Orlando Shooting

In the editorial "The shooting in Orlando is an attack on all of us," I agree with the author in everything they are saying, about why this American citizen choose this day, if he was associated with anyone, how, if it could be stopped, and why a specific target. The author's intended audience seems to be anyone, mostly leaning towards people living in America. This may also apply to the LGBTQ community worldwide. The credibility of the author seems to state facts to back up his opinions, and mentions past events in history in relation to the Orlando shooting.

The author's argument includes how this was a gay hate crime, as well as the fault of the allowance of the assault rifle by Congress, and the shooter was anti-gay because he was Muslim. I do believe that the minority of the LGBTQ community was targeted specifically, and this is a continuing problem in America. Religion gets in the way of many people's opinions, and due to everyone having different and varied outlooks on religion, this makes arguments even more complicated. I do not believe that religion should cause hate, despite the different views people have on varied religions. As for the gun, it is true that this facilitated the shooting, but the author mentions "...once restricted under federal law, at least until Congress shamefully allowed the assault rifle ban to expire in 2004," implying that they should be banned.

I do understand this point of view but Congress cannot be blamed for the shooting due to this. Ideally it would be great to be able to ban guns, but in a realistic point of view, people are still going to have guns, and if not they will find a way to access them (despite the legality) and possibly use them. There is also the case where some states may allow guns and some states may not, and the issue with cops with guns as well. Although there may be exceptions to authority with guns, issues can get extremely complicated and controversial very fast.

The author throws in a part about a previously segregated city of Louisville and the passing of Muhammad Ali, which seems almost random. Was this thrown in due to Muhammed Ali and his Islamic beliefs in comparison to the shootings? Although it does set an example, I do not understand the point of that section, it just seems to be thrown in randomly and is unrelated. I think that this article should've been geared more towards the sympathy towards the LGBTQ community rather than the criticism with blame on Congress. I would also like to mention, he is an American citizen and automatic assumption of association with ISIS is considered stereotypical. His ethnicity alone is not a valid excuse to assume this way.