Orlando shooter was a Muslim, supported ISIS

Could have just made a bomb.

Posted from TSR Mobile

yeah because making a large scale explosive is like picking daisies isnt it

Tbh it wouldn't be as hard as sourcing a firearm and ammunition.

Fertiliser isn't that hard to get hold of, nor is homemade napalm with shrapnel. Plus the instructions on how to make explosives are easily accessible online.

Posted from TSR Mobile

https://www.rt.com/usa/346364-orlando-club-shooter-terrorism/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pulse-nightclub-shooting-orlando/

If you watched BbC News today, you'd have thought this was just a shooting, a hate crime, not motivated by Islam at all and something which has only happened because of gun laws.

Well, that's not entirely true. There is so much evidence that the shooter had links to radical Islamic ideology and that he was a Muslim. ISIS supporters have praised the attack and, three days before the attack, urged Muslims to attack their enemies during the Ramadan period.

There's no use covering up this issue. The attack was Islamic terrorism.

maybe, but those simpler bombs are only capable of killing about 5 people, up to 10 if placed well and focuses on injuring dozens. I think that is less of a threat than someone with an actual automatic weapon, but even then just because they 'could've made a bomb' it doesn't mean assault weapons shouldn't be banned

Tbh it wouldn't be as hard as sourcing a firearm and ammunition.

Fertiliser isn't that hard to get hold of, nor is homemade napalm with shrapnel. Plus the instructions on how to make explosives are easily accessible online.

Posted from TSR Mobile

maybe, but those simpler bombs are only capable of killing about 5 people, up to 10 if placed well and focuses on injuring dozens. I think that is less of a threat than someone with an actual automatic weapon, but even then just because they 'could've made a bomb' it doesn't mean assault weapons shouldn't be banned

yeah because making a large scale explosive is like picking daisies isnt it

apparently he was gay
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639961/Orlando-terrorist-went-gay-club-Pulse-dozen-times-got-drunk-belligerent-talked-wife-kid-massacring-49-people-there.html
This source is unreliable. May just be a rumour.

So, what you're saying is that this was a gun control problem.
And presumably, the Paris and CH attacks were also a gun control problem (TBH, I thought that they had gun controls in France).
And Lee Rigby was a knife control problem.
And 7/7 was an organic peroxide control problem
And 9/11 was an aircraft control problem.

Makes sense.

As epicurean stated:

"The BBC has stated:
There are "suggestions" the gunman had "leanings towards" radical Islamist ideology, the FBI sayshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-36510172

Homophobia within the Muslim community is something that needs to be challenged.

The fact is that there is room for acceptance of homosexuality within Islam. There is no verse within the Quran which explicitly condemns homosexuality. I think in light of this event (which sources appear to point towards Islamic extremism), more needs to be done within the Muslim community to tackle the issue of homophobia and serious discussions need to take place over Islamic interpretations in regards to sexuality"

The way you have phrased this thread is wrong

Your entire philosophy here is "there's no point in controlling gun ownership because it isn't an absolute resolution".

Things like terrorism are stopped by tackling one issue at a time, plane hijackings were addressed after 9/11, the response time and safety of the London Underground was addressed after 7/7, radicalisation in Muslim communities is now being addressed in London after Lee Rigby, and its now time for America to let go of its absurd obsession of military style weapons.

Blame US Zionist government for their illegal wars in the Middle East

They invade Muslim countries under false pretences and create terrorism.

They love terrorism as they can use it to justify meddling in the Middle East, for the sole benefit of Israel. A lot of media lately are pointing the finger at only Saudi Arabia, ignoring Israel...


Then they open the flood gates to people from countries they've helped destroy.

No. My entire philosophy is "there is absolutely zero need or justification for private individuals to possess firearms".

And yet, you would leave the ideology that motivates people to find ways of carrying out these attacks, alone.

Why are you so determined to deflect attention from the reason why he killed 50 people, and only concentrate on what he used to do it?

Epicurean is notorious for wanting to push his made up reinterpretation of Islam since he wants Islam to bend and deviate from its teachings. There is no room for his interpretation (that there is nothing at all wrong with homosexuality in Islam), so it is simply not valid.

If you wish to make the case that Muslims should be more 'live and let live', then that is somewhat a seperate issue.

I see no reason to address the ideology, when it is quite evident that its a tiny amount of them who kill, and the vast, excessive majority don't. These people all have individual reasons for going on shootings, and Islam isn't one of them. They use Islam as a veil to hide behind so that they feel justified in doing so, but beneath the surface this person was evidently a hateful individual who didn't like gays, and many other groups of people - as reported by one of his former colleagues.

Islam isn't the problem, the problem is gun availability. Its quite possible that this hateful individual would not have even considered going on a mass shooting if guns hadn't been so readily available. You may argue that he could make a bomb, or there are some specific incidents in which gun control doesn't help. But just imagine if the average US shooter like Dylann Roof, Elliot Rodger, etc... if they lived in the UK. They would not have the physical 'option' of going on a mass shooting to resort to.

Gun availability allows otherwise harmless people to act self destructively and destructively to those around them.

By your logic, because the vast majority of gun owners don't commit atrocities, then there is no need for gun controls.

So, you are not interested in exploring avenues that could lead to a reduction of homophobia in Islam? (Remember that Epi is not recommending any changes or omissions from the Quran, or even the sunnah. Just that you adjust your reading to a different but equally justifiable interpretation. It's not like there aren't any other areas of Islam with conflicting interpretations.

Why do so many Muslims seem determined to maintain Islam's homophobia, even when offered an opportunity to ditch it?

Epicurean is notorious for wanting to push his made up reinterpretation of Islam since he wants Islam to bend and deviate from its teachings. There is no room for his interpretation (that there is nothing at all wrong with homosexuality in Islam), so it is simply not valid.

If you wish to make the case that Muslims should be more 'live and let live', then that is somewhat a seperate issue.