There seems to be a kerfuffle regarding Rosie's remarks after the shooting in Ottawa and her support of a tweet by Chrissy Tiegen. What do you think? Bad timing? Maybe. But, when is it a good time to talk about mental illness and gun control? I support both of them because I agree with them. Rosie said what I said and I don't think I was minimizing the issue and, at the very least, opened the dialog about mental health issues. Chrissy used sarcasm, which at the very least has re-opened the dialog about gun control in the US. I hope Canada pays attention! (All emphasis/bolding mine)

Rosie O'Donnell's remarks on Ottawa shooting draw criticism online

The View co-host Rosie O'Donnell is drawing criticism online for remarks about Wednesday's deadly shooting in Ottawa.

Thursday's episode of the chat show kicked off with the panellists discussing the attack on Parliament Hill and the killing of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo of Hamilton as he stood guard at the National War Memorial.

The Ottawa shootings came just two days after two Canadian soldiers were run over — one of them fatally — in Quebec by a man with jihadist sympathies.

As The View panellists discussed whether Wednesday's shootings were an act of terrorism, O'Donnell said "most of these shooters have severe mental illness" and then expressed support for a controversial tweet about the shooting from model Chrissy Teigen, who used the tragedy in Ottawa to make a point about U.S. gun control.

On Wednesday, Teigen tweeted: "active shooting in Canada, or as we call it in America, Wednesday." She then clarified in a follow-up tweet: "Sorry you don't understand that is a knock at America and our issues with gun control. No one is minimizing the Ottawa shooting."

"I thought it was brilliant and on-point, but some people thought it was insensitive," O'Donnell said of Teigen's tweet.

Co-host Nicolle Wallace also challenged O'Donnell, saying: "I know it's important to you that mental health is always raised as a possible, unaddressed cause. It's also possible that he was an evil terrorist, OK? So I don't want that to get lost.

"The Canadian government has classified this as a terrorist attack. The definition of terrorism is arbitrary violence and death rendered on innocent people who are just doing their jobs."

"I get it," replied O'Donnell. "But 86 people a day are killed in America with guns, and you know what? That is terrorism here."

O'Donnell then further backed up Teigen's tweet.

"I think she's saying: I'm an American, I live here. I see two people shot this week in Canada and the entire country of Canada is in mourning. However, in America this happens on a daily day basis and we don't even pay attention anymore."



http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/rosie-o-don ... -1.2810710

On another note: Had this been some damned religious person saying "Canada is now realizing the wrath of God for legalizing gay marriage" Many people (Canadian and American) would have jumped all in that with support. Can I get an "Amen"?

It's a lot easier to pass tough-sounding laws than it is to deal with mental illnesses.

Virtually everything I've read/seen in US media that either cites or quotes Canadian sources has uniformly praised the way Canadian media has handled this ~

I strongly agree with and support both Chrissy Teigen's and Rosie O'Donnell's comments ~ some female talking head on [you guessed it] Fox responded to Chrissy by saying [paraphrasing here] "you've got a nice bottom, stick with that" ~

Rosie nailed one of the most troubling US tendencies for me: shootings/killings have become so common here that we don't even hear about the vast majority ~ and too many don't react except to the most heinous ~

Sooz

There is some chatter on social media and radio about enacting the "War Measures Act" here. Some journalist, possibly a couple of politicians (who are hinting) like Doug Ford. They want to "round 'em all up". Then what? Incite more to violence with a broad sweep? I think further investigation into the known "terrorists" would suffice at the moment. If the country starts trampling on people's rights without due cause, we are in trouble. See article for further reasons not to overreact to this incident...here is one:

"There are powers in the original Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 — since renewed — that allow for preventative arrest, for a short period of time—up to 48 hours," said University of Ottawa security expert Wesley Wark. "These powers are only to be used in emergencies in the face of suspicion of an imminent terror threat.

"Collaring all individuals under current investigation would not only be an abuse of power; it would also be operationally counter-productive as some of these investigations will be in their early stages, and some might be developing fruitful relations with target persons.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada- ... 12329.html

Doug Ford doesn't know what he's talking about... as usual.

Fox news babes are hired because they have nice bottoms and not much above the neck.

I don't see the value in labeling the perpetrators terrorists.

Mental illness is not a take this pill and you are all better problem. It's a life time battle. Keeping guns out their hands is a fairly futile battle, too. However, we've got to start somewhere however.

"I get it," replied O'Donnell. "But 86 people a day are killed in America with guns, and you know what? That is terrorism here."

100% spot-on. We have bullets flying everywhere, killing innocent people every day! How is that NOT terrorism?

That's not "terrorism" Chaos, that's "tragedy", or perhaps "idiocy". Actually, both.

Oh, what the heck. I don't like bananas, so from now on I'm gonna call them "terrorist fruit".

wow Cattleman. Nice way to mock someone without providing a counterpoint.

If you lived in the US in a very large city, you might have a different attitude. Those who live in high crime areas walk in fear every hour of every day. Gangs. If it's not the fear of being on the street in a cross-fire situation, it's the fear of a stray bullet from a shootout or drive-by coming into your home. Lock your car doors so that no one steals your car at gunpoint while you are stopped at a red light. Now add the fear that someone might walk into a school and gun you down.

It might not be classic terrorism (whatever that may be) or organized terrorism, but none of the above strikes a feeling of well-being into any hearts. It creates fear, whether from a group or an individual. It's far beyond "tragedy" or "Idiocy" at this point, when it happens every f'n day.

I should have added a smiley or something Rose. It wasn't in any way meant to mock Chaos. And if my poor expression gave that impression I apologise.

And I can completely understand the situation you are talking about.

But if you start calling all these things "terrorism" then you pretty much destroy the meaning of the word.

Well, you don't. Its already been done.

For me, anyone who intentionally strives to or creates terror in another is a terrorist ~

Sooz

Ok then. Thanks. I disagree that the meaning of the word has been destroyed. Terrorism on a large or small scale is still terrorism. The recent shooting at Parliament hill is a good example. People all over the country were terrorized and overreacted. The overreaction is, imo, a perfect example of how people are easily terrorized. Especially after 9/11. I think that it's not the act, but the reaction that defines the word, if that makes sense. The world has changed a lot.

I'm not aware of any significant overreaction other than by those who would profit from it.

The meaning has pretty much been transformed since 9/11. It used to refer to a very specific political tactic. Now its applied to just about everything that scares people.

Sensationalistic media and pols tend to do that.

That's from what I read on social media and comments on news stories online. Those who would profit from it just fanned the flames.

I am more for Wikipedia's definition of terrorism.

In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

I am not at all thrilled with 86 gun deaths a day. I think it's senseless, but I think to be what I consider terrorism there has to be an ideological or political goal.

Social media is hardly reliable, IMO. Folks in the vicinity may have been afraid but, again, I'm not aware of any panic/overreaction. The MSM, on the other hand... but thry profit from it.

I don't think there is any reason to worry what definition is falls under.

I think gun violence in the US is a huge problem and I think part of the problem is the result of politics and ideology. I think underdiagnosed/untreated mental illness plays a major role. I think the overall narcissistic society and inverted morality (that which is bad is cool and I want to go out with a bang) are factors too.

I've read so many posts online that cry for arming everyone in the school that it scares me. Do you really want everyone shooting at everyone else in the lunchroom? Another of his victims died. It's incredibly sad.

I agree, Kathy ~ I said above: "For me, anyone who intentionally strives to or creates terror in another is a terrorist" ~ I personally don't see it as being limited to politics or ideology ~ nor do I see it as necessarily being a product of "mental issues" ~

Sooz

I have to differ, sooz. IMO, language and its use are very important. It's misuse has a great deal to do with people, USians especially, being unreasonably afraid of every little thing that goes wrong.

Propagandists thrive on the misuse, though.

I agree that "... language and its use are very important" and that "Propagandists thrive on the misuse ..." ~ but, to me, anyone who intentionally creates that level of fear in others is a terrorist ~ maybe it's just me, but I don't see that as watering down the political/ideological concept ~

Sooz

A bank robber "deliberately creates fear" by using a gun to rob a bank. Is s/he a terrorist?

Yes, because of the weapon ~ s/he KNOWS the gun will terrify people and just wants what s/he wants ~ so I see that as fitting into my definition of intentionally creating terror in others ~

Sooz