A little perspective

[Pete at Home]

According to The Week, Feb 19; page 13, 2014 saw 47,000 deaths in overdoses (mostly prescription opiates).  That's 50% HIGHER than the number of firearm fatalities.

[rightleft22]

What does that statistic mean?

Does the statisitic imply that drug related deaths don’t have the same panache as death by gun valance?
Does the statisitic imply that deaths caused by fire arms an issue that does not require any action, unleast until the drug issue is dealt with?

Is this statistic classifying drug related deaths with gun deaths as being the same? (death is death) or is the relation a sub set of suicide or self-caused death....? If so the stisitic as stated is misleading

My opinion is that the statistic need to be broken down in order to be helpful for a comparison of drug and gun related deaths, if such a comparison is even required for any meaningful dialog .

[D.W.]

The same can be (and often is) said about gun deaths. 
But you are right about the "if it's even required".

There is the benefit of not having people defend their right to abuse opiates.  There may be a lack of will by some to address the issue, but not direct opposition.  (or not as significant of opposition?)

[Pete at Home]

What does that statistic mean?

Does the statisitic imply that drug related deaths don’t have the same panache as death by gun valance?
Does the statisitic imply that deaths caused by fire arms an issue that does not require any action, unleast until the drug issue is dealt with?

Is this statistic classifying drug related deaths with gun deaths as being the same? (death is death) or is the relation a sub set of suicide or self-caused death....? If so the stisitic as stated is misleading

My opinion is that the statistic need to be broken down in order to be helpful for a comparison of drug and gun related deaths, if such a comparison is even required for any meaningful dialog .

Statistics on their own have no meaning.

What has meaning to me is the sheer surprise of hearing the statistics.

To me that means that I had previously been misled about the scope of gun violence.

From the way others use that term "do something" about gun deaths, I call brainwashing.  I don't know what you mean, but everyone else I have seen using that phrase pretends that PROHIBITION is the only "something" that can be done about gun violence.  Someone who opposes prohibition of private guns for self defense, but supports other measures more likely to reduce gun violence ( increased mental health availability, more opportunity, etc) we are accused of wanting to "do nothing about gun violence."

Seems to me that by employing such dichotomies, the gun prohibitionists partake of the same whorish duplicity as the right wingers that gave us the war on drugs and the Prison state.  A plague on both houses.

[Pete at Home]

The metal band whose show was targeted in Paris speaks out against French gun control:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/entertainment/paris-band-gun-control/index.html

[D.W.]

I thought "A plague on both their houses" was meant to be a curse, not an observation. 

[rightleft22]

My assumption is that when a people identify a problem that the rational thing to do is attempt to find a solution. Learn better do better.

Is drug and gun related deaths a problem? Based on historical evidence they are not

[Pyrtolin]

According to The Week, Feb 19; page 13, 2014 saw 47,000 deaths in overdoses (mostly prescription opiates).  That's 50% HIGHER than the number of firearm fatalities.

Not to surprising. Opiate abuses is definitely a larger problem, especially in decaying small town environments where opportunities for employment, mobility and connection are much more limited. There's definitely proportionally more overall effort and attention going into fight opaite abuse than into gun issues, even if gun issues spile louder every once in a while because of clustered violence issues.

[Pete at Home]

My assumption is that when a people identify a problem that the rational thing to do is attempt to find a solution. Learn better do better.

If you think I wasn't looking for solution, that's because you have partisan goggles on. Reread what I said with an open mind.

Once again, I am proposing that drug deaths AND gun deaths, are caused by a lack of opportunity, by inequity, by insufficient mental health care and counseling, and by politicized solution-mongers who prefer prohibition and criminalization to caring and curing.

" There's definitely proportionally more overall effort and attention going into fight opaite abuse than into gun issues"

Not from my experience.  Vegas cops were fast to prosecute gun and pot offenses, but generally steered clear of heroin traffic when I was there.  Do you have any figures to back your position?  I recognize my professional experience in NV from 2008 to 2011 is hardly comprehensive.

No one questions whether it makes sense for society to turn out and pay for development all these new pills that are MORE addictive than morphine?  Why not just prescribe morphine?  Because it doesn't make big corporations rich.

[D.W.]

I expect another part of the issue is we are a lot more willing to let people spiral into addiction and death than we are to allow them to run rampant with a weapon.  Deaths are deaths and can be tucked by many into the "not my problem" column.  When their lives are interrupted (or ended) by gun violence, it becomes their problem.

It's not JUST about stopping deaths. 

It's the same reason why the gun rights camp, "what about automobile deaths?" argument falls on deaf ears.

[rightleft22]

I’m not sure where in my comments I could be labeled a partisan for a – side –

The title of the thread – a little perspective followed by a statistic without stated parameters of purpose other than the concept of perspective confused me. What perspective did or should the statistic change?

My opinion on the issue of deaths by drugs or gun violence is that we have not reached a tipping point for change.  At this time economic factors, the god that is known as Market, has the dominate position with regards to value, including the value of life.

Change that perspective and then perhaps improving mental health, inequity, opportunity… might have a chance to change things.

Life lives off of Life. Eventually each of our lives will be forfeit but we hope that the odds will be that others pay the price before us and or in our stead. 

[Wayward Son]

It should also be noted that there are far more programs for mental health care and counseling for opiate addiction than there are for violence addiction, especially gun-violence addiction.

So the larger problem is being address more than the smaller one.

[D.W.]

I watch programs and play programmed games all the time for my violence addiction.  I think you got that backwards Wayward Son.

[Pyrtolin]

Not from my experience.  Vegas cops were fast to prosecute gun and pot offenses, but generally steered clear of heroin traffic when I was there.  Do you have any figures to back your position?  I recognize my professional experience in NV from 2008 to 2011 is hardly comprehensive.

I could, within half an hour organize a free Narcan training session that would include scripts for any of the attendees to have some on hand in case of an emergency. I don't know of any similar accessible and free offerings for training in de escalation and gunshot wound treatment, along with free access to the medical supplies related.

Similarly, aside from at my church, where a group of members has addressing gun violence as primary cause that they working on organizing, discussion on the heroin epidemic comes up around me as a specific topic far more often than gun violence, including in radio news reporting, where the former comes up on its own frequently, while the latter rises and disappears in direct relationship to whether there's a recent national incident.

I see a lot more legal action going on at my state level on the heroine epidemic than I do on gun violence, including provisions to make Narcan more available specifically to try to contain the damage, not to mention a far larger portion of the population willing to acknowledge it as an epidemic where many try to pretend that gun violence somehow isn't.

[Pete at Home]

It should also be noted that there are far more programs for mental health care and counseling for opiate addiction than there are for violence addiction, especially gun-violence addiction.

So the larger problem is being address more than the smaller one.

IMO that's because that's because a greater number of rich privileged gated community dwelling whites succumb to Vicodin addiction than die of gun violence.  Plus the corporations that got rich selling rich honkies heroin in patented legal pill form for twenty times the black market price, then get to research transition drugs at the government's expense, and sell them at even more exorbitant prices.

[D.W.]

I don't know of any similar accessible and free offerings for training in de escalation and gunshot wound treatment, along with free access to the medical supplies related.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm475810.htm

Sorta?  Not free though

[Pete at Home]

Not from my experience.  Vegas cops were fast to prosecute gun and pot offenses, but generally steered clear of heroin traffic when I was there.  Do you have any figures to back your position?  I recognize my professional experience in NV from 2008 to 2011 is hardly comprehensive.

I could, within half an hour organize a free Narcan training session that would include scripts for any of the attendees to have some on hand in case of an emergency. I don't know of any similar accessible and free offerings for training in de escalation and gunshot wound treatment, along with free access to the medical supplies related.

Similarly, aside from at my church, where a group of members has addressing gun violence as primary cause that they working on organizing, discussion on the heroin epidemic comes up around me as a specific topic far more often than gun violence, including in radio news reporting, where the former comes up on its own frequently, while the latter rises and disappears in direct relationship to whether there's a recent national incident.

I see a lot more legal action going on at my state level on the heroine epidemic than I do on gun violence, including provisions to make Narcan more available specifically to try to contain the damage, not to mention a far larger portion of the population willing to acknowledge it as an epidemic where many try to pretend that gun violence somehow isn't.

That's because most of the population knows that most folks who weep about gun deaths are shedding crocodile tears and looking to suppress gun rights.  Same as you feel when folks talk about abortion as an epidemic.  Even though you might admit among folks that you trust that the fact that abortions are so high does suggest a symptom of broader social diseases, lack of birth control, economic inequity, lack of opportunity, etc., you would rather avoid terms that folks that you distrust politically could use to ban abortion outright.

Ever since the burning of the Reichtag, we know that when a politician cries or talks angry at a funeral, he's planning to suppress constitutional rights.  When did you last see a politician making a big deal over someone's death and proposing, say, more medication and counseling?  That's not how the politics of grave dancing works.

[Pyrtolin]

That's because most of the population knows that most folks who weep about gun deaths are shedding crocodile tears and looking to suppress gun rights.

That's your assertion, not common wisdom.

Same as you feel when folks talk about abortion as an epidemic.

That it's a misapplication of a term that suggests that it grows and propagates itself because of exposure to others affected by it? That's a very confusing assertion. Abortion isn't contagious in the way that drug addiction and violence are.

  Even though you might admit among folks that you trust that the fact that abortions are so high

Why would I admit something that's not true or relevant?

does suggest a symptom of broader social diseases, lack of birth control, economic inequity, lack of opportunity, etc., you would rather avoid terms that folks that you distrust politically could use to ban abortion outright.

Those are appropriate channels to discuss if you want to talk about reducing the need for abortion, to be sure, but they justify themselves without regard to the frequency of abortion.

Ever since the burning of the Reichtag, we know that when a politician cries or talks angry at a funeral, he's planning to suppress constitutional rights.  When did you last see a politician making a big deal over someone's death and proposing, say, more medication and counseling?  That's not how the politics of grave dancing works.

And now were back to empty accusations instead of anything resembling meaningfully discussing actual issues.

[Pete at Home]

Up to now, I have accused you of nothing.  Now, I accuse you of reading carelessly and responding to something I did not say.  You do this in most threads.  We actually get along in threads where you grasp what I said and respond appropriately.

Read more.carefully, think harder and try again.  This isn't one of your standard political handbook exercises.

[Pete at Home]

In any event, you have illustrated my point that when we discuss abortion, you shut.down your brain and react defensively and say "that's not true before you even know what I am saying, because you have it in your pointy little head that I want to restrict abortion rights.  So my response is, why do you expect the gun rights people to be more trusting or less suspicious than you?   Look how brainlessly defensive you got when I was doing no more than proposing measures that you agreed with, better psych care and economic opportunity.  No room to agree to disagree whether abortion is a harm in itself, even to pass programs you see as valuable and necessary.  Why would you expect gun rights people to be less suspicious of, say the center for disease control talking of gun violence as an epidemic?  The term epidemic and emergency in legalese, equal justification to strip away constitutional rights. Like martial law. As now occurring in France.

[Pete at Home]

  Even though you might admit among folks that you trust that the fact that abortions are so high

Why would I admit something that's not true or relevant?

Abortion isn't relevant to abortion? 

Like I said, you have no grasp how to use that term.  You use relevance as if it were an absolute quality.  Do everyone a favor and stop using the word relevant without making it clear what X is or is not relevant to. 

Here, I drew an analogy between how pro gun people feel about arguments that they fear encroach on their valued rights, and how you, an abortion fanboy, feel about arguments you feel encroach on abortion.  Do you grasp what an analogy is?  I simply said their defensiveness and closeness resembles yours, and has similar triggers.

For you to come back and say that's not "relevant" is truly brainless. You use that word as a "get out of thinking" free card.  Anything that threatens your pet views is "irrelevant." 

[Pyrtolin]

Up to now, I have accused you of nothing.  Now, I accuse you of reading carelessly and responding to something I did not say.  You do this in most threads.  We actually get along in threads where you grasp what I said and respond appropriately.

HEy, don't accuse people earnestly seeking gun control measures as trying to be manipulative and seeing to trick people into ceding constitutional rights and I won't call you on it. Advance your ideas instead of trying to slime people coming from a different perspective.

  Look how brainlessly defensive you got when I was doing no more than proposing measures that you agreed with, better psych care and economic opportunity.

I didn't get defensive, I pointed out where you crossed the line from advocating things that we agree on to mean spirited attacks on other points of view. If you has stuck to advocating your ideas instead of deciding that you needed to get some digs in, then I wouldn't have had an issue.

[Fenring]

don't accuse people earnestly seeking gun control measures as trying to be manipulative and seeing to trick people into ceding constitutional rights and I won't call you on it.

What if it's the case that some people earnestly seeking gun control measures are also trying to be manipulative and seeking to trick people into ceding constitutional rights? It's off limits to call attention to that fact?

[Pyrtolin]

  Even though you might admit among folks that you trust that the fact that abortions are so high

Why would I admit something that's not true or relevant?

Abortion isn't relevant to abortion? 

"So high" is neither true, nor relevant. If you want less abortion, help create social change that makes abortion less necessary, don't come up with excuses to restrict the rights and freedoms of others, even when you find the choices they make distasteful.

I mean, I fully agree that many of the motivations you put forth are distasteful and not, in my opinion, good reasons for an abortion, but it's not the business of the law to enforce that. Women should be free to be wrong in our opinions and get abortions for what we feel are bad or pernicious reasons. If we want to discourage that, then we should address the cultural and economic factors that lead to such decisions directly and not take the lazy way out by stomping on their individuality and rights at the end of the line with legal paternalism that declares them incompetent to make their own choices.

Like I said, you have no grasp how to use that term.  You use relevance as if it were an absolute quality.  Do everyone a favor and stop using the word relevant without making it clear what X is or is not relevant to. 

Except you used it in reference to what _I_ would say about _my own_ beliefs. Thus I can confidently say that I'm fully qualified to judge that I find that judgement both wrong and irrelevant. I would not say such a thing because I do not believe it and I do not think it matters, nor would just about anyone that argues the same position that I do.

  I simply said their defensiveness and closeness resembles yours, and has similar triggers.

Except that "defensiveness" is pure motive speculation here.\, particularly when I was not addressing your arguments, but rather you decision to smear those that come from a different perspective.

[Pyrtolin]

don't accuse people earnestly seeking gun control measures as trying to be manipulative and seeing to trick people into ceding constitutional rights and I won't call you on it.

What if it's the case that some people earnestly seeking gun control measures are also trying to be manipulative and seeking to trick people into ceding constitutional rights? It's off limits to call attention to that fact?

If you can actually show evidence that it's a fact, then you're on decent ground. But that was not a specific accusation of bad faith- that was an accusation of any politician that reacts with open emotion to a devastating impact.

"There's good evidence that this politician is feigning an emotional reaction or is acting irrationally" is one thing. "Any expression of emotional impact by a politician is underhanded manipulation" is quite a different thing.

We're already a society that does massive damage to itself by holding up emotional repression as an ideal and open embrace of it as a sign of social inferiority. Doubling down on such with accusations like that just adds to the ongoing harm.

[Pete at Home]

  Even though you might admit among folks that you trust that the fact that abortions are so high

Why would I admit something that's not true or relevant?

Abortion isn't relevant to abortion? 

"So high" is neither true, nor relevant.

"so high" is relative (i.e. as high as it is), and therefore neither true nor untrue.  As for relevance, you continue to speak as if relevance was absolute, as if something could be relevant or not relevant without the speaker making clear what it is relevant or not relevant TO.  This is what we call spewing gibberish.  When you actually have something to say, speak up.  Don't just stand around gesturing meaninglessly and obfuscating.

Is anyone other than Pyr going to pretend that they think that Abortion numbers are not higher than they would be in a society where birth control was more freely available, where people had more opportunities, where rape did not occur, and where lack of resources didn't make people feel they were forced into hard choices?  (I suspect that Pyr, when he feels like being honest, will eventually admit that he too believes that.


"Except you used it in reference to what _I_ would say about _my own_ beliefs."

I never said that you believed abortion was "too high."  I simply assumed that you were not so obtuse as to deny that abortion numbers are as high as they are.  I apparently underestimated your masochism.

[Fenring]

We're already a society that does massive damage to itself by holding up emotional repression as an ideal and open embrace of it as a sign of social inferiority. Doubling down on such with accusations like that just adds to the ongoing harm.

And what if it's the case that the counter-movement against this scenario (assuming you're correct) pursues the exact opposite - embracing emotional expression as an ideal and embrace it as a sign of social superiority? Such a movement could easily be seen as employing emotional manipulation to pursue a political goal, by equating the goodness of the emotion with the goodness of the cause behind it. In fact I think this is exactly the charge being made, where the intent is not to trick people into ceding rights out of malice, but rather out of emotional reaction to bad events. On the ground level manipulation isn't the intent at all, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. At a higher level we can more likely suspect deliberate machinations and less earnestness in the emotion expressed. Put most charitably, someone like Pete is probably arguing not that people act in bad faith when they try to trick people out of their rights, but rather act ignorantly what what goal they are really pursuing. They think with their hearts, and not with their heads. There are worse charges that can be made against someone than this, and you can certainly be a good person and yet dead wrong about something.

[Pete at Home]

We're already a society that does massive damage to itself by holding up emotional repression as an ideal and open embrace of it as a sign of social inferiority. Doubling down on such with accusations like that just adds to the ongoing harm.

And what if it's the case that the counter-movement against this scenario (assuming you're correct) pursues the exact opposite - embracing emotional expression as an ideal and embrace it as a sign of social superiority? Such a movement could easily be seen as employing emotional manipulation to pursue a political goal, by equating the goodness of the emotion with the goodness of the cause behind it. In fact I think this is exactly the charge being made, where the intent is not to trick people into ceding rights out of malice, but rather out of emotional reaction to bad events. On the ground level manipulation isn't the intent at all, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. At a higher level we can more likely suspect deliberate machinations and less earnestness in the emotion expressed. Put most charitably, someone like Pete is probably arguing not that people act in bad faith when they try to trick people out of their rights, but rather act ignorantly what what goal they are really pursuing. They think with their hearts, and not with their heads. There are worse charges that can be made against someone than this, and you can certainly be a good person and yet dead wrong about something.

Agreed. Particularly since anti gun and anti abortion folks both believe that human lives are at stake.  It's easy to fall into the trap of applying wartime rules where it'S OK to lie to save lives. And pop goes the democracy.

[Pyrtolin]

And what if it's the case that the counter-movement against this scenario (assuming you're correct) pursues the exact opposite - embracing emotional expression as an ideal and embrace it as a sign of social superiority?

Then you would have ample evidence to put forward. Asserting it as fact without evidence and despite it not being turei, however, makes for a false accusation.

[Pyrtolin]

Is anyone other than Pyr going to pretend that they think that Abortion numbers are not higher than they would be

That's a vastly different assertion without the judgmental statement contained in "so high". You'll get a lot more agreement if you stick to pure comparison without implying judgement.

I would not, even in private, cast judgments on the rate of abortions, because I do not find it relevant. It will be what it will be, and it's not my place to judge it, so long as people are free to safely chose it when they feel they need it without legal override.

I'll make the argument that things that we should be doing anyway will help reduce the rate of abortion _to_ people, in public, that care about the rate of abortion in and of itself, but not in private where it simply does not matter because all of the things that might reduce it justify themselves on their own merits without having to resort to a completely incidental metric.

[Fenring]

And what if it's the case that the counter-movement against this scenario (assuming you're correct) pursues the exact opposite - embracing emotional expression as an ideal and embrace it as a sign of social superiority?

Then you would have ample evidence to put forward. Asserting it as fact without evidence and despite it not being turei, however, makes for a false accusation.

I'm just telling you what a reasonable formulation of that position would be. I'm not really that motivated to try to dredge up evidence of it in an attempt to convince you, especially since such evidence would be largely interpretive and you'd most likely just interpret it differently anyhow. It is in any case entirely plausible to believe what I suggested is a fact without having to be beholden to a legal standard of proof of it in casual conversation. Mentioned offhand in a conversation like this think of it as an opinion, rather than an accusation.

[Pete at Home]

"Asserting it as fact without evidence and despite it not being turei, however, makes for a false accusation."

It makes an unsupported accusation. Whether it's a false one depends on whether "turei" is Pyrspeak for "true"

Yes, feel free to use "petespeak" to refer to my own typos turnabout is fair play.

[Pete at Home]

To illustrate my point about parallel defensiveness (which Pyr seems not to grasp, otherwise he would not rant about relevance), Pyr said:

I would not, even in private, cast judgments on the rate of abortions, because I do not find it relevant. It will be what it will be, and it's not my place to judge it, so long as people are free to safely chose it when they feel they need it without legal override

Pyr probably would grasp the defensiveness of a pro gunner who said something like:

I would not, even in private, cast judgments on the rate of gun violence, because I do not find it relevant. It will be what it will be, and it's not my place to judge it, so long as people are free to safely chose it when they feel they need it without legal override[/quote

[Pete at Home]

That's a vastly different assertion without the judgmental statement contained in "so high". You'll get a lot more agreement if you stick to pure comparison without implying judgement.

Do yourself a favor and stop sweating what people are thinking or "implying" until you get up to speed on what they explicitly said. 

[Pete at Home]

don't accuse people earnestly seeking gun control measures as trying to be manipulative and seeing to trick people into ceding constitutional rights and I won't call you on it.

Augh.

Can you grasp that the pro gun crowd BELIEVES Politicians to be emotionally manipulative when said politicians weep at gun death funerals and propose gun control restrictions?

Do you not sense emotional manipulation in pro life arguments that weep over dismembered fetuses while proposing broad restrictions on a woman'z right to choose?

Please don't take what I said into "Judgement."( other than judgment of your stubborn refusal to understand what I am saying).  Just saying that you are suspicious of fetal violins just as pro gunners are suspicious of gun violence violins.

[Pyrtolin]

Just saying that you are suspicious of fetal violins just as pro gunners are suspicious of gun violence violins.

On what basis? I've never expressed any such suspicions and I make an active effort to not engage in such speculation, rather sticking to simply presenting my position. I find it just as distasteful to accuse pro-lifers of dishonesty because of any emotional pleas that they might put forward as I do people in favor of gun control measures. (In regards to expressing their own emotions, at least. I do disagree with resorting to gross-out tactics and other similar traumatic assaults on other people in the process of trying to make their point, but that's a fair bit different than simple expression of personal emotion. I'd similarly object to graphic murder porn being used by gun control advocates)

[Pete at Home]

Just saying that you are suspicious of fetal violins just as pro gunners are suspicious of gun violence violins.

On what basis? I've never expressed any such suspicions

You'be been jumping at shadows like a tweaked in withdrawal throughout this discussion. Just look at what I last quoted from you If that's not suspicion, what do you call it?

"raumatic assaults on other people in the process of trying to make their point"

OK, you don't see politicians proposing legislation at a funeral as a "traumatic assault"?  What about pro lifers creating a grave-like memorial in a cemetery to commemorate dead fetuses? Is that a "traumatic assault"?

[D.W.]

My observation has been different.  Rather than fearing a slippery slope, Pyr went on a head first dive off a shear cliff face I didn't see coming.

[Pyrtolin]

OK, you don't see politicians proposing legislation at a funeral as a "traumatic assault"?  What about pro lifers creating a grave-like memorial in a cemetery to commemorate dead fetuses? Is that a "traumatic assault"?

Shoving a graphic sign in someone face. Actively harassing people attempting to visit a clinic.

If they want to put a tasteful and respectful shrine somewhere, that's their business. Heck, they may even find that many women who've needed an abortion will even appreciate it so long as they're allowed to visit it on their own terms and not be harassed and shamed in the process.

[Pete at Home]

Glad you're more open minded about that that the college counter protesters that attacked and vandalized such memorials.

Heck, they may even find that many women who've needed an abortion will even appreciate it so long as they're allowed to visit it on their own terms and not be harassed and shamed in the process.

Oh, from those I have spoken to, I agree.

[Pete at Home]

Pyr, I don't think you are a monster.  I think we are talking past each other.  Hope we can talk in another venue some time.  Maybe I am wrong about suspicion and defensiveness being at the root of your reactions re abortion.  Most of what you have said led me one way, but your last remark has me questioning myself.

[Pyrtolin]

You'be been jumping at shadows like a tweaked in withdrawal throughout this discussion. Just look at what I last quoted from you If that's not suspicion, what do you call it?

I call it pointing out your continued attempts try to speculate on my beliefs and motives instead of sticking to presenting your views and opinions on the topic. I don't care if you actually do get some things right- it's still out of line because it's pure speculation. If you want to make the case for any particular public figure acting in bad faith, that's one thing- but constant categorical axe grinding against  wide, diverse groups to cast them in a bad light is exceptionally tiresome.

[Pyrtolin]

Glad you're more open minded about that that the college counter protesters that attacked and vandalized such memorials.

Were they tasteful, nonjudgemental memorials? Or were they willful attempts to call negative attention and shame on women who've had abortions? There's a fine line between the two. It's possible that the protestors were overly sensitive after dealing with constant attack, but it's not a call that can be made without understanding what actually happened on the ground.

[Pete at Home]

It's possible that the protestors were

They weren't protesters.  They didn't demonstrate, but simply attacked a demonstration.

Your talk about taste and respect sounds like the attacks on suffragettes and the early campus anti-rape movement.

"overly sensitive after dealing with constant attack"

Right there you've conceded my point that you were arguing against, the commonality between pro-choice and pro-2nd Amendment folks with respect to the politics of grave-weeping political speeches.

the latter folks probably feel that Obama's grave speeches were judgmental and nontasteful.

[Pete at Home]

You'be been jumping at shadows like a tweaked in withdrawal throughout this discussion. Just look at what I last quoted from you If that's not suspicion, what do you call it?

I call it pointing out your continued attempts try to speculate on my beliefs and motives

The quoted material said nothing about your beliefs and motives.  I'm talking about your twitchiness. Your discussion tactics.  Your pattern of responding to what wasn't said. 

I think you'd be very surprised at what I think of your beliefs and motives.  Surprised because I have kept that analysis close to my chest.