Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Could have just made a bomb.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    yeah because making a large scale explosive is like picking daisies isnt it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    https://www.rt.com/usa/346364-orland...ter-terrorism/
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pulse-ni...oting-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.
    apparently he was gay
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ple-there.html
    This source is unreliable. May just be a rumour.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    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
    I don't think they should be outright banned anyway, regardless of the above.

    They just need more robust gun control.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    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
    Easiest way to make an explosive is to put baking powder and water into a Kinder egg capsule and give it a good long shake.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    yeah because making a large scale explosive is like picking daisies isnt it
    Yes

    Christ even backward inbred goat herders in Afghanistan are capable of doing this
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessBO$$)
    apparently he was gay
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ple-there.html
    This source is unreliable. May just be a rumour.
    It is often the case that the most vehement homophobes are closet homosexuals. Their hatred is a subconcious attempt to suppress their own sexuality.

    The turmoil must be even worse when the god that you worship is telling you that you are immoral and should be killed (subject to conditions).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cpj16)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    Your entire philosophy here is "there's no point in controlling gun ownership because it isn't an absolute resolution".
    No. My entire philosophy is "there is absolutely zero need or justification for private individuals to possess firearms".

    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.
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SovietEunion☭)
    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.
    **** me! That got a rep.
    Jeez, there's two of them!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    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.

    Name:  Screen Shot 2016-06-14 at 14.51.21.png
Views: 39
Size:  235.1 KB
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    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.

    Name:  Screen Shot 2016-06-14 at 14.51.21.png
Views: 39
Size:  235.1 KB
    By your logic, because the vast majority of gun owners don't commit atrocities, then there is no need for gun controls.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    By your logic, because the vast majority of gun owners don't commit atrocities, then there is no need for gun controls.
    Gun ownership isn't one uniform thing. There is owning revolvers with 2-6 rounds and owning basic handguns, and then there is owning fully automatic AR15s with 30+ bullets designed to kill. The latter is certainly not necessary.

    But if you had read my entire post, you would realise that the issue is not Islam, it is quite clearly general hatred and bigotry hiding behind the veil of extremist Islam.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    Say Muslims have a problem with alcohol. Because of this, Muslims may have an aversion to alcoholics regarding their drinking; if there is an attack on alcoholics which leaves a number of them dead, the solution isn't to try and reinterpret Islam to stop Muslims hating alcohol, rather at most one should encourage to live and let live within reasonable bounds.

    Similarly the solution to this issue is not reinterpreting Islam to make homosexual acts and sodomy permissible, rather just simply encouraging live and let live is sufficient.

    The reinterpretation is not 'equally' justifiable since nothing can equate to how Islam was originally understood by its founders. And yes, frankly I don't care if we are being offered a PR boost if we sell our beliefs in exchange.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    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.
    The usual ad-hominems. Nothing new to see here.

    Ah, so you think within your interpretation of Islam there is room for people to be openly gay and able to pursue a homosexual relationship within your self-envisioned interpretation of an Islamic state? Or does this 'live and let live' attitude only apply outside your self-envisioned interpretation of what an Islamic state is?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.