Another mass shooting.....

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's not his alleged atheist persuasion that concerns me. It's the apparent claim to knowledge of his motivations for his crime.

Let's say that he did his terrible deeds because of hatred of religion and religious people. Does the attested fact that every atheist on this forum, and likely almost every atheist you might ask irl, condemn his actions not tell you anything?

Absolutely. And the same is true for many other groups as well.

My post was specifically about the rhetoric used by the shooter. Sounds exactly like the kind of things some people say on this forum. Personally, I do not believe "hate speech" is a legitimate category; however, there are very many people on AF who will claim that similar speech directed towards gays and minorities encourage this kind of violence. If that is, the case, then those people should be concerned about extreme expressions of religious bigotry...exactly the kind that has been directed towards C/L in this thread.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"This is unacceptable, we need to do something" will be the refrain after any mass murder.  If you give all the background checks, and all the modification requirements, and whatever else you want, there will still be a mass murder, and the response will never be "This is acceptable, nothing we can do."  

The NRA is smart enough to recognize this.  It's not a battle over gun rights, it's a war.  If it were an issue of background checks, and that was going to end the debate, I'd bet the NRA would happily concede the point.  But that's not how it will work.  Because every event will result in another call to do something forever until guns are illegal.

Ah, the Slippery Slope fallacy.

[Aroura]

Absolutely. And the same is true for many other groups as well.

My post was specifically about the rhetoric used by the shooter. Sounds exactly like the kind of things some people say on this forum. Personally, I do not believe "hate speech" is a legitimate category; however, there are very many people on AF who will claim that similar speech directed towards gays and minorities encourage this kind of violence. If that is, the case, then those people should be concerned about extreme expressions of religious bigotry...exactly the kind that has been directed towards C/L in this thread.

What rhetoric?  I have yet to see you provide a link for your claim.  Again, what we see being reported is that he was a bible study teachers aide.  

That being said, some people are definite dicks about other's religious persuasion and the majority of us on this forum don't condone that, it is pretty clear.
Critical?  Yes, that is acceptable.  Abusively so?  Absolutely not.

ps, your marty costume is slipping.

[Minimalist]

how would it look like if the west was Islamic instead? I imagine a very different media, a very different views, a very different headlines, a very different "standard" for terrorism.

Oh yeah... tell me about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

"This is unacceptable, we need to do something" will be the refrain after any mass murder.  If you give all the background checks, and all the modification requirements, and whatever else you want, there will still be a mass murder, and the response will never be "This is acceptable, nothing we can do."  

The NRA is smart enough to recognize this.  It's not a battle over gun rights, it's a war.  If it were an issue of background checks, and that was going to end the debate, I'd bet the NRA would happily concede the point.  But that's not how it will work.  Because every event will result in another call to do something forever until guns are illegal.

You think so?  See, silly me over here, thinking that helping to pass effective regulations and make sure that effective regulations were funded...rather than opposing any regulation and actively seeking to defund what regulation exists, might be exactly the sort of thing that removes any fundamental justification for banning guns by addressing our gun problem -without- a ban.

It's a slippery slope, alright, but not in the direction you're thinking.  Everytime somebody screams cold dead hands after a mass shooting we get just that much closer to a ban.

[Catholic_Lady]

My post was specifically about the rhetoric used by the shooter. Sounds exactly like the kind of things some people say on this forum. Personally, I do not believe "hate speech" is a legitimate category; however, there are very many people on AF who will claim that similar speech directed towards gays and minorities encourage this kind of violence. If that is, the case, then those people should be concerned about extreme expressions of religious bigotry...exactly the kind that has been directed towards C/L in this thread.

What rhetoric?  I have yet to see you provide a link for your claim.  Again, what we see being reported is that he was a bible study teachers aide.  

Several media sites are reporting now that people he was friends with on Facebook say he was always posting anti religious stuff, atheist stuff, saying religious people are stupid, etc.

That's directly contradictory to the other report floating around about him being a Sunday school teachers aid.

Looks like we just don't know yet what was up with that guy, but hopefully more reliable info will be comfirmed soon.

[A Theist]

Just watched a news conference out of Texas. It seems this shooting may have been domestic related. The shooter had no legal license to buy guns because of his military record of domestic violence. The shooter apparently, had threatened his former mother in law who attended that church.

[Minimalist]

He was court marshaled and received a dishonorable discharge from the air force based on charges he abused his wife and child.
His in-laws were members of the church in question. Not present that morning, however.

No motive has been officially announced, and may never be, but I think revenge on those he saw at fault for his dishonorable discharge seems possible, even likely.

If that's the case, he's a real coward for taking revenge on the military by killing children in a church. I would have loved to see him try that against actual military members at a military facility.

Why is a church so special compared to a school?  Remember, right-wing nuts started calling Sandy Hook a government conspiracy almost from the beginning.

http://www.newsweek.com/alex-jones-megyn...ars-627129

And being at a military facility hardly even slowed down the Fort Hood shooter.

It is important to understand that the attacker always has the advantage because he decides when (or if) to act.  If armed soldiers in a war zone can be taken by surprise no one should wonder why civilians in any kind of setting can be taken by surprise.

What's the next infamia, I wonder?  Opening fire on the crowd at a football game?  Lots of symbolism there, for sure.

[A Theist]

The word I'm seeing is that he had issues with his former in-laws, none of whom were actually at the church that morning. That puts us into the "frustration kills" zone.

Yeah, just watched a news conference out of Texas with the police which confirmed that. Seems to be domestic related.

[The Grand Nudger]

Initiative is the name of the game, and that guy showed he had it.  So did the other shooter, and we're not going to hear the end of that one.