"Sandy Hook + freedom of women"

[freddy]

Interesting take on Sandy Hook in the NYT...

The United States is one of only three countries, along with Mexico and Guatemala, that begin with the opposite assumption: that people have an inherent right to own guns.

The main reason American regulation of gun ownership is so weak may be the fact that the trade-offs are simply given a different weight in the United States than they are anywhere else.

After Britain had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws. So did Australia after a 1996 incident. But the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society.

That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”​

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

 

[Phazer]

The main reason American regulation of gun ownership is so weak may be the fact that the trade-offs are simply given a different weight in the United States than they are anywhere else.​

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

Ummm....ummm....ummm....the United States also has a Constitution that enshrines the right to keep and bear arms. But, or course a NYT article would omit that.

Oh...try looking into how "mass shootings" are defined and things get really wonky.

Oh...hey...most "gun deaths" occur in the areas of the country with the most onerous firearms restrictions. Just sayin'.

 

[Deplorable Me]

......because only the government reserves the right to murder children and orchestrate genocide and mass murder.

 

[freddy]

Ummm....ummm....ummm....the United States also has a Constitution that enshrines the right to keep and bear arms. But, or course a NYT article would omit that.

Oh...try looking into how "mass shootings" are defined and things get really wonky.

100%

 

[freddy]

......because only the government reserves the right to murder children and orchestrate genocide and mass murder.

100%

 

[Grimscale]

“Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

No, America did NOT decide 'killing children was bearable'. America decided that our inherent Right to defend ourselves and our loved ones was more important than a knee-jerk reaction to the behavior of a crazy person.
Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I'm going to go out and kill children. This is a false assumption the 'news' constantly tries to make to strengthen their pitifully weak arguments against our Rights.
My gun does not make anyone else any less safe than if I didn't have a gun. It only makes ME more safe if someone were to attempt to break the Law and attempt harm to me or mine.

 

[freddy]

“Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

No, America did NOT decide 'killing children was bearable'. America decided that our inherent Right to defend ourselves and our loved ones was more important than a knee-jerk reaction to the behavior of a crazy person.
Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I'm going to go out and kill children. This is a false assumption the 'news' constantly tries to make to strengthen their pitifully weak arguments against our Rights.
My gun does not make anyone else any less safe than if I didn't have a gun. It only makes ME more safe if someone were to attempt to break the Law and attempt harm to me or mine.

Agreed. But I think of 'America decided killing children was bearable' as what it really means: no nationwide legislation to greatly reduce gun ownership resulted from Sandy Hook. Sadly NYS did and does suffer from the unSAFE act, of course. So trying to look at it in a positive light: if Sandy Hook was a hoax (which it wasn't) then it backfired and has (hopefully) cemented our right to keep and bear arms. At least for now. <Sigh>

 

[Grimscale]

But I think of 'America decided killing children was bearable' as what it really means: no nationwide legislation to greatly reduce gun ownership resulted from Sandy Hook.

Except, a lack of Nationwide gun-control legislation does not equal 'killing children'. I can't understand why any sane person would even try to make such a false connection, except to try to force their agenda on the Country.

 

[SomeSoldier]

NYT = irrelevant.

 

[Phazer]

“Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

No, America did NOT decide 'killing children was bearable'.

Excellent point. Keep setting fire to the Left's straw men.

 

[freddy]

NYT = irrelevant.

I understand and do not disagree.

 

[Airborneguy]

......because only the government reserves the right to murder children and orchestrate genocide and mass murder.

Those numbers add up way higher than 145 million.

 

[Robin]

“Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

No, America did NOT decide 'killing children was bearable'. America decided that our inherent Right to defend ourselves and our loved ones was more important than a knee-jerk reaction to the behavior of a crazy person.
Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I'm going to go out and kill children. This is a false assumption the 'news' constantly tries to make to strengthen their pitifully weak arguments against our Rights.
My gun does not make anyone else any less safe than if I didn't have a gun. It only makes ME more safe if someone were to attempt to break the Law and attempt harm to me or mine.

Maybe this is what they meant.
"The State of Abortion in the United States," which states that more than "3,000 unborn children are still killed every day."Feb 3, 2014
Robin

 

[freddy]

Maybe this is what they meant.
"The State of Abortion in the United States," which states that more than "3,000 unborn children are still killed every day."Feb 3, 2014
Robin

I don't understand. Are you actually saying a woman should not get to decide?

 

[SomeSoldier]

I am saying it, a woman should not have the right to use abortion as birth control.

Use one of the 30 different birth controls on the market.

 

[freddy]

I am saying it, a woman should not have the right to use abortion as birth control.

Use one of the 30 different birth controls on the market.

Why do you think that you, of all people, get to decide what a woman does with her body?

 

[SomeSoldier]

I am not the constitution does.

 

[freddy]

I am not the constitution does.

I must have missed that part of the constitution. Where exactly does the constitution say that you (a man allegedly) get to decide what happens to the insides of a women's body?

 

[SomeSoldier]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Posterity = children you have not had yet. So that part about the right to LIFE. That is guaranteed to your future children, if you choose impregnate some woman.

 

[freddy]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Posterity = children you have not had yet. So that part about the right to LIFE. That is guaranteed to your future children, if you choose impregnate some woman.

Until born it is not a human child. Ergo it is not one of the future children. Only children actually born in the future would qualify as future children. And besides, what about those few thousand 'future children' you dribbled onto a kleenex this morning? What say you about that 'posterity'?

 

[Robin]

I don't understand. Are you actually saying a woman should not get to decide?

mabe
That is not at all what I was referring to. I was wondering if the author of the statement, “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”, maybe 3000 baby's killed every day has made people in general and women specifically callous to the concept of infanticide.

On your assessment, It is no longer her body alone. The other half of the equation should have an equal say in what becomes of the third party.
Robin

 

[Grimscale]

Might I suggest that a discussion pro/con the idea of abortion be moved to a separate thread in Off-Topic and leave this thread to the initial discussion of gun control legislation post-Sandy Hook

 

[SomeSoldier]

Until born it is not a human child. Ergo it is not one of the future children. Only children actually born in the future would qualify as future children. And besides, what about those few thousand 'future children' you dribbled onto a kleenex this morning? What say you about that 'posterity'?

So a child you have 5 years from now is not your posterity?

 

[freddy]

mabe
That is not at all what I was referring to. I was wondering if the author of the statement, “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”, maybe 3000 baby's killed every day has made people in general and women specifically callous to the concept of infanticide.

On your assessment, It is no longer her body alone. The other half of the equation should have an equal say in what becomes of the third party.
Robin

Infanticide is the historical norm as I recall. Regardless, have you witnessed firsthand a woman giving birth without drugs? I don't see how she would ever think we as men have any part in the decision.

 

[freddy]

So a child you have 5 years from now is not your posterity?

It is an actual child that was born, not a unborn 'child'. Because really an unborn child is not a child. Obvious, no?

 

[Robin]

Yes, I have. It is truly awe inspiring.
Robin

 

[SomeSoldier]

It is an actual child that was born, not a unborn 'child'. Because really an unborn child is not a child. Obvious, no?

A child 5 year from now cannot be without being everything it was up until that point. To include your thought.

 

[ManrisFrack]

It is an actual child that was born, not a unborn 'child'. Because really an unborn child is not a child. Obvious, no?

No. No, it isn't obvious.

I once thought the same as you. Through my own wife's pregnancies and those of my family and friends, I can no longer honestly say that unborn children are not children.

However, I can still understand and respect that you hold that view. Please respect the fact that a great many of your peers view the unborn as human children and, considering this, logically view abortion as infanticide. Start a new thread if you must, but don't belabor the point here.

 

[Robin]

Obvious to who? You?
Robin

 

[Defilade]

Those numbers add up way higher than 145 million.

Yep, you are correct.

20th Century Democide