| To the Editor: There is no simple Newtown explanation |
| Written by Jim Litwin |
| Wednesday, 16 January 2013 10:05 |
|
Since the horrific shooting of 20 children at Newtown, people have been offering answers to explain why. There is no shortage of reasons put forth: mental illness, not enough guns, too many guns, assault weapons, video games, our violent culture, etc. All the usual suspects have been put on the table in hopes of finding a simple answer. That's not going to happen. Social life is complex and hundreds of human and social factors come into play to determine behavior. The National Rifle Association (NRA), of course, is always willing to lead the discussion to assure that the answer to our gun problem is more guns. They are not able to digest the obvious: guns (especially semi-automatics) enable deranged people to carry off mass killings more quickly and efficiently. Other groups also offer simple explanations. Prominent among them are the ministers and talk show hosts who drive the religious right wing. These self-appointed persuaders claim to best understand what happened at Newtown - the killing of those innocents is God's judgment on the rest of us. Ex-governor Huckabee believes that the killings are the result of tossing prayer out of schools; the Reverend Dobson argues that God is upset at atheists; Pastor Sam Morris believes that Newtown happened because we are teaching evolution and "how to be a homo" in our schools. These "religious" folks are not ashamed to exploit the massacre at Newtown to advance their agenda. They are reprehensible. The Deity they proclaim is a vengeful and brutal God. When He is not pleased, He punishes us by shooting our children. That should teach us a lesson! However, the biblical Jesus was loving and forgiving. He would be angry at the massacre at Newtown. He would also be angry at the NRA and the preachers who exploit Newtown for their own advantage, selling more guns and converting the vulnerable to their cause, respectively. We will never fully understand why Newtown happened. But, we need to reject those who offer self-serving answers for the fools they are, for their opportunism. Perhaps then we can move on to meaningful and substantive reforms to reduce the number and magnitude of the killings in our country. Jim Litwin Bowling Green |
Front Page Stories
| BG redistricting lines blurred 05/22/2013 | MARIE THOMAS BAIRD Sentinel Education Editor 
A map shows the proposed boundaries for the 2013-2014 school year. |
North Baltimore residents protest removal of 125 trees 05/22/2013 | JORDAN CRAVENS Sentinel Staff Writer  NORTH BALTIMORE - A group of village residents are concerned their utility bills will [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles | ||
Comments
This is merely a "Feel Good" attempt at a solution. Nothing More!
Until we as a society demand that these crazed individuals, who commit these horrific crimes, are quickly brought to justice and once convicted are "Eliminated" from Society, we are going to have this happen again and again.
Taking away the "Constitutional Rights" of "Law Abiding" Citizens will NOT solve the problem.
All the children killed at Newtown were shot between 3 and 11 times each, all within a total of 10 minutes. Many of the killers in these sorts of incidents displayed only vague signs that might, and only in hindsight, be connected to such criminality, but not in ways that would separate them from the great mass of the citizenry. It is important to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of the people who commit these crimes, but prohibiting weapons that are only justifiable as toys or in some bizarre fantasy of the government coming to get you is a reasonable place to start.
As I said, the most extremely conservative member of the SCOTUS has declared that the 2nd Amendment does not protect ALL weapons. None of the executive orders themselves is that controversial or amounts to "extension" of executive power. I don't think there is a word for how stupid, callous, and self-involved you sound.
You also show less knowledge of other governments than you do of your own and that is saying something.
Chris: I TOTALLY Agree that the loss of life in the Newtown incident is Horrific!
I also have to agree with Defender's Comment below:
Quoting Defender:
BOTH illustrate how members of our Society have NO Regard for Life! I find it appalling that MANY in our Society find Defender's Illustration OK yet are VERY vocal about the loss of life in the Newtown incident and others like it?
In utero means a fetus in utero, it is NOT a life until it is born to a woman who chooses to give birth.
Quoting Defender:
Defender's Comment is 100% CORRECT! If one uses YOUR definition below: "Those are globs of fetal tissue that can't survive without a female host." Then a newborn, that is Dependent is NOT a Life because they "can't survive without" a female and/or male?
Brian, YOUR "LIBERAL BIAS" on this and other controversial topics "WRONG"!
Chris: I again find it amazing that you (in Your Vast Wisdom)seem to always twist what people, on these blogs, say into what you find to your liking, in order to propagate your “Liberal Ideals”? I was merely attempting to point out to Brian that his logic and reasoning was Very Questionable, at best! (BUT), you bring up some interesting thoughts that I will respond to:
There are a few reasons where I find Intervention of a Pregnancy acceptable. I personally believe that Rape is a condition for intervention. I also believe that when the life of the Mother-to-be is in jeopardy, intervention is warranted.
I DO NOT believe that Abortion should be used by women as a method of conveniently ending an unwanted and/or surprise pregnancy. If the pregnancy is NOT wanted, use one of many methods of birth control that are readily available. (But don’t expect every employer and/or the Government to supply that for you) Basically, with the exception of the instances I have identified, I view the Aborting of a living unborn child in the same way I view the death of a child due to child abuse. Someone must speak up for ALL Life!
I also approve of contraception, which apparently may come as a surprise to you? Not sure why you feel anyone who supports “Right to Life” is against Contraception?
Chris:
That is a real stretch? If you believe that anyone is about to criminalize certain forms of birth control, then you, my friend, have some deep issues and have been "brain washed" by the "Far Left"????
Talk about "Out of Touch" with Relality?
As for:
Quoting Christopher Williams:
Sorry you were not successful with the treatments, BUT the "Right" is NOT attempting to take away anyones right to seek medical assistance in this way?
I'm not making that up.
Defining Personhood is one thing, but correlating that into making the use of contraception illegal is "Way Out There" and will NEVER happen.
I have NO problem with the Supreme Court defining Personhood as beginning at conception.
I also have NO problem with creating situations where intervention with a pregnancy is allowed. I have stated at least 2 instances where that would be recommended and acceptable and I believe MOST Conservatives would also concur with those 2 exceptions.
Rape and the Health Risk of the Mother-to-be are grounds for intervention, in my and most conservatives minds.
Chris:
And here I thought you were a "REAL THINKER"? Apparently you HAVE been reading to much "Left Wing Propaganda". I and most conservatives do NOT have a problem with the use of contraception. The Catholic Church speaks out against it by most conservatives I know, use or have used various methods of contraception all of their adult lives.
The major difference is that I know DOZENS of women personally who have gained a profound sense of relief from their abortion procedures.
The grief is relatively rare and occurs mostly in those who have had some form of religious or moral indoctrination.
That is SICK that YOU and the "Women" you speak of ONLY gained a "Sense of Relief" are taking the Life of an Unborn Child!
You and Your Thinking Inhumain and SICK!
No life. No children were hurt. Remember: fetal tissue is NOT a person! Never has been, never will be.
The lives of real women were greatly helped. They also do not have quotes around their status as women. I know you hate for them to have medical autonomy, but it is the way of medical science that your sick mind will never defeat.
I am not surprised at your empty comebacks either.
Keep trying.
The rest of us will continue to insist on and fight for women's rights and we are never going away. Get used to the way of the future.
So Brian, what would be your thoughts if your Mother had made a decision to abort you prior to your being born? Though you and I do not agree on the subject, the idea that your Mother might have done that is repulsive to me.
It's not a childish technique to insist on human rights for born humans.
Chris, I SURE hope that you do NOT think that you and Brian are alike in your thinking and beliefs? Brian is one VERY misguided thinker and is NOT the norm!
Chris, my curiosity causes me to ask you why, with all your professed intellectual background, are you still teaching at a relatively small mid-west University like BGSU/UT, still seeking “Full Professor” status? At this point in your career, it would seem like you would have attained that Professorship and have acquired a job at one of your prestigious Ivy League Institutes?
Maybe if you spent the, seemingly endless time, responding to the Sentinel Blogs on writing a Book, in your field of study and/or writing for “Professional Publications”, you would have acquired that “Full Professorship”?
I must admit that I enjoy reading your entries all most as much as I enjoy completing the 2 to 3 published crossword puzzles that I do each day. Your attempt to stump (?) some readers with your vocabulary and thoughts is both amusing and thought provoking.
Sometimes people teach at schools like BGSU and UT because they are committed to the area, come here for family reasons, and because they really believe in the mission of teaching these particular students at the highest levels possible.
Both institutions are much more internationally and nationally connected and prestigious and higher more competitive faculty than when you, or the nay-sayers BGSU72 and "John," were students
Nor do I spend as much time on these blogs as you assume. But I do care about my community. And that lay people have a more accurate view of the world in which I work.
Chris, All that is well and good, BUT
Based on what you have shared on these blogs about yourself causes me to wonder why you have been passed up for "Full Professorship" at BGSU and/or UT? Something does NOT add up?
I know lots of Professors at these Instituions and I must say that I would question how they were awarded "Full Professorships"?
Ruralhick is a reactionary bent on personal attacks of anyone to the left of Mussolini. He does not represent any portion of the BG community except himself and the 12 neo-cons who live far outside of the town and rarely venture forth into the real world.
And you two have polarized each other to the point of name calling, and that really hasn't benefited the discussion.
Who is name calling? I'm trying to be accurate.
Again: fetuses are NOT independent, living citizens and do not have rights as such. The mothers have rights and this will NEVER change even if you spend 24 hours a day spouting the opposite.
-Fetuses cannot.
-Born babies are legal persons, fetal tissue is not.
-Women can and will self-determine if they are mothers or not. --Defender, rural guy and all of the other anti-choice freaks motivated by an outdated religion can NEVER change that even with thousands of pages of backwards rhetoric. Keep wasting your time if you want.
Who is more of a "FREAK", a person who chooses to support the rights of ALL living humans, including unborn babies or someone who is OK and willing to Kill an unborn viable life?
No question in my mind that you, Brian are the one with a Problem!
I would be happy as a freak, except that pro-choice is the mainstream position of modern society.
That version of "religion" is more and more irrelevant everyday.
"A new poll coinciding with Roe v. Wade’s 40th anniversary shows national support for abortion rights is at an all-time high. According to The Wall Street Journal and NBC News, a record 70 percent of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. And for the first time on record, a majority now believes abortion should be legal in all or most cases."
I recognize that a mass of non-viable cells is NOT a human being, and NOT an individual with a legal identity, even if you try to call it a "baby," It is not that until a woman decides to become a mother and gives birth. There is a scientific and medical (and legal) difference between a fetus (part of a woman's body) and a separate BORN individual.
The freaks can't grasp that simple science.
That's why doctors ask for the name IN THE DELIVERY ROOM AFTER DELIVERY. Because THEN it goes on a legal document. Not before. you should get used to it.
My problem is people trying to dictate the personal medical decisions of others through public policy. It is sick, immoral and disgusting.
It is called Humanist Ethics and it is a far cry above the Middle Ages version of ethics you are preaching. Science will prevail and you continue to be proven wrong about morality again and again and again.
Amusing, but kinda sick too.
It does not take that long for ladies to decide what to do for themselves.
By your book, more women will be forced to go through the entire process unwillingly. How disgusting and unhumane.
Also, stop putting words in my mouth to argue your strawmen.
I think he was simply cautious, knowing that (at least until now) to openly advocate for the gun control he would like to see, would be political suicide.
Now, he feels between public sentiment after the tragedy, and his re-election, he is in a position to push the issue. But even so, he collects children and others as cover.
We can have a civil society WITH black guns, too. The problem is the society and the individual, not the objects. Objects are inanimate and do not act of their own violition.
You may not feel that what the President has proposed and/or will enact will violate your freedoms, but many do.
Would you feel your freedoms were violated if you were limited to a certain number of tweets or letters to the editor? Or if you had to check with the government before you could post to a blog?
Or maybe if you had to pass a background check to exercise your right to vote?
Supporting "freedom" isn't only about supporting those things you like or use or hold dear. Rather it is about supporting ALL the rights, and the ability to exercise those rights by all law abiding citizens.
I think you mischaracterize the NRA's perspective. Nobody is talking about forcibly arming anyone. They are trying to protect against the forcible disarmament of law abiding citizens.
I argue that many of your fellow citizens are already armed in public. You just don't know it, and never will unless - God forbid- they have to use those weapons to defend themselves and others. The only place you can be sure they are not armed around you, are those declared "gun free zones". Of course, those with evil intent know that, too.
if all carry firearms would that in fact threaten safety and freedom? Remember most killers are not mentally ill..
So I go back to the point that the ban is then based on largely cosmetic concerns, which makes the whole purpose suspect.
How far does it go? Well, I side with freedom and liberty. With Freedom comes responsibility, yet our society has steadily reduced responsibility over the past generation or more. The reciprocal is also true: reduce responsibility, you also ultimately reduce freedom. This is what we are now seeing.
None of the framers ever claimed this freedom thing was always clean or free of risk.
The most conservative justices on the supreme court do not find the 2nd amendment freedoms absolute (meaning, applying to any and all weapons); why do you?
But the difference is this: violate one of the laws you mention, and you are prosecuted. Libel is a civil (not criminal) crime. Even inciting violence through speech is, when prosecuted, a lower level Felony in it's worst case.
Yet, while these things can and do happen, we do not restrict everyone's rights in order to remove a tiny fraction of the potential "evil" from society.
The 2nd Amendment is already well limited and regulated. No-one can purchase "weapons of war" such as functional tanks, bombs, NBC weapons, etc. True Machine Guns are very hard to come by, extremely expensive and heavily licenced.
What is being considered, based on largely cosmetic reasons, is an unwarranted encroachment and infringement on the Right.
It wasn't for hunting or recreation, and it wasn't even for personal defense. It was clearly and rightly established to codify that the people would have the means to rebel against a tyranical government, as the framers had just done.
There is a reason it is the 2nd Amendment, and not the 9th or 12th or some other number. Our founding fathers viewed the ability to viably form the last line of defense against renewed tyranny only slightly less important than the Freedom of Speach, Religion and Assembly (1st Amendment).
Are 70-80% of the country--the percentage recent polling suggests support one or another of the president's measures, some of which were initially proposed by the NRA--also "flaming liberals"?
The "kids as shields" phrase comes directly from right-wing media, and blithely forgets what actually happened to children to cause this concern. Do you have any ideas of your own, Phil?
Clubs, handguns, hunting rifles, can't kill as many people as quickly as higher capacity magazines and the kinds of semi-automatic weapons used in these tragedies.
"Everywhere else in the world?" How do you explain Western Europe and its gun problem?
Chris: UNFORTUNATELY! A "CRAZED" individual like the one at Newtown CAN accomplish the same deranged act with a gun with multiple clips of 7 to 10 rounds.
We MUST find a way to identify these "Crazed" Individuals and remove them from the general population prior to them committing acts of this nature. We must also be committed to "Permanetly Remove" individuals who commit these horrific crimes from our midst.
As I stated earlier; Unfortunatley what the President has proposed is ONLY a "Feel Good" attempt at a solution.
Since the expiration of the assault weapons ban, there has been a dramatic uptick in these kinds of events. Certain weapons and magazines allow more carnage in shorter time; the Tucson shooter was stopped in the process of reloading. These aren't meaningless steps.
Your argument has several flaws? Both the Tucson and the Newtown individuals had a "History" of "Mental Illness" and were identified of needing "Help".
That Help was not provided nor was the potential treat shared/dealt with by the authorities?
Thankfully, (as I recall) the gun "Jammed" in the Tucson incident and that is when he was stopped.
Had both of these individuals been properly dealt with, they would have been either given the assistance they were in need of and/or removed from the general population.
We MUST deal with the "Mental Illness" factor and reinstate the "Death Penalty" for killing someone with a firearm. Getting off, "Claiming" "Mental Illness" is NOT acceptable and should no longer be tolerated.
You sound quite paranoid, and your reaction to Obama is, to put it mildly, hysterical.
Why do people as right wing as you, as contemptuous of reason as yourself, assume that seeing the duly elected leader of the United States as a rational and moderate human being is "drinking Koolaid," and "worshipping?"
Are the only alternatives in politics quivering fear and hatred on one hand and abject thinking devotion on the other? If you think that, then you are indeed an emotional and intellectual infant.
I dare say, both sides in this and any other difference of opinion are inhibited from understanding and learning because of it. The more emotional and deeply held the belief, the more intrenched and difficult to overcome the bias is.
There is an honest conversation to be had about gun violence, but you are not helping it any.
Inform yourself from credible sources, and maybe--maybe--you might sound like a rational human being.
It doesn't make you look credible to attack me personally when all I am doing is providing accurate information. By focusing on gun collecting, you are also admitting that you are just a scared little boy worried about his toys.
Give us "Specifics" on how these proposals will prevent the "Crazed Incidents"?
Even the President indicated that what he is proposing would probably not have prevented the Terrible Incident at Newtown?
The changes in background checks alone will put a dent in this.
I wasn't talking about crazed incidents.
Do children turned into hamburger have to be the necessary price of freedom?
Shrug your shoulders, blame the liberals and pray?
As to "many countries" where free speech is not allowed: most of the countries in the developed world have as much free speech as we do, if not more, as well as tighter gun laws and many times fewer gun deaths.
The only people looking to civil war right now are ignorant fools.
Indeed, the government institutes regulations (CAFE) that it knows to cause increased fatalities in automobiles... a known amount for each extra 1 mile MPG. Yet, we accept these deaths as a cost of improving fuel economy.
The fact is that school shooting deaths have decreased the past decade. The fact is that "assault weapons" account for a very small percentage of all firearm deaths.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are purposely ended in utero each year in celebration of a woman's right to control her own body.
So, yes, we should accept it as a cost for this Right, just as we accept the costs incurred for our other Rights.
Those are not "lives." Those are globs of fetal tissue that can't survive without a female host.
Anything to support NRA rhetoric, right Defender?
I've read this thread and I'm not convinced that background checks are a bad thing.
With completely unregulated firearms, I would get anthrax-loaded RPG's and come after MY enemies. Is that what you gun-nuts want? Unlimited access to weapons technology? Let's all have weaponized botulinum to protect our homes then!
Hell, I want a missile-capable drone!
Where does the line get drawn?
But the measures taken to attain improvements in fuel economy, namely lightening the vehicles, tends to make them less survivable in accidents. So, when the inevitable accidents occur, an increase in the rate of fatalities occur. This is a known, studied casual relationship.
There is no causality to those deaths aside from poor drivers.
Faux news pundits? Only if USA Today is a faux news outlet, and the NHTSA itself is a faux govt agency.
I don't think it is a "conspiracy", but rather a known cause-effect relationship which is accepted in the name of better fuel economy.
Since there will always be poor drivers, and true "accidents" as well as poor-driver caused collisions, making the vehicles less survivable is certainly causual.
And, my intent is not to call gun control advocates hypocrites (but if you infer that, so be it). Rather to simply point out that we accept far more deaths in the pursuit of other thing and in defense of other "rights", so why limit 2nd Amendment Rights for a relatively small number of casualties?
That said, it would concern me that a father would have to submit his son (or daughter) for a background check in order to give that offspring his/her first shotgun or rifle. That, to me, becomes too intrusive into the parent/child relationship.
I do have a problem with a central registry of weapons purchases being maintained at the federal level.
You also would have read how I would leave the question of whether a fetus is a life or not to each individual reader. As for me, when I could discern a heartbeat in my wife's womb, I knew I had a son or daughter, a life, growing in her. But your results may be different.
Still waiting for that scientific paper showing a causal relationship between improvements in fuel economy and deaths.
As we were in a loving, mutually respectful, responsible and adult relationship, it was a easy, mutual decision. There was no patriarchy involved.
But, I'm glad you acknowledge that it was a life in her when she decided it was... which was well within the period of time an abortion is legally performed. As biological life is not based on a whim, if she could decide it to be at an early stage, then it must be possible for all to acknowledge life at that stage.
Choose to kill it if you like, but you have just admitted that it is a life.
What is disgusting is that you consider these decisions "whims."
Women can make these choices for themselves and are not as whimsical as you disgustingly assume.
Nice try putting your words in my mouth.
You would have also read that I said whether you believe the fetus is a life, or you lable it as a "potentially viable future life", the arguement is essentially the same. A choice is made that the Rights of one (the host) is supreme over the life / potentially viable future life.
(Getting really off subject) you presume that I am anti-contraception. Wrong. Prevention is different than termination. Frankly, I've never seen the logic behind the anti-contraception stance. Much like I don't see the logic that pork is unclean.
I also support abortion in cases of rape, incest, for the mother - er - host's health.
Actually, I'm pretty much in line with what Hillary Clinton once said: abortion should be safe and legal, but rare.
But that said, I DO believe abortion is the termination of a life. I accept that a decision is being made to terminate one life (or future life if you prefer) for the benefit of another life (the host). The convoluted logic of the pro-abortion folks doesn’t change the basic fact that a life or future life is being “hamburgerized” – literally - as C. Williams so eloquently stated. It is humanly justifiable in some cases (while accepting the moral repugnance) but much less justifiable in cases for mere convenience.
It is the law of the land, and a phantom-right divined under Roe v Wade. I just wish we would be honest about what it is.
The basic facts that you dodge are:
1)A fetus is not a life.
2)Human rights are not phantom things.
1. A fetus is, at worst, a viable potential life. The simple medical procedure to terminate that life or viable potentiality most often turns that mass of fetal flesh into hamburger, before vacuuming it out. Unless we are talking partial birth procedures (birth... like giving birth) which allows for partially delivering the viable mass, then rendering it unviable in a most gruesome way.
2. Human rights are not. But also the "right" to an abortion is not specifically addressed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights (unlike the Right to Bear Arms), so had to be divined before it could be conferred upon female citizens.
Study Biology. A fetus is a potential life IF the woman CHOOSES to be a potential mother. Otherwise we are talking about private medical decisions that are not to be legislated upon. Partial birth procedures are used when the life of the mother is at risk.
The Constitution is not the ultimate list of human rights. It is extremely flawed and not a set of universal principles by any means. There are women outside of the US, you know. Human rights are universal principles.
http://jezebel.com/5978696/catholic-hospital-conveniently-claims-fetuses-arent-people-in-malpractice-lawsuit
2001 National Academy of Sciences: found that [forcing] manufacture of smaller, lighter vehicles in the ‘70s and early ‘80s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."
1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use."
2003 NHTSA study: when a vehicle is reduced by 100 lbs the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars, 4.70 percent for heavier cars and 3.06 percent for light trucks.
Check... and mate.
I never stated anything about school massacres. Thanks for creating your own strawman.
Causality of increased rate of death per accident is reduction in vehicle size/mass/protection, as argued in these studies, to include that by the NHTSA itself.
I would guess that pig is getting tired of you smearing lipstick on it.
Here is one study:
http://www.agweb.com/assets/import/files/cafe2.pdf
But of course you would say that. You are unable to see past your confirmation bias.
*Brookings - correlational, not causal.
*USA Today - a newspaper for non-academic consumption.
*NHTSA - a correlational study
If you know even one little thing about science, it is that correlation is NOT causality.
How funny you are. Did you fail in school?
Sheesh, it’s a good thing that breathing is an involuntary act, or else I'd be in trouble, right?
I'm glad you are so smart, and such a gentleman as well.
The point is that there is a known CORRELATION between government efforts to gain fuel economy, and an increase in the accident fatality rate. And this is accepted as a cost for the good of the economy/environment. That was my point, which you apparently wanted to obfuscate by arguing about the terminology.
Our government forces increases in fuel efficiency, knowing it will result in more deaths, and that is ok. Yet a small number of tragic deaths by the least-often used firearm is something that requires an infringement of a right?
You really still don't get how that does not support your guns argument, do you?
You apparently don't get how picking nits with my terminology doesn't really support your argument, either.
Ok, so try this on for size:
Our government mandates increases in fleet fuel efficiency, knowing it will CORRELATE to an increase in the rate of fatalities sustained in automobile collisions, and that is ok. The increase in fuel efficiency is deemed to be worth the cost in additional lives lost.
My point is that it is two-faced, it is an opportune use of a tragedy to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with “saving lives”. If it were all about lives, the government wouldn’t do many things it does, CAFÉ standards among them.
I was never making an 'argument' about cars, only to indicate that you had none.
You still don't.
Your agenda is also transparent.
Even moreso now.
Once your attacks on terminology are removed, you have nothing to counter the argument, do you?
This is regardless of the FACT that these weapons account for a very small percentage of all shooting fatalities. And regardless of the FACT that this same infringement on the 2nd Amendment for a decade previously failed to provide any significant results that were promised by the politicians who enacted that one. But we Americans are really good about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Especially our elected officials.
That myth of "good guys with guns" is totally a myth.
Teachers will never carry weapons, schools will remain officially weapons free, and abortion will remain a human right and legal! Done deal.
You can go back to your regularly scheduled arguments now!
I actually agree with you. But my agreement is pragmatic, not gleeful as yours seems to be.
Teachers will never be forced to carry weapons, but hopefully some states will allow those who desire to, and have training, to be armed in school. Kind of like airline pilots (why is no one asking why airline passengers should be more protected than school kids?)
Schools will likely remain officially firearms free, and those with evil intent will remain free to inflict harm, death and destruction in them. --- Kind of like what happens when the natural predator is taken out of the ecosystem.
Abortion will remain legal, but also retain its moral repugnance. The EU now considers uninterrupted access to the internet to be a Human Right, so methinks the term is being diluted to the absurd.
As in they can sue the provider when there are interruptions.
I wish I'd had that in Italy... I couldn't get service established for over 2 months when I moved there. Totally barbaric!!
There are not organized terrorists with a financial incentive or otherwise ready and willing to take over classrooms like they are airplanes. Don't be silly.
Those with evil intent have no predators and teachers especially are not that. You ARE crazy, eh?
The medieval, religious, "moral" repugnance is fading away every day now that we have science and modern humanist ethics. It is 2013! Join us, already.
There may be no financial incentive for a gunman to invade a school and shoot children, but the effect is the same as for the passengers on the plane: they are dead.
We don't want armed police in the schools (because NRA suggested it). We don't want teachers to be armed. We can't disarm the whole nation so those with evil intent will always be able to get the tools to carry out their desires. So nothing will improve.
Science shows a heartbeat in a fetus very early in the gestation, and science is making that "mass" a viable baby earlier and earlier. Your views on the morality of abortion are outside the mainstream.
Or is this a Midwest/Southern/rural vs. Coastal/urban/suburban thing?
Think about these questions in view, not just of Brian's own tendency to state them baldly and dramatically but in view of the truly morally and legally complicated questions that do arise. #legislatinggra yareasisnotalwa yswise
Support for Roe v Wade can increase while still seeing it as a morally repugnant act.
Interesting related read: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/
Why is there such a fight by the pro-abortion crowd to avoid having abortion-seekers be confronted with ultrasound evidence of their "tissue mass" and it's humanoid characteristics ? I think it is obvious that pro-abortion advocates realize that with evidence of what is growing within them (hint: it is not a tumorous tissue mass) the reality of what they seek will hit home to the would-be abortion patients.
The ultrasound is essentially a case of the state saying, "you are a bad, bad person," regardless of the circumstances. It IS an imposition of a religious value that may not be shared by the woman or the doctor into a secular context.
States have waiting periods to purchase weapons. You have to wait through a “cooling off period’, lest you go harm someone in the heat of the moment.
Relatively insignificant species hold up monumental projects for years because we are afraid of doing harm to them.
Yet, we can't be bothered to ensure that a “host” is fully aware of what that human embryo is at that moment in the gestation period? A picture is worth a thousand words, but we can't be bothered to provide that picture? Really?
Some species are more important than 'monumental projects.' It's called biodiversity and it has allowed life to exist on this planet.
The exact same can be said about liberals. Even left-leaning media have commented on how snarky Obama gets with those who disagree with him.
It is part and parcel of the polarization of our politics at the moment.
Gerrymandering has taken place for generations, if not since the beginning of the republic. Democrats have also done it when the time came and they were in power. Dare I mention the fiasco of the Mass. legislature and Governor changing the law to keep "Kennedy's Senate Seat" in Democrat hands when he passed away?
In the US political system we have checks and balances. A President gets to push his/her agenda, but still has to contend with the other party in the two houses of Congress. It is as was designed to limit the ability of our officials to make trouble.
That ultrasound procedure is painful and invasive. It is also clearly intended to make the process more difficult and expensive. That agenda is obvious, it has nothing to do with truth, since abortion clinics tell women exactly what gestational stage they are at anyhow. The invasive, painful, and expensive ultrasound is not needed for that. It is a trick to make things more difficult and it affects poor women the most.
Disgusting trick.
And your contention that abortion clinics counsel patients on the development of their human embryo is, at best, tenuous. Many do not, or do not do so consistently. More loopholes there than at gun shows.
But since Planned Parenthood gets oodles of tax dollars anyway, I can't see that as being a prohibitive factor.
And since you bring it up, I could make the point about the apparent nefarious nature of so many abortion clinics plying their trade in poor, ethnic neighborhoods. Is that Margaret Sanger's own "disgusting trick" perhaps?
There are different kinds of ultrasounds and the one being pushed for by the crazies is the invasive one.
Abortion clinics serve the poor with small grants and donations because poor women often cannot afford to get abortions. Rich women ALWAYS get what they want.
You misinterpret Margaret Sanger. Typical.
-My views on abortion ARE the mainstream, silly. The heartbeat does not at all imply a viable life. It is another red herring for anti-woman patriarchical wackos to control the behavior of females. It is why your ridiculous 'heartbeat bill' ultimately fails every time some crazy zealot tries it. The mainstream of humans (and women) will maintain the right to choose when women become mothers or not.
Tell me, dear Brian, how is it that even the liberal bastion of California has a law that adds an additional count of Murder to one who kills a pregnant woman? How can one murder a mass of tissue, if it is not already a life? And, there is NOTHING in the bill about whether the host had decided the mass to be a life or not. Hmmmmm.....
This has nothing to do about anti-woman patriarchal desires or behavior control. That is a red-herring. It seems you have to attach nefarious intent where there is none, or else your argument is exposed for the silliness it is.
If there is no nefarious intent, which is clearly doubtful, there are nefarious and disgusting outcomes to your sick ideology.
The state ASSUMES that the victim-woman wants to be a mother, ergo that the human embryo within her is indeed a life.
Hmmm…
Yet apparently that is not some sort of state-sponsored patriarchal anti-woman scheme?
In such a murder case, would the extra murder count for the "child" be removed if, say, the dead host had left written proof that she did not wish to be a mother? Indeed, does the host even need to have been aware that she was pregnant?
Methinks not on both counts.
Society will send a convict to death for that extra life taken, but you would argue that any other time, it is only a life when the host decides it is.
I doubt even your humanist morals would accept such duplicity.
How can that be if the ONLY data point as to whether a mass of flesh is a child or medical waste is the decision of the woman/host? Despite your humanist doctrine, there ARE other forces at work beyond the host’s decision.
Other forces? You mean like a mythical sky daddy? I'll take modern science instead, thanks.
Your discussion/argument skills are that of a snotty-nosed junior high-school bully. You confuse belittling people and name-calling with true debate, and think if you say something loud enough and often enough, that it will be accepted as true.
You don't have to agree with everyone, or every point any given individual makes. God forbid. But in the real world, we adults discuss, debate, and argue about IDEAS without rancor or personal invective. I'd recommend you join us. When you grow up.
You merely demonstrate tired old talking points for a backward and harmful ideology that you cannot support with compassion or reason. It is no 'debate' when you are so ill-informed and ill-motivated by a dead ideology.
But a fair reading of this long thread of comments and counter-comments will clearly show who mocks, belittles and name-calls. I'll leave it to anyone else still reading this thread to decide, as well as to decide whose arguments are reflective of dead ideology, and tired talking points.
Nobody has a lock on the truth. Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. America’s problems will not be solved by mocking and belittling each other, but an open, honest debate without rancor. We should hold ourselves, and certainly our elected leaders to this high standard.
Sure, I understand that is your position. You would stand on principle about “image” rather than on the reduction in vulnerability for your child.
As your hypothetical child grows older, he will realize what matters and what doesn’t, and will see your stand for what it was.
Can you not understand that there are many who feel the opposite way? That maybe they come to their opinions honestly and are not the mere “wackos” you disregard them as? I know it is much easier for you when you denigrate all who disagree, because then you don’t have to seriously consider their arguments or their positions.
You are emotionally grasping at straws which will never actually make children any safer in the end, no matter how you try to rationalize it. Sad, really. IT's a good thing people like you do not set policy, and likely never will.
Yet Firearm Safety courses teach respect for both the weapon, and the instructors.
Those with Concealed Carry Licenses are around you without you being aware of it. I would suggest that a teacher with a CCW license would be the same.
I'd also argue that if that teacher who was otherwise thought of as a leader or role model, that his/her being armed would have zero effect on that view, and might even increase it. His/her responsible control of the firearm would also help teach healthy respect for the weapon and its use.
My kids neither demonize nor idolize weapons or those with them. They’ve learned respect and proper use of these tools. Your “solutions” also won’t make the schools any safer. I do indeed help to set policy and legislation… through the ballot box.
Kids need to have their minds work through mathematics, science, english, social studies, and things that having a weapon present would distract from that & we both know it.
Learning about firearms takes place at the shooting range, not the classroom.
Classrooms are as safe as they can get already.
POSITIVE learning about firearms takes place anywhere a "pupil" is able to learn from a qualified "teacher" and the subject is "firearms". Kids learn plenty of negative things in school too, not all of the learning is formal or intentional.
Do you know what the ONE thing that directly implies a VIABLE life? A woman who freely CHOOSES to be pregnant. WILLING MOTHERS statistically and CAUSALLY increase the survivability and health of children. Why don't you want that?
A human fetus, well past 22 weeks gestation, completely viable outside the womb, with heartbeat and all vital signs scientifically "normal", is ONLY a VIABLE life if the "host" willfully decides it to be.
Wow.
Why can't you understand that they can decide for themselves?
Those who need abortions after that are from extenuating circumstances, like a health threat to the woman or mandatory waiting periods. Get real.
I have never, ever said that women can't decide anything for themselves. I have never viewed women as anything other than equals in my life. I've said nothing that a fair interpretation would lead one to believe that I do.
In your brash, bold, assertion of the facts you choose to believe, you make no allowances for time of gestation or any other such thing. Only that a child is a child when the host decides it to be. And is otherwise a mass of purposeless tissue.
So, apparently I have just embarrassed you by the accurate paraphrase of your ridiculous position. Good.
You DO NOT and CAN NOT view women as your equals when you dictate how they handle pregnancy though you never have to deal with that. Gestation time is a woman's issue, not yours (or mine) at all. It does not take that long for women to make these decisions. You want a definite boundary imposed on other people when it will NEVER affect you. Sounds pretty ridiculous, in fact.
Furthermore, late-term procedures come from circumstances that you would never imagine and that you will never face yourself and are exceedingly rare anyhow. Stop being so hypocritical. Your double standard is SO obvious.
RSS feed for comments to this post.