He was tackled to the ground by Christina's brother, but shot himself and died.

Such a shame. I had heard of her through the voice USA clips posted on the youtube.

by westisbest Sat 11 Jun 2016, 10:46 pm

Very sad indeed. Such a young age to.

What the f is wrong with some people.

by Duty281 Sun 12 Jun 2016, 12:42 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36510272

And this horrific act has occurred today.

by SecretFly Sun 12 Jun 2016, 2:07 pm

westisbest wrote:Very sad indeed. Such a young age to.

What the f is wrong with some people.

Mental illness compounded by the age old obsession with celebrity. Undoubtedly this person will have at one point been assumed to have been a 'fan' who had obviously concocted some alternate reality about the girl that made him set out on his fateful trip.

by kingraf Sun 12 Jun 2016, 3:05 pm

It's quite sad that no one listened to the NRA and carried concealed weapons to this event as apparently that would have prevented this. Yes folks... apparently a couole hundred drunk people with guns trying to get the perp would have led to less casualties.

by GSC Sun 12 Jun 2016, 3:25 pm

America is truly a very ****ed up place. Indefensible by now

by Rowley Sun 12 Jun 2016, 3:53 pm

kingraf wrote:It's quite sad that no one listened to the NRA and carried concealed weapons to this event as apparently that would have prevented this. Yes folks... apparently a couole hundred drunk people with guns trying to get the perp would have led to less casualties.

It's a special kind of stupid that thinks the answer to too many guns is the introduction of more guns.

by SecretFly Sun 12 Jun 2016, 4:04 pm

kingraf wrote:It's quite sad that no one listened to the NRA and carried concealed weapons to this event as apparently that would have prevented this. Yes folks... apparently a couole hundred drunk people with guns trying to get the perp would have led to less casualties.

It is a bit of a catch22 at this point though. If you lived in America, you'd be conscious that some folks are walking around locked and loaded in the very streets you walk in or offices you might be working in. Now, you might forget that for most of your life but the way America has been and continues to be, you'd be pretty ignorant of current affairs if you did forget it.

So, do you walk around on your no-gun principle knowing that if someone pulls a gun on you at the water-cooler because you got a raise and he didn't...you're an absolute dead man - or do you say to yourself 'if the police aren't capable of protecting me from idiots with guns then I'm going to get a gun and protect myself?'

If I lived in a known edgy city in America with lots of crime and lots of guns circulating...would I really deny myself the gun under the bed for a little greater sense of personal security?

by kingraf Sun 12 Jun 2016, 4:52 pm

SecretFly wrote:
kingraf wrote:It's quite sad that no one listened to the NRA and carried concealed weapons to this event as apparently that would have prevented this. Yes folks... apparently a couole hundred drunk people with guns trying to get the perp would have led to less casualties.

It is a bit of a catch22 at this point though. If you lived in America, you'd be conscious that some folks are walking around locked and loaded in the very streets you walk in or offices you might be working in. Now, you might forget that for most of your life but the way America has been and continues to be, you'd be pretty ignorant of current affairs if you did forget it.

So, do you walk around on your no-gun principle knowing that if someone pulls a gun on you at the water-cooler because you got a raise and he didn't...you're an absolute dead man - or do you say to yourself 'if the police aren't capable of protecting me from idiots with guns then I'm going to get a gun and protect myself?'

If I lived in a known edgy city in America with lots of crime and lots of guns circulating...would I really deny myself the gun under the bed for a little greater sense of personal security?

Okay let's expand on that. You have a gun in your person. You get a promotion. Angry man comes at you at the water cooler. How does that situation end with you not dead?

by SecretFly Sun 12 Jun 2016, 5:01 pm

You kill him first? Gunfight at Water Cooler coral? Wink

Of course you could still get killed - but the perception of having a chance in a gun-filled society means that quite a number of people that would be against guns in society would still feel safer buying one. Catch 22.

by GSC Sun 12 Jun 2016, 6:54 pm

Aye, and even if guns were to be banned, how can you be sure everyone else doesn't have one stashed away anyway?

by TopHat24/7 Mon 13 Jun 2016, 11:06 am

Little bit of controversy doing the rounds on this one (via my family living in Florida [Gulf coast, thankfully]). Basically if we are to believe the weapons the killer supposedly had on his person, the number of dead, number of injured and estimated otherwise spent rounds, his reload time would have had to have been beyond sensational to fit the timescales suggested.

Supported by survivor witness accounts there is a strong view this wasn't a loan gun man.....

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Mon 13 Jun 2016, 11:09 am

A witness account on the tele said there was someone holding the door closed then got cut off by the TV station it appears

by TopHat24/7 Mon 13 Jun 2016, 11:11 am

Yeh, suggestion is it's being stage managed to stop mass panic regarding 1 or 2 additional killers on the loose. Give the police/FBI more time to track them down with dealing with public hysteria.

by SecretFly Mon 13 Jun 2016, 11:19 am

The father said he didn't realise his son had so much hate? Yet his ex remembers plenty of it?

These stay-at-work-so-as-not-to-have-to-bond-with-the-nuisance-kids fathers; maybe they should stop giving quotes altogether. The few recent examples seem clueless. "A son???? I got a son??? News to me. He did what???"

by Guest Mon 13 Jun 2016, 11:28 am

SecretFly wrote:The father said he didn't realise his son had so much hate? Yet his ex remembers plenty of it?

These stay-at-work-so-as-not-to-have-to-bond-with-the-nuisance-kids fathers; maybe they should stop giving quotes altogether. The few recent examples seem clueless. "A son???? I got a son??? News to me. He did what???"

Looks like I'll be giving a statement in the next few years then although with a nickname like 'Serial' it seems my statement will consist of three words..."That's my boy!"

Anyway, all silliness aside, an absolute tragedy and there's no justification anyone can offer for this type of senseless hate-filled slaughter. My useless (but oh so important internet) opinion is that we have a guy who would have been better embracing his obvious-to-everyone-except-himself homosexuality than repressing it and taking his anger out on these defenceless victims. Of course, this is what happens when we live in a world were certain sections of society (black, white, brown, red(neck), or other) see homosexuality as a sin or an abomination.

by SecretFly Mon 13 Jun 2016, 12:21 pm

Who is to know officially what his reasons actually were....but Dave, you sound spot on there.

by Guest Mon 13 Jun 2016, 12:46 pm

SecretFly wrote:Who is to know officially what his reasons actually were....but Dave, you sound spot on there.

There've been stories of Muslim men joining IS in a bid to "cleanse themselves of their homosexual urges" They've soon realized that it's better to dance to The Communards than be thrown from a roof, returned home and renounced their "terrorist ways" whilst shopping online for something "fabulous" to wear at the weekend.

Be gay, be straight, be a bit of everything but FFS, above everything else, be happy and proud and let everyone else be themselves.

by kingraf Mon 13 Jun 2016, 3:24 pm

SecretFly wrote:You kill him first? Gunfight at Water Cooler coral?

Of course you could still get killed - but the perception of having a chance in a gun-filled society means that quite a number of people that would be against guns in society would still feel safer buying one. Catch 22.

The thing is though, if a dude turns up on with a gun while you getting water unless you are Neo from the Matrix, you aren't getting your gun until at least two, probably three or four shots. If anything as a rule, a lot of the time all owning a gun does is indirectly pump illegal guns into the system because you'll probably lose it.
Now I don't have anything against gun ownership. But why is there so much resistance in owning making sure there's something resembling control? Does that stop the Orlando Massacre? Probably not. Unfortunately neither does the current status quo. What it does do though, is go some way to preventing the murder of that songstress lady earlier, as well as the dozens of high school masssacres.

by Guest Mon 13 Jun 2016, 3:41 pm

kingraf wrote:
SecretFly wrote:You kill him first? Gunfight at Water Cooler coral?

Of course you could still get killed - but the perception of having a chance in a gun-filled society means that quite a number of people that would be against guns in society would still feel safer buying one. Catch 22.
The thing is though, if a dude turns up on with a gun while you getting water unless you are Neo from the Matrix, you aren't getting your gun until at least two, probably three or four shots. If anything as a rule, a lot of the time all owning a gun does is indirectly pump illegal guns into the system because you'll probably lose it.
Now I don't have anything against gun ownership. But why is there so much resistance in owning making sure there's something resembling control? Does that stop the Orlando Massacre? Probably not. Unfortunately neither does the current status quo. What it does do though, is go some way to preventing the murder of that songstress lady earlier, as well as the dozens of high school masssacres.

This guy was so insane (and f*ck it that's the explanation I'm going with) he'd have found a way to kill people armed with a feather duster and an empty hoover bag because he was inclined to commit murder. The fact he was able to access weapons doesn't rid us of the infinitely more disturbing knowledge that the world is filled with people who have an inability to process their emotions in a way that doesn't involve violence.

Just reading in the paper about a supposedly respectable woman, 56 years old, who has glassed a guy twice, stamped on his head whilst wearing stilettos then screamed for her husband to kill him. The fact she didn't have a gun and shoot the guy doesn't make what she did any less reprehensible and the death of 50 people at the hands of a heavily armed gunman shouldn't detract from the fact that his views on homosexuality were also reprehensible.

As for the American songstress, wasn't there a girl in Japan who was stabbed to death by a crazed fan recently? I think she returned/rejected a gift of his and he flipped. Guns/knives...whatever, when these f*cktards are compelled to act, they'll find a way.

by kingraf Mon 13 Jun 2016, 5:48 pm

BONJOVIFAN#1 wrote:
kingraf wrote:
SecretFly wrote:You kill him first? Gunfight at Water Cooler coral?

Of course you could still get killed - but the perception of having a chance in a gun-filled society means that quite a number of people that would be against guns in society would still feel safer buying one. Catch 22.
The thing is though, if a dude turns up on with a gun while you getting water unless you are Neo from the Matrix, you aren't getting your gun until at least two, probably three or four shots. If anything as a rule, a lot of the time all owning a gun does is indirectly pump illegal guns into the system because you'll probably lose it.
Now I don't have anything against gun ownership. But why is there so much resistance in owning making sure there's something resembling control? Does that stop the Orlando Massacre? Probably not. Unfortunately neither does the current status quo. What it does do though, is go some way to preventing the murder of that songstress lady earlier, as well as the dozens of high school masssacres.
This guy was so insane (and f*ck it that's the explanation I'm going with) he'd have found a way to kill people armed with a feather duster and an empty hoover bag because he was inclined to commit murder. The fact he was able to access weapons doesn't rid us of the infinitely more disturbing knowledge that the world is filled with people who have an inability to process their emotions in a way that doesn't involve violence.

Just reading in the paper about a supposedly respectable woman, 56 years old, who has glassed a guy twice, stamped on his head whilst wearing stilettos then screamed for her husband to kill him. The fact she didn't have a gun and shoot the guy doesn't make what she did any less reprehensible and the death of 50 people at the hands of a heavily armed gunman shouldn't detract from the fact that his views on homosexuality were also reprehensible.

As for the American songstress, wasn't there a girl in Japan who was stabbed to death by a crazed fan recently? I think she returned/rejected a gift of his and he flipped. Guns/knives...whatever, when these f*cktards are compelled to act, they'll find a way.

so because there are generally crazy people in the world we shouldn't put measures in place to try prevent weapons which have the ability to create great damage from falling into their hands? Should we also stop placing seals on medication following this logic? I don't mean to be snarky, but the idea that "people are inherently evil, so lets just make it easy for them" doesn't at all wash with me

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Mon 13 Jun 2016, 5:53 pm

It's like Obama said a week or so back - these people are on FBI known lists, on no fly lists, yet there's nothing in place to stop them going to a gun store buying all the weapons and ammo they want and blowing people to pieces

You'd like to think that Americans would wake up and smell the coffee - but they're so entrenched in their own little bubble they just go 'oh isn't that horrible' and carry on with life

by Guest Mon 13 Jun 2016, 6:03 pm

kingraf wrote:
BONJOVIFAN#1 wrote:
kingraf wrote:
SecretFly wrote:You kill him first? Gunfight at Water Cooler coral?

Of course you could still get killed - but the perception of having a chance in a gun-filled society means that quite a number of people that would be against guns in society would still feel safer buying one. Catch 22.
The thing is though, if a dude turns up on with a gun while you getting water unless you are Neo from the Matrix, you aren't getting your gun until at least two, probably three or four shots. If anything as a rule, a lot of the time all owning a gun does is indirectly pump illegal guns into the system because you'll probably lose it.
Now I don't have anything against gun ownership. But why is there so much resistance in owning making sure there's something resembling control? Does that stop the Orlando Massacre? Probably not. Unfortunately neither does the current status quo. What it does do though, is go some way to preventing the murder of that songstress lady earlier, as well as the dozens of high school masssacres.
This guy was so insane (and f*ck it that's the explanation I'm going with) he'd have found a way to kill people armed with a feather duster and an empty hoover bag because he was inclined to commit murder. The fact he was able to access weapons doesn't rid us of the infinitely more disturbing knowledge that the world is filled with people who have an inability to process their emotions in a way that doesn't involve violence.

Just reading in the paper about a supposedly respectable woman, 56 years old, who has glassed a guy twice, stamped on his head whilst wearing stilettos then screamed for her husband to kill him. The fact she didn't have a gun and shoot the guy doesn't make what she did any less reprehensible and the death of 50 people at the hands of a heavily armed gunman shouldn't detract from the fact that his views on homosexuality were also reprehensible.

As for the American songstress, wasn't there a girl in Japan who was stabbed to death by a crazed fan recently? I think she returned/rejected a gift of his and he flipped. Guns/knives...whatever, when these f*cktards are compelled to act, they'll find a way.

so because there are generally crazy people in the world we shouldn't put measures in place to try prevent weapons which have the ability to create great damage from falling into their hands? Should we also stop placing seals on medication following this logic? I don't mean to be snarky, but the idea that "people are inherently evil, so lets just make it easy for them" doesn't at all wash with me

That's pretty much anything these days, he could have slashed dozens of people with a broken beer bottle in the bar....what do we do, just serve Calipo's or Ice lollies (oh, he might sharpen the wooden stick and use that as a weapon)

It's all well and good the bleedin' hearts wimpering about gun control and begging someone to end the threat of IS but correct me if I'm wrong as I'm sure they way that campaign is currently being waged is via the use of guns and bombs.

To stop people using guns to kill people, we should kill them first using guns!

by SecretFly Mon 13 Jun 2016, 6:13 pm

Again, I'd like to see the figures (stock market and gun sales) The more these guys (who want the semi-automatics to be sold with the pretzels) feel people are telling them they shouldn't have them, the more they feel compelled to buy them. Didn't I hear that these tragic events can often increase gun sales?

People who like weapons to such a degree don't like being lectured. It's a character connection that perhaps Obama and the gun control lobby need to appreciate. The NRA must be involved more in terms of the language directed at them - constructive and not in public. Behind the scenes, these guys have to be brought in and talked with in a respectful way. Get them to admit the problem in private and get them to be a major part of any framework designed to at least start a process of taking firearms out of the hands of people on police/FBI lists.

But there again - there is the rub. There are Serious underlying philosophies at work when the gun/NRA lobby contemplate Government, most especially the Federal 'Big' government. The gun lobby aren't simply guys that want to keep their right to hunt ducks with AK47s, they're more serious a selection, a big selection, of ordinary Americans that don't trust their own Government and aren't about to let that government legislate guns out of their hands.

by Ent Tue 14 Jun 2016, 9:24 am

Looks like the guy bought the guns 2 days before the attack. Despite having being interviewed twice by the fbi regarding terrorist activity.

by GSC Tue 14 Jun 2016, 10:15 am

Wasn't a bill to bar people tabbed as potential terror suspect from buying guns rejected?

by Guest Tue 14 Jun 2016, 10:45 am

Dunno, but it seems reports are emerging that this guy was known to frequent the bar he shot up and has trawled through a number of gay websites and gay dating sites. His father is now saying that the Bar should bear some responsibility for the tragedy because they failed to check him for weapons. His father said his son was infuriated by seeing two gay men kissing in public. My question would be why didn't his father telling him to wind his f*cking neck in and explain that there's nothing wrong with being gay? It's not catching nor is it compulsory.

If the reports are true that this guy was gay then it brings up a bigger issue, namely Donald Trump and his knee jerk reaction that it must have been an IS attack as the guy sounded like a Muslim. This is the difference between him and Obama, Obama did what any smart statesman would do and waited for actual facts to emerge before condemning anyone. Can you imagine Trump with his finger on the red button blowing the f*ck out of a country at the first opportunity?

"Err, Mr President, it wasn't them that started it?"
"Can we recall those missiles?"
"No, sir, we can't!"
"Oh well, look on the bright side, there'll be opportunities for developing those sites"
"Yes sir, in about 10,000 years!"

by SecretFly Tue 14 Jun 2016, 11:33 am

BONJOVIFAN#1 wrote:Dunno, but it seems reports are emerging that this guy was known to frequent the bar he shot up and has trawled through a number of gay websites and gay dating sites. His father is now saying that the Bar should bear some responsibility for the tragedy because they failed to check him for weapons. His father said his son was infuriated by seeing two gay men kissing in public. My question would be why didn't his father telling him to wind his f*cking neck in and explain that there's nothing wrong with being gay? It's not catching nor is it compulsory.

If the reports are true that this guy was gay then it brings up a bigger issue, namely....

Sorry for abbreviating your comment Bonjovi, but I'd agree with all of that and change the bit as you got to namely.

I'd add.... namely we need a spokesperson from the LBGT community to register that this may indeed be an attack by one of their own. Intolerance works both ways and an inappropriate target for anger (a section of the public habitually deemed homophobic/intolerant) shouldn't be used simply because it might be expedient to do so.

But first - the truth. What was this man?

by TopHat24/7 Tue 14 Jun 2016, 1:16 pm

SecretFly wrote:
BONJOVIFAN#1 wrote:Dunno, but it seems reports are emerging that this guy was known to frequent the bar he shot up and has trawled through a number of gay websites and gay dating sites. His father is now saying that the Bar should bear some responsibility for the tragedy because they failed to check him for weapons. His father said his son was infuriated by seeing two gay men kissing in public. My question would be why didn't his father telling him to wind his f*cking neck in and explain that there's nothing wrong with being gay? It's not catching nor is it compulsory.

If the reports are true that this guy was gay then it brings up a bigger issue, namely....

Sorry for abbreviating your comment Bonjovi, but I'd agree with all of that and change the bit as you got to namely.

I'd add.... namely we need a spokesperson from the LBGT community to register that this may indeed be an attack by one of their own. Intolerance works both ways and an inappropriate target for anger (a section of the public habitually deemed homophobic/intolerant) shouldn't be used simply because it might be expedient to do so.

But first - the truth. What was this man?

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! clap

by Sponsored content