Apparently ex school friends have come out and said that they always assumed he was gay and that a couple of them were propositioned.
Mass shooting at Gay night club in Orlando
- Thread starter Adisa
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Didn't we have a gay serial killer in London who was similarly conflicted? I'm sure his name was Colin, which is no surprise.
It's not the only criteria, it just narrows the stock universe down and then they select from that based on the fundamentals that any investment manager would look at. I can appreciate it feels a bit of an arbitrary screen to many.
People are still banging on 'it wouldn't have collapsed if it was Lehman Sisters'- female bloody head of fixed income at a major fund group the other week...
His fear over his sexuality could have lead him down the radical path I suppose. I guess you can't hide away from the radical element here.
I truly think this could be the case. The guy was looking for answers to his internal struggle and sadly found them in radicalization.
Not sure he was looking for answers, maybe an excuse. He would hardly be the first repressed bloke in history to go down an extreme path to hide away any shame he felt.
I generally find the "homophobic people are suppressing gay feelings inside" to be quack psychology babble, but it seems it applies in this case.
Yeah, I´d say that´s a pretty solid point as well.
Because it can encourage companies to be more diverse is they also see it as a way of encouraging investment. Yeah the reasons should be for a company to do that should be for more than money but you use whatever you can to move people forward. Also, why would a member of the LGBT community not want to support these companies or put another way doesn't it make sense that they would not want to invest in companies that have poor records of being supportive of the LGBT community?
Trump quote, not sure if it has been posted. Personally he's right as the old saying goes - guns don't kill people, people kill people.
New saying going round too: Guns don't kill people, but homophobic dipshits with licensed guns are able to kill 50 people on their own.
The logic there is a bit bizarre. He went through the proper channels and got a hold of a gun like that, somehow that's proof the system is fine as it is.
Lehman may well have had LBGT friendly policies and having LBGT membership at board or senior executive level might well have made significant impact on their risk appetite or other business practices. Then again, they may have had that and it was only greed that ruined them. Using one example is as beneficial to the discussion as the what ifs and maybes I just listed.
Point is, some investors want to invest ethically and choosing companies that don't discriminate based on sexual preference may be important to them. The fund Jippy notes comes as no surprise in that context.
That's overtly sexist. Hope you called her out on that. Lehman Family would be more appropriate...or Lehman Party (geddit? geddit?)
No shit. I'd say about 100% of the people carrying out attacks where they mow down dozens of innocents have more than a few screws loose. Why would this even be in doubt in the first place? The problem is when there's fanatic religion in the mix aswell. They make one hell of a dangerous cocktail.
@Dwazza von Moosesteiger I got it
It is and the piece was about why only 10% of fund managers are female- she was moaning about old boy's club etc...
The Lehman party is going over my head, am so, so knackered amd afraid. But I've just discovered that the City University of New York (which has Lehman College) is known as CUNY! The slogan seems to be CUNYfirst..
http://www.lehman.edu/cunyfirst/
So it's not a problem if religion isn't involved? Guessing that's not what you meant to say...
I get conflicted about setting mouse traps. I can't imagine the mindset that would open fire on a crowd of young people dancing.
Good man, Shamwow.
as it should be. As for my joke, for Lehman read Lemon.Obama wants to ban people from buying guns who are on FBI watch lists, so no, this guy would not have been able to guy his guns. Unsurprisingly Drumpf is talking out of his arse. Again.
Just because you are devout that does not allow you to preach with no proof. I have yet to see any existence of a god. Let's not forget that during the time of Abraham they didn't understand how the world around them worked. I would be more inclined to believe Mayan, Inca, Meso American, Hindu, Chinese or Aboriginal creation stories. These peoples actually observed the world around them and their knowledge before being destroyed by Christianity was vast and not manipulated to consolidate power.
But they do preach without proof and have done successfully for Millenia. Which was my point.
But AR 15's kill a lot of fecking people. Rifle for hunting sure, handgun for home protection yes, weapons of war with massive clips for dumb cnuts with little dicks, no fecking thanks. These weapons cause mass destruction to a crowd of people where as a handgun needs more skill to inflict that kind of damage. It's true the person kills with the gun but in the same sense I would not allow an 18 year old just after getting his drivers license to drive an eighteen wheeler truck. Common Sense people, the reason to own a gun is not the same reason to own this weapon that has caused so much destruction to these fifty people or people looking to enjoy a movie or fecking SIX YEAR OLD feckING KIDS.
Well science and humanity has come to a point where these fantasies should be obsolete. People like to say they believe, denegrate people for not following their delusions but churches in the west have less then 20% occupancy on Saturdays and Sunday's. Hypocrites at best, dangerous delusional fools at worst.
No, ofcourse that's not what I meant. I mean that some people just want to focus on "probable" mental problems while ignoring the other part of this debate. Which is that most of these lunatics commit these acts based on (their view of) religion.
The majority of people with mental problems don't go out trying to kill as many people as possible.
A guy who gets his info from Twitter and the National Enquirer. If he wasn't born in to privilege he would be sitting in a rat infested basement in Queens, hand in a bowl of Cheetos spewing hate online. The guy is a fecking fraud and it's about time he was called out by the party he runs for. I won't hold my breath though. I'm sick of hearing them say he is wrong and dangerous, but I will vote for him regardless, odious cnuts.
Sorry, but that is contrary to human nature. We will always want to use the most effective and modern tools available for whatever task we undertake. It's terrible that some civilians misuse firearms in such an aggressive, offensive manner but the truth is that most do not.
If AR-15s weren't available there are other semiautomatic rifles out there. If semis were gone then it's easy to waste a room full of people with a pump action shotgun or lever action rifle. An accomplished operator can dump plenty of rounds with a bolt action and box magazine.
Singling out particular weapons is pointless because it fails to address the root problem, that people who shouldn't have access to guns do. Tighten that up and things may change in the US. (For example, in Canada, our screening process would have included a call to his ex wife and likely resulted in the Orlando shooter not being able to buy firearms or ammunition legally)
An AR-15 is easily modified, concealed and used. It's well worth removing them from society.
It may not be a total solution, but certainly a part of one imo. Not all shooters are accomplished operators and when we have a big % of amateur shooters, not having access to semi automatics etc do help alleviate the problem to an extent. I don't believe there is a one size fits all solution. Restricting access, background checks, mental health checks etc all add up to a significant control.
But plenty do it without religion too. I'm not sure of the stats though and also the issue of how you define it.
I have a hypothesis that because Islamic extremist groups get so much exposure at the moment, they act as a beacon for people who want to put a cause behind their violence.
Religion is a bit of a red herring to me. Violence has been consistent throughout history but the reasons for it have not. Even Christianity has been twisted by societies to justify violence. Was listening to a podcast recently about how Germanic tribes used to see Christ as a warrior, very interesting.
That's not to say that we shouldn't try to do something about radical Islam and the like, I just think we'll still be getting about as many massacres even if we managed to.
Concealed? Have to disagree there. I'd give it to you for ARs with 7.5" barrels and such but I think those are heavily controlled in the US under SBR rules or something? I believe most civilian ARs on the US market have a 16" barrel and that is quite possibly legislated.
Modified, I'm going to disagree as well. If it were so easy then we'd see more fully automatic versions recovered by police in drug raids, etc. Either the easy modification isn't really that easy, or perhaps reliable, or maybe the laws are such that people don't feel it's worth it based on the potential penalties.
All guns are easy to use, mate. There's one in your drawer, you know this. Although I have seen plenty of first timers trying to rack an AR using the forward assist button.
Last edited:
Restricting magazine sizes is probably more effective. Humans don't tend to pass up the chance to use the best technology available but we can moderate our excess to an extent. 5-10 round magazines are all that civilian semis require.
Also, getting rid of semis eliminates probably 85% of the handgun market, possibly more. So that can't really fly in the US imo.
Last edited:
"My wife has been killed by a machine which should never have come into the hands of any human being. It is called a firearm. It makes the blackest of all human wishes come true at once, at a distance: that something die. There is evil for you. We cannot get rid of mankind's fleetingly evil wishes. We can get rid of the machines that make them come true. I give you a holy word: DISARM."
He was gay, drank, visited a gay nightclub for three years while pledging allegiance to three rival organizations. For some reason, I doubt religion was his main motivation.
Where was that quote from?
Cheers
So should we ban all firearms and take our chances with people with knives. I'm all for that, at least it will give me a chance to fight the cnut the way nature intended. Shit will happen with firearms and countries like yours have sensible controls in place. That's does not get away from the fact that innocents are more likely to be killed by any gun then a criminal or intruder. The person most likely at risk from a gun in the home are women.
I feel it has gone too far in the US for a Canadian or European system in regards to firearms unfortunately. Too many people want to be cowboys here. But you could limit the amount and type of firearms available to the general public. You can't get away from the fact that this guy was employed in a security capacity or the sheriff who shot that guy in the cinema for throwing popcorn at him and telling him to feck off, these are the NRAs definition of a good guy with a gun. They don't allow you to walk around with these weapons on you're shoulder on a military base or police station so why should a member of the public be allowed?.
By all means have a gun that a law abiding citizen should possess for hunting or home security but please don't tell me it's ok to unload with a semi automatic on a deer or bear or blow the shit out of the intruder in you're house. Rifle/ shotgun to hunt, handgun/ shotgun for home protection and semi automatic with 30 round clips for law enforcement and war. What's the problem with that? And before it's mentioned again Jared Laughner shot up a constituency meet in a parking lot with a handgun and extended clip and was taken down during the reload, seven dead I believe, an AR would of shredded that place up. A guy in China went to a school armed with blades and injured a lot of children, if I recall, no deaths. That week Adam Lanza walked in to Newtown armed with his mothers semi automatic, who he shot in her sleep, a few handguns and killed over thirty people, the majority under six years of age. It disgusts me the use of this argument you have put forth. Where does it stop?, using you're argument it should be ok for me to drive around with a 50 cal bolted to my vehicle for protection just because I can.
I don't think you can ban owning one for various reasons. What you can ban is walking on the streets carrying it. I agree with that sentiment.
Yep, it's truly unbelievable. I think it's a matter of feeling superior to others or just not seeing them as human beings at all. But even then... what can possibly drive nutjobs to commit such acts? The guy had children of his own ffs. Was his hate for strangers bigger than his love for his own child? Mindboggling.