[verum ago]

A nice attempt, but perhaps too expedient?

To my thinking, it is convenient to display a show of "solidarity" to make one's own group image appear noble -

and only after harassing and reviling people as belonging to hate groups, and stifling any words of dissent for years....Perhaps a case of "too little too late"...

No, this statement was the right thing for them to do. If they didn't say anything we'd be all over them for failing to condemn the shooter's actions.

There's probably some truth in their statement in that they're condemning violence. Many of the people in these groups are also pacifist types.

I'm not endorsing any of these groups or their actions, just saying that in addition to any cynical purpose to their statement (like trying to appear noble) there is probably a genuine horror at the violence of the action, if not in these groups' leadership, then at least with some of the members.

And just to throw this out there:
I know a gay man who's very in-your-face about it, and downright virulent at social events, always steering the conversation toward "the Cause" no matter what people are talking about. His reaction to this shooting was to angrily lament the fact that the guard didn't "do everyone a favor and put a few in that f***er's chest."

[scottjewell]

Yes, I do not doubt that the condemnation of violence is sincere, as in the case of your friend.

It would have been insane, for instance, on many levels, had gay groups come out in favor of the shooter (although some individual gays did say, “FRC had it coming .”)

Most reasonable people do in fact condemn violent crimes.

I’m just pointing out that this does not undo their hypocrisy nor their harm of the past years.