Yet another mass shooting...

[Tanaqui]

Idk how accurate that is. Sure they might not jump the bridge and I'm happy for that. But what do they do? Take an extra high round of drugs? Step in front of moving vehicle? Suicide by cop?

 

No, apparently they by and large don't do it if it's not an easily accomplished task. I'll have to see where I found that though, I don't recall how they showed it. (And I may be misremembering, I'll acknowledge that possibility.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I knew Lott's name was familiar but couldn't place him.  He has done a fair amount of research trying to prove more guns = less crime, but he has not been very successful at doing so. 

 

For any stats/econ junkies, here is a nice bit of work picking his studies apart:

 

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/onepage.html

[Katy]

Chocolate...  Do you have a link to that Lott paper that's public?

 

Here's one that says it refutes it from Yale Law.  Haven't read it yet:  http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers

[ChocolateReignRemix]

http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf

[justasque]

You are totally absolutely right, and I truly apologize, my intention wasn't to hurt anyone's feelings. I know everyone's circumstances are different. I was a young single mom, and this topic touches my heart directly. My baby is almost 20 years old, and I can't imagine our lives without her. My heart boils quite a bit when it comes to the evil of abortion, not against the mom facing a tough situation though! I do get sad and upset when people refer to human babies as " just tissue", like if they are just a bunch of matter. I also can't conceive the whole PP and selling of baby parts. That is when the prolife in me just boils, but never, by any means, trying to criticize someone facing the tough situation. I wish women considering it could find a viable option, in which not mom or baby get harmed. I pray for this every day.

 

That's because it has been spun to you as "selling of baby parts", rather than as "allowing some good to come of tragedy by letting bereaved mamas opt to have their babies' bodies used for scientific medical research, in the hopes that said research will ultimately lead to a healthier, happier life for another mama's baby".  (With the scientific medical researchers covering the logistical costs incurred therein.)  Where the truth lies on the spectrum between the two is debatable, but I believe that those involved acted through a desire for some good to come from a bad situation, not to do evil.  There are many thoughtful issues to explore around the use of parts of dead people for medical research, but language like "selling of baby parts" does not lend itself to such nuanced discussions.

[Murphy101]

No, apparently they by and large don't do it if it's not an easily accomplished task. I'll have to see where I found that though, I don't recall how they showed it. (And I may be misremembering, I'll acknowledge that possibility.)

I believe you. I'm simply confused about what a suicidal person who discovered they can't easily jump the bridge does after that point. I'm presuming they don't just go home and sleep off feeling suicidal. I'm presuming one doesn't just suddenly no longer feel suicidal if it isn't easy.

 

This my questions about what happens instead.

 

And all my presumptions could be wrong I suppose.

 

Really a rather different topic too I guess.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Chocolate...  Do you have a link to that Lott paper that's public?

 

Here's one that says it refutes it from Yale Law.  Haven't read it yet:  http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers

 

Actually that paper is directed at the more guns, less crime paper from Lott and Mustard.

 

Oops. My bad. Lott and Mustard did a more guns, fewer shootings paper also.

Edited December 3, 2015 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Katy]

Thank you!

 

Apparently Lott is a regular writer for National Review:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do

[Tanaqui]

I believe you. I'm simply confused about what a suicidal person who discovered they can't easily jump the bridge does after that point. I'm presuming they don't just go home and sleep off feeling suicidal. I'm presuming one doesn't just suddenly no longer feel suicidal if it isn't easy.

 

I don't want to drift too far off topic, so if we all want to continue this discussion we should start a new thread. However, I will say that my amateur understanding is that a good deal of suicides are suffering from depression (well, duh) and depression saps your ability to do things. (That's actually why starting anti-depressants is linked to suicide attempts, because you're finally well enough to get out of bed and move around and all.) So if you get to the bridge and find that it's fenced off, you probably don't have the energy to come up with a new plan and follow through on it. That was your plan. Now that's over. So yeah, you go home and sleep it off, and maybe when you wake you realize you need help and you speak to somebody. Or you continue feeling suicidal and don't act on it.

[December]

Since a lot of people claim the answer is more guns, it would be interesting to calculate how the accidental death rate would be expected to rise with more people carrying guns.  I am seeing that 600 people die a year from gun accidents.  If we suddenly double the number of people carrying guns, might we expect to see that number double?  (Not sure, statistics confuse me.)  It seems like we could easily end up with more accidental gun deaths than we would save victims in mass shootings.  

[Robin in DFW]

It's threads like this one that make me glad I don't come here anymore.

[Tanaqui]

It's threads like this one that make me glad I don't come here anymore.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[mamiof5]

That's because it has been spun to you as "selling of baby parts", rather than as "allowing some good to come of tragedy by letting bereaved mamas opt to have their babies' bodies used for scientific medical research, in the hopes that said research will ultimately lead to a healthier, happier life for another mama's baby". (With the scientific medical researchers covering the logistical costs incurred therein.) Where the truth lies on the spectrum between the two is debatable, but I believe that those involved acted through a desire for some good to come from a bad situation, not to do evil. There are many thoughtful issues to explore around the use of parts of dead people for medical research, but language like "selling of baby parts" does not lend itself to such nuanced discussions.

From those videos there is absolutely nothing that shows me that PP had any good intentions whatsoever, other than making money and trying to leave the most expensive parts intact because they get more money from it. I don't see the goodness or "scientific interest" in that. I could say more, but this has totally derailed from the initial topic so I won't go in further. Have a great rest of the day!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

From those videos there is absolutely nothing that shows me that PP had any good intentions whatsoever, other than making money and trying to leave the most expensive parts intact because they get more money from it. I don't see the goodness or "scientific interest" in that. I could say more, but this has totally derailed from the initial topic so I won't go in further. Have a great rest of the day!

 

FTR, PP doesn't make money from those sales, and they are prohibited by law from profiting although they can get reimbursed for costs.  Countless investigations have failed to show anyplace they have broken the law.

Facts matter.

[Tanaqui]

Well, if you like, I'm pretty sure we discussed the issue very thoroughly indeed when it first came up. I bet you could find the original thread on the whole Planned Parenthood videos. Long story short, even though many states immediately started investigations on PP, they weren't able to find any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.

 

So you don't really need to derail. You can go read what we all said about it at the time :) Although if you really would like to discuss it, I'm sure I and others wouldn't mind starting a new thread, if you feel that one is too old to bump. I wouldn't want you to feel you couldn't share your opinion on this topic.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Tanaqui

[8circles]

As someone who is very anti-abortion, I don't have any clue what this has to do with gun violence. People don't pick-up guns to solve their problems because there are abortions happening.

[mamiof5]

You do know these videos have been widely debunked, don't you, as deceptively edited and taken out of context ?

Sorry, just don't buy it. PP is a huge organization, they have lost so much funding and this has been a mess. Why haven't they sued? If they have, I haven't heard about it. Honestly I am very curious to see how it plays out, maybe they will sue and clean up their name. The last time I heard (probably a few weeks ago), they keep losing funding and haven't done anything to clean up their name. If this has changed then I'm not aware of it.

[Laura Corin]

I believe you. I'm simply confused about what a suicidal person who discovered they can't easily jump the bridge does after that point. I'm presuming they don't just go home and sleep off feeling suicidal. I'm presuming one doesn't just suddenly no longer feel suicidal if it isn't easy.

 

This my questions about what happens instead.

 

And all my presumptions could be wrong I suppose.

 

Really a rather different topic too I guess.

 

In my experience, they make attempts that are less likely to be successful.  I don't want to go into more detail than that.

[mamiof5]

As someone who is very anti-abortion, I don't have any clue what this has to do with gun violence. People don't pick-up guns to solve their problems because there are abortions happening.

Has nothing to do with it, you are right. Abortion got brought in when discussing the disrespect for human life at any stage (babies, shooting kids, college students etc), just general disrespect for human life. I don't think anyone has said shootings are happening because abortions are happening...unless it was said and I missed it?

[Joker]

Two of the four guns were obtained legally. What's odd is that the police say they were bought by someone connected to the investigation but have declined to name which person that was.

I've seen reports that even those purchased legally by someone else were then legally transferred to one of the shooters.

[Sneezyone]

Sorry, just don't buy it. PP is a huge organization, they have lost so much funding and this has been a mess. Why haven't they sued? If they have, I haven't heard about it. Honestly I am very curious to see how it plays out, maybe they will sue and clean up their name. The last time I heard (probably a few weeks ago), they keep losing funding and haven't done anything to clean up their name. If this has changed then I'm not aware of it.

 

I know they (the state) have been sued in at least two states over this issue (AR and LA) and both states lost. Google is our friend.

[Carol in Cal.]

That's because it has been spun to you as "selling of baby parts", rather than as "allowing some good to come of tragedy by letting bereaved mamas opt to have their babies' bodies used for scientific medical research, in the hopes that said research will ultimately lead to a healthier, happier life for another mama's baby".

There is actually evidence that at least some of the baby parts that were cut up and then shipped off to be used for research were taken without the consent of the mothers.  That being so, the 'opt' term is not entirely accurate.

[mamiof5]

FTR, PP doesn't make money from those sales, and they are prohibited by law from profiting although they can get reimbursed for costs. Countless investigations have failed to show anyplace they have broken the law.

Facts matter.

Have they gotten all their funding back?? Did I miss something? They have lost all that money and they are just taking it? If there was something good behind those videos, if PP had nothing to be concerned about, they would have already defended themselves. Maybe I have really missed something? When PP takes legal action to defend their name I might start questioning their goodness, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt...but, if they keep getting defunded and don't do anything about it I will keep thinking that there is a lot of true in those videos and that's why they don't bother to clean up their name. Yes, of course they won't admit to it, they'll say it's not true and they haven't benefited from it, but they keep losing funding and not defending themselves? PP is a huge organization, if those videos were not true their attorneys wouldn't have stopped til the ones who made them got punished. Again, haven't checked on the recent updates, maybe there's some major lawsuit from PP that I haven't heard of.

[Tanaqui]

Why haven't they sued? If they have, I haven't heard about it.

 

One

 

Two

 

Three

 

Four

 

Five

 

I could go on. I found literally dozens of articles, each one about a different lawsuit. Suffice to say, I've learned a few things from this google walk. One, Planned Parenthood is divided into sectors, each of which may need to make its own suit and two, they're pursuing lots of legal action over this whole thing - including against CMP.

 

But people who believe those ridiculous videos aren't likely to change their minds about PP.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Tanaqui

[Carol in Cal.]

 You do know these videos have been widely debunked, don't you, as deceptively edited and taken out of context ?

Actually, you're mistaken about that.  PP has claimed this, but it doesn't stand up to review. 

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

But people who believe those ridiculous videos aren't likely to change their minds about PP.

Methinks the lady protesteth too mightily...

 

And, BTW, PP stopped providing baby parts for research as a result of the furor rightfully caused by the videos.  I watched them.  Did you?  Many of the people I know who have picked up the arguments you are making have not.  I think that as classical homeschoolers it does behoove us to go after primary source material where possible.

[mamiof5]

You can buy it or not buy it, but the critical analysis of the videos is clear and widely accepted.

 

Maybe you're just not as informed on this topic as you feel you are.

We can go back and forth. Yes, haven't checked the topic in a few weeks. When PP sues the ones who made the videos and cleans up their name then I might believe them. Yes, general public might accept their coverups and lying, but I don't take it. The fact that they are losing support, getting defunded and not taking legal action about that just shows they are hiding something and don't want to open more cans of worms. They have powerful attorneys and tons of money and supporters, they haven't sued those who made the videos because who knows what else they have to hide, and they just can't afford to have more stuff exposed.

[redsquirrel]

I believe you. I'm simply confused about what a suicidal person who discovered they can't easily jump the bridge does after that point. I'm presuming they don't just go home and sleep off feeling suicidal. I'm presuming one doesn't just suddenly no longer feel suicidal if it isn't easy.

 

This my questions about what happens instead.

 

And all my presumptions could be wrong I suppose.

 

Really a rather different topic too I guess.

 

Sadly, I know more than I would like to know about jumping off bridges.  I currently live in a town with a university that has been forced to place barriers and nets etc around and under the bridges.  Since they went up we haven't had anyone jump.  At one point we were having several a year.  And they haven't switched methods b/c the last time a student committed suicide by not jumping into a gorge, that also made the paper. The university usually makes a formal announcement whenever a student dies for whatever reason.  I haven't heard of a single suicide since the nets went up. We thought they would be temporary when they went up going on 10 years ago, but they seem to be doing their job.

 

Our local SP (suicide prevention) did a quite a lot of work locally to address just that issue.  There is the myth that if someone is suicidal that they cannot be stopped no matter what.  In fact, by simply placing crisis phones on major bridges the number of people jumping went down. But the phones get used a whole lot. People usually want to be stopped, they don't want to die, but they do want the pain to stop. 

 

Sadly, many people commit suicide after calling friends only to have no one pick up the phone. I personally know two people, one lost a son and another lost a brother to suicide who had messages on voice mail from their loved one begging them to call. They will have to live with that, if they had picked up, been home to get the call, something maybe could have been different. In both cases it was a gun that was used.

 

The problem with guns and self harm is that a gun is much more likely to be successful. Yes, we hear about it going awry on occasion, but usually, there are no second chances.  I grew up in gun culture, but because I have sons, and I know the statistics about young men and suicide and guns, I would never have a gun in the house. Neither one tends towards depression, but you just never know.  I also don't keep tylenol, another favorite for self harm.  The problem with tylenol is that if you live, and you probably will, you might destroy your liver. Everyone has bad moments, or moments of blinding anger or despair. But a gun can make it the last moment you or a loved one ever has.

[Tanaqui]

We can go back and forth. Yes, haven't checked the topic in a few weeks. When PP sues the ones who made the videos and cleans up their name then I might believe them. Yes, general public might accept their coverups and lying, but I don't take it. The fact that they are losing support, getting defunded and not taking legal action about that just shows they are hiding something and don't want to open more cans of worms. They have powerful attorneys and tons of money and supporters, they haven't sued those who made the videos because who knows what else they have to hide, and they just can't afford to have more stuff exposed.

 

I've already addressed this, as has Sneezyone. They have sued CMP, and different states where they lost funding. For you to continue to rely on this argument is dishonest.

[mamiof5]

Well, if you like, I'm pretty sure we discussed the issue very thoroughly indeed when it first came up. I bet you could find the original thread on the whole Planned Parenthood videos. Long story short, even though many states immediately started investigations on PP, they weren't able to find any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.

 

So you don't really need to derail. You can go read what we all said about it at the time :) Although if you really would like to discuss it, I'm sure I and others wouldn't mind starting a new thread, if you feel that one is too old to bump. I wouldn't want you to feel you couldn't share your opinion on this topic.

Thanks Tanaqui! Nah! Don't have the time to bump that or have another PP conversation. Lots going on this time of the year. We can all agree to disagree... some support PP, I don't, at all. We might never be able to confirm what the truth is.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We can go back and forth. Yes, haven't checked the topic in a few weeks. When PP sues the ones who made the videos and cleans up their name then I might believe them. Yes, general public might accept their coverups and lying, but I don't take it. The fact that they are losing support, getting defunded and not taking legal action about that just shows they are hiding something and don't want to open more cans of worms. They have powerful attorneys and tons of money and supporters, they haven't sued those who made the videos because who knows what else they have to hide, and they just can't afford to have more stuff exposed.

 

They have a federal lawsuit against CMP and they have legal action ongoing in numerous states, and thus far have been getting rulings in their favor.  How can you claim to be so well informed and not know this?

Edited December 3, 2015 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Corraleno]

 

 

Since a lot of people claim the answer is more guns, it would be interesting to calculate how the accidental death rate would be expected to rise with more people carrying guns.  I am seeing that 600 people die a year from gun accidents.  If we suddenly double the number of people carrying guns, might we expect to see that number double?  (Not sure, statistics confuse me.)  It seems like we could easily end up with more accidental gun deaths than we would save victims in mass shootings.  

 

We already have far more accidental gun deaths than successful incidents of "self-defense," let alone saving lives in mass shootings. This is from a study at Emory University:

 

METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

 

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, the violence like yesterday is going to continue because the terrorists are here. This is a growing problem that many just can't seem to wrap their heads around. Instead, they focus their hate and anger at fellow Americans with the belief that if guns were gone, we'd all be safe.

 

Box cutters were used in the 9/11 attack, very nasty-looking knives are being used to terrorize and kill people in Is*rael, and just yesterday, a Russian was beh*eaded by Is*is. Thankfully, the bombs didn't go off yesterday. The problem is the fierce hatred and violence of the terr*orists.

 

It's the intent to murder in the souls and minds of these people that's the problem. The method isn't the problem. Even now, the U.S. Is said to be very worried that terr*orists are trying to produce chemi*cal wea*pons.

 

We need to stop verbally fighting each other, and pay attention to the real enemies of peace and safety.

 

Yeah, except that if we were to exclude the 14 killed yesterday, we will still have somewhere north of 10,000 people killed by guns in this country in 2015.

 

We kill more of ourselves than terrorists do, so please spare me about how we don't need this discussion now.

 

[Tanaqui]

We kill more of ourselves than terrorists do, so please spare me about how we don't need this discussion now.

 

Well, of course, most American terrorists are white males, so... yeah.

 

[Stacia]

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, the violence like yesterday is going to continue because the terrorists are here. This is a growing problem that many just can't seem to wrap their heads around. Instead, they focus their hate and anger at fellow Americans with the belief that if guns were gone, we'd all be safe.

 

Box cutters were used in the 9/11 attack, very nasty-looking knives are being used to terrorize and kill people in Is*rael, and just yesterday, a Russian was beh*eaded by Is*is. Thankfully, the bombs didn't go off yesterday. The problem is the fierce hatred and violence of the terr*orists.

 

It's the intent to murder in the souls and minds of these people that's the problem. The method isn't the problem. Even now, the U.S. Is said to be very worried that terr*orists are trying to produce chemi*cal wea*pons.

 

We need to stop verbally fighting each other, and pay attention to the real enemies of peace and safety.

 

The Charleston shooter wasn't considered a terrorist. The Newtown shooter wasn't considered a terrorist. The Oregon college shooter wasn't considered a terrorist. A small child near me that recently killed herself with a found gun wasn't a terrorist. Suicides generally aren't terrorists. Domestic violence perpetrators who kill their significant other aren't deemed terrorists. And so on.

 

Violence in our country is not just coming from 'terrorists'. We have plenty of others who do plenty of harm using guns (intended or accidental). Violence & guns are an issue, a big issue imo, and it's not just terrorist-related.

[Tanaqui]

The Charleston shooter wasn't considered a terrorist. The Newtown shooter wasn't considered a terrorist. The Oregon college shooter wasn't considered a terrorist.

 

That very much depends on who you ask.

 

[Katy]

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, the violence like yesterday is going to continue because the terrorists are here. This is a growing problem that many just can't seem to wrap their heads around. Instead, they focus their hate and anger at fellow Americans with the belief that if guns were gone, we'd all be safe.

 

Box cutters were used in the 9/11 attack, very nasty-looking knives are being used to terrorize and kill people in Is*rael, and just yesterday, a Russian was beh*eaded by Is*is. Thankfully, the bombs didn't go off yesterday. The problem is the fierce hatred and violence of the terr*orists.

 

It's the intent to murder in the souls and minds of these people that's the problem. The method isn't the problem. Even now, the U.S. Is said to be very worried that terr*orists are trying to produce chemi*cal wea*pons.

 

We need to stop verbally fighting each other, and pay attention to the real enemies of peace and safety.

 

Uhhh...  Why are you putting an asterisk into each of those words?  Are you afraid of the NSA?

 

You realize that if the NSA was as good as it seems in the movies yesterday wouldn't have happened?

 

And yes, terrorism IS a worldwide problem.  But since so far we can only count...  maybe three?  mass shootings in recent American history as related to terrorism, and we were discussing the problem of mass shootings, starting from before determining that there were any political motivations to this shooting, discussing relevant ways to stop mass, non-political shootings is still interesting to some of us. 

 

I like political debate.  It's one of the things I miss about college.  I like learning nuance and changing my views.

[Katy]

Legally, terrorism is defined as having a political motive for your violence.  Shooting people for notoriety, while terrifying, is not terrorism.  These people were not fighting for any sort of change.

[Robin in DFW]

Thanks for sharing.

You are welcome.

[Stacia]

That very much depends on who you ask.

 

I don't necessarily disagree.

 

But, in that particular post, I was specifically responding to the other poster's obvious references to just al-Qaeda & Isis being terrorists.

[Tanaqui]

Legally, terrorism is defined as having a political motive for your violence.  Shooting people for notoriety, while terrifying, is not terrorism.  These people were not fighting for any sort of change.

 

(5) the term “domestic terrorism†means activities that—

(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

©occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

 

So long as they were intended to intimidate a civilian population, I don't think a clear political motive is necessary. But of course, I appreciate input from people who work in this field.

[Stacia]

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, the violence like yesterday is going to continue because the terrorists are here. This is a growing problem that many just can't seem to wrap their heads around. Instead, they focus their hate and anger at fellow Americans with the belief that if guns were gone, we'd all be safe.

 

<snip>

 

We need to stop verbally fighting each other, and pay attention to the real enemies of peace and safety.

 

It's already been pointed out in the thread, but I'll reemphasize it. You may want to look at the following article:

There have been 334 days and 351 mass shootings so far this year 

 

 

The number of mass shootings so far this year has already surpassed the total number of mass shootings in 2014, according to the tracker. And the pace is well above 2013's pace, when a total of 363 mass shootings occurred.

 

Looking at the included calendar graphic, the longest we went this year in this country without a mass shooting was eight days in April.

 

Most of this year's shootings were before yesterday's 'terrorists' arrived. Imo, the real enemies of peace and safety are the people doing all these shootings. Here's the list of names (unfortunately many unknown) of shooters so far this year: Mass Shootings in 2015.

[Tanaqui]

Take out gun violence by gang members and drug traffickers and those stats probably go way down.

 

Actually, the majority of mass killings (53%) are family related. 25% of those shootings are triggered by a breakup.

 

That's a really good article, lots of useful statistics, and I urge everybody interested in this subject (which I assume we all are) to read it.

[mamiof5]

I've already addressed this, as has Sneezyone. They have sued CMP, and different states where they lost funding. For you to continue to rely on this argument is dishonest.

Have to admit haven't had a chance to check the latest happenings in this topic, life gets in the way, can't keep up with everything. However, that doesn't make me dishonest. Hey, PP kills babies, we all know it...doesn't really matter how much we try to sugarcoat it, they are a baby murdering organization and that's more than enough reason for me not to support them at all. The minute they stop killing innocent babies I might change my opinion about them.

[Mergath]

Have to admit haven't had a chance to check the latest happenings in this topic, life gets in the way, can't keep up with everything. However, that doesn't make me dishonest. Hey, PP kills babies, we all know it...doesn't really matter how much we try to sugarcoat it, they are a baby murdering organization and that's more than enough reason for me not to support them at all. The minute they stop killing innocent babies I might change my opinion about them.

 

Did you miss the part where a pp told you there are women here who had to have abortions for various reasons, and referring to it as "baby murdering" and "killing innocent babies" is cruel?

 

For someone who claims to care so much about life, you sure are heartless.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Have to admit haven't had a chance to check the latest happenings in this topic, life gets in the way, can't keep up with everything. However, that doesn't make me dishonest. Hey, PP kills babies, we all know it...doesn't really matter how much we try to sugarcoat it, they are a baby murdering organization and that's more than enough reason for me not to support them at all. The minute they stop killing innocent babies I might change my opinion about them.

 

Weird.  Earlier you posted this:

"The last time I heard (probably a few weeks ago), they keep losing funding and haven't done anything to clean up their name. If this has changed then I'm not aware of it."

 

Yet Planned Parenthood has been filing lawsuits against states to restore funding since August. Article dated August 26th, 2015:

http://go.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily2_&id=48599&security=1201

 

Just sayin'...

Edited December 4, 2015 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Tanaqui]

Have to admit haven't had a chance to check the latest happenings in this topic, life gets in the way, can't keep up with everything. However, that doesn't make me dishonest. Hey, PP kills babies, we all know it...doesn't really matter how much we try to sugarcoat it, they are a baby murdering organization and that's more than enough reason for me not to support them at all. The minute they stop killing innocent babies I might change my opinion about them.

 

You had the time to post responses on this thread, but not enough time to read what other people said to you?

 

I don't believe you.

 

Relying on an argument that is false, and has already been shown to you to be false, is dishonest.

 

Also - seriously, knock it off with the inflammatory language. It doesn't make your point stronger, it just makes you look like a troll.

[Stacia]

Senate rejects gun control amendments offered following San Bernardino shooting 

 

The Senate rejected a measure from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks for guns purchased online and at gun shows on a 48 to 50 vote and an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote. The amendments were offered  to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated in the Senate and they needed 60 votes to be adopted.

 

So, gun advocates, gun owners, & gun lovers, please tell me why it would unreasonable to have those on the terror watch list be unable to purchase guns? Why would it be unreasonable to expand background checks for guns purchased online & at gun shows?

 

I really cannot understand how those are unreasonable expectations or regulations.

 

Yet this stuff gets vetoed & blocked on a regular basis.

 

Sigh.

 

ETA: As someone who sits on the other side of the table on this issue, the vetoing of these reasonable (imo) suggestions doesn't seem like compromise to me. Not even close.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Stacia

[8circles]

Senate rejects gun control amendments offered following San Bernardino shooting

 

 

So, gun advocates, gun owners, & gun lovers, please tell me why it would unreasonable to have those on the terror watch list be unable to purchase guns? Why would it be unreasonable to expand background checks for guns purchased online & at gun shows?

 

I really cannot understand how those are unreasonable expectations or regulations.

 

Yet this stuff gets vetoed & blocked on a regular basis.

 

Sigh.

Because some people live where parked cars on the street are scary and some people live where police response time is 3 hours. Oh, and because patriotism and sin. Duh.

[Guest]

All issues with omnibus legislation aside (and that is an ENORMOUS aside), the concern is how individuals end up on the watch list. It takes one look at the IRS scandal to realize this sort of system is rife with abuse and preventing individuals who are exercising free speech and freedom of association from being wrongly placed on the watch list is a real concern.

 

The protections in place for preventing civil rights abuses were deemed too weak and those need to be strengthened before more congresspeople will line up in support.

 

The Patriot Act is another example of something hotly contested by both sides of the political spectrum because of the balance between keeping individuals safe and abridging their rights. It is anything but simple, especially when you consider that each bill has to go through multiple committees before hitting the floor. And oftentimes things are added in and taken away that can completely change the meaning and implementation of the original idea.

 

I've been fighting this on a state level personally - it is enormously challenging and difficult to control, even for the sponsors of a given bill.

 

ETA - excuse all iPhone related typos! I think I got them all this time.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Arctic Mama