There is a lot of effort going into a focus on imagined and irrational arguments - that have not basis in reality - the inquiry into the shooting is still underway and a conclusion is a long way off.
It would be good to see the "debate" move onto how to prevent the widespread impact of gun violence on life in America. A solution to this problem will make the world a better place.
Here are some facts from The Atlantic Wire
Action - 0: Number of concrete things President Obama has done to keep guns off streets that White House press secretary Jay Carney could name in a press conference Monday.
John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Kennedy, Gabrielle Giffords, - across America 30 people die from gun violence each day - around 200 a week - 11,000 a year.
Notwithstanding "Newton" it is alot of people to die because there is no will to find a solution to the over abundance of guns.
With all my heart I trust that will change. A legacy of substance - a future without such incidents - gun violence becoming a distant experience in the collective memory of America.
Obama is a President who acts with a wider view/scope than say Bush - with this American problem – now that John Kerry is becoming Secretary of State - it would make sense for Obama to, in addition to seeing at the Federal and State level that existing “Gun Laws” are adhered to, appoint both Clintons and some sensible Senior Republicans to assemble a combined Congressional and Senate Committee.
Such a committee could sit in every state with a view to researching the issues and hearing from the people - following which a recommendation on a universal approach to gun control is made – A common sense approach for the common good of everyone.
Such process to be set in place so that a suitable law is passed by both the Senate and Congress well before the expiry of Obama’s second term.
I may be being gnomic and a FW - the polcitcs may be diificult but a solution can't be impossible.
This is the first time I have said it - but point taken.
I feel like I have to push back at it on a daily basis.
I feel I don't have to push back at "it"or "anything" in raising my five-year-old daughter.
What I have tried to do is impress upon her, from about age 2 years was that she has to make decisions and exercise choice and choose to "be".
An example of this is her school sports day - Gee came last in the running race - I asked her, "How was it?", she said, "Daddy it was great", I asked, "How did you get on?", her reply, "I came last in running", Me, "Was it fun?" - Gee, "One million percent out of ten - it was really big fun!!"
She then told me her best friend "Ducky" came second and cried because she didn't win - Gee thinks, "I did better than her because I came last and didn't cry and I was happy and she was sad and crying like a baby"
Gee has a pretty good handle on things and is the happiest person I know - It is a truck load of fun being five years old - much better than being say over 50 - I recommend everyone just be five years old.
The sad tragedy about Newton is that, through an over abundance of gun culture, the joy of life has been extinguished for many.
The POV that males are violent because they're driven by testosterone falls over when females behave as violently as males - this is a very real emerging phenomenon.
Damn Fine - Jolly Good Show - congratulations. to the winners.
If you mean "they tend to be killed by their partners a lot less" then yes, I suppose that could be considered "more resilient".
No, that is not what I mean and you know it - I wouldn't say you are witless; sarcasm is the lowest for of wit. You prevent yourself from recognising a valid perspective on the extent of domestic violence and abuse – I can’t see your sarcasm serves any purpose.
By all means go hard out to ignore the problem in your response and don't forget to feel self-righteous doing so.
Actually Yes - look at this particularly from "Of Interest .........."
Analysis of the data of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, "a longitudinal investigation of the health, development, and behaviour of a complete cohort of births between 1 April 1972 and 31 March 1973" (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001) of more than a thousand New Zealand babies of predominantly European ancestry confirmed that sex differences are the largest for violent crimes and smallest for drug- and alcohol-related crimes. Of interest is their finding that "inside intimate relationships and the privacy of the home, females [in this normative sample] are just as physically aggressive as males" (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001, p. 69), which could not be explained by the hypothesis of self-defence.
Other reserach particularly in the USA and Canada shows that sex differences for rates of violent offending are closing - this reflects a range of factors - not necessarily that women have become more violent but that the problem is more reported than it was previously.
Female violence inside intimate relationships and the privacy of the homes is I consider substantially under reported and not recognised by Police and other professional acting in the "field".
A recent example being a male friend whose partner would often resort to violence and abuse when in domestic matters - which also involved her picking up a knife and waving it about - when they wre in counselling with relationship services - the advice from the counselleo was for him not to walk into the kitchen when she was angry.
IMHO Female violence agaisnt children and partners is masively under reported to the degree that it almost doesn't exist. - which is what I am saying to you - if you don't hear it then that is fione - but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And it’s equally logical that there are also complex social reasons for the ways men behave, particularly in families.
The thrust of debate, research and policy on family violence is aimed at "Men" as perpetrators - the matter of "Women" as perpetrators scarcely gets a mention though anecdotally it appears as prevalent – Men tend to be more resilient in dealing with being on the receiving end and there is not the networked support – the research is skewed as a result - and does not reflect the reality.