General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYou Want to Eliminate Gun Crime?
Then you'll have to do it the same way you'll get rid of abortion.
I love explaining this to wingnuts when they argue how 'evil' abortion is. They talk about pro-choicers with all the same vitriol, hatred, and hyperbole that the rabid anti-gun people use when describing RTBA people (that's 'Right To Bear Arms' if you're not keyed to this whole debate yet). So I say, "Well, you'll have as much success outlawing abortion as the liberals will have in outlawing guns." Then they go back to sputtering nonsense until I can bring them to the next sharp pointy point about how if they felt they needed a gun, wouldn't they get one despite the legality?
"Of course!"
"Well, why would that be different from someone feeling they need an abortion?"
More sputtering, a few insults, then they go back to just hurling epithet. They aren't usually the sharpest bulbs on the chandelier, but I love watching them get confused, turn red, and then frantically rationalize why "NO! THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!" (Which I'm sure we'll be hearing about in a bit here as well).
Peruse the pertinent areas of DU, and you will sure as shooting (oops) find gun ownership advocates referred to as 'wanabe killers', 'violent', 'murderers', 'death worshipers', 'fetishists', and 'having small penises'. (The women who own guns find that last one pretty amusing)
The wingnuts on pro-choicers?
"Baby killers", 'murderers', 'fetus-eaters' (yeah, some sick fuck actually said that on one of the sites I frequented), 'Death worshipers' (there's that one again), and a whole slew of other ridiculously over-the-top adjectives and expletives.
While I have considerably more respect for the folks who want to ban guns than the ones who want to ban abortion, the problem the two of them share is exactly the same: A stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the greater reality we ALL have to live in.
Here's a couple indisputable truths that those who refuse to live in reality will nonetheless dispute:
1) Banning abortion will not prevent people from getting abortions.
2) Banning guns will not prevent people from getting guns.
Yes, I know... if you ban them, then there may indeed be fewer people getting them, but the people that will decide they don't need them are the people with enough security and resources (be that fiscal, mental, or otherwise) to accept the consequences of not getting one. Someone who finds themselves in a position where a gun would provide security and ward off a real possibility of threats could find other ways to compensate, just as someone who is in a position where an abortion would help them ward of poverty and adversity could find a way to do the same.
No, that's not the premise of this point. Guns and Abortions are NOT the same thing and I'm sure there are a billion of DUers just chomping at the bit as they read this to tell everyone how wrong such a premise is.
That, again, is not the premise.
The premise is this: Both the need for guns and abortion arises from insecurity of some kind. Whether that is financial, mental, or any other cause for trepidation, that is the bottom line. A person seeks one or the other because there is something about their circumstances that requires it... rational or not.
So, how then, if banning either will never eliminate them, do we eliminate them?
The three fundamental pursuits of a just and equal society: Universal Education, Prosperity, and Compassion.
When someone has enough understanding, resources, and support, they can raise a child without fear of being overburdened and having their plans and life derailed. When someone is educated, given opportunities, and those around them are also secure in their resources and mental health, then there is no need for anyone to carry around nasty weapons.
As a society, we will only reduce abortion through better education, the elimination of poverty, and careful enough attention to each and every one of our members (also an education issue) so that insecurity is virtually eliminated while understanding is maximized.
Funny thing will happen right around then: Gun crime will just about vanish too.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
B Calm
(28,762 posts)
mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)Banning handguns would fewer being manufactured. It would prevent a hell of a lot of people being prevented from having one. Everyone? Of course not. But a lot. UK largely bans handguns. The result -about 40-50 gun deaths a year as opposed to our 9-10000. Yest if you look at the overall violent crime rate, UK and USA are an awful lot closer. Yes, it's an overall culture of violence but it;s also the easy availability of handguns.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)but this talk of banning firearms has made me decide that I WILL own one in the next month.
mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Did you mean because they might be banned, you want to get one beforehand?
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)The anti gun extremists will succeed at some point in getting some of this banned, at least in the short term.
I plan to say, "Molon labe" when they do.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)You're really a peaceable kinda person who isn't at all violent but if 'they' are going to ban guns you're going to run out and buy as many as you can.
Yeah. Whatever.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)but the anti-gun extremists have altered my view.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)gun-extremists have guaranteed that I never will own a motherfucking gun, lest I become one of those paranoid motherfuckers who believe that they should be armed to the hilt.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)It is gun owners who will get them banned. At some point the shooting rampages will be large enough and frequent enough to turn the politics. The tide will turn.
Anti-gun extremists cannot, for all their efforts, move the needle on this political gage in even the slightest. However a modest collection of fruitbats with body armor and AR 47s could dramatically change the politics on this issue in just a few weeks of concerted effort. The unfortunate bit is that there will be a considerable number of corpses involved.
I would not possess a gun. Politically, I would prefer gun ownership be regulated heavily. However I know that activism is not the answer. But I also know we are selling lots of high powered weapons and ammo to fruitbats, so it is only a matter of time.
The overwrought defense of the individual right to keep and bear arms has the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequence of supporting multiple unregistered weapon sales to wackaloons. This sows the seeds of its own demise. It is just a matter of time.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)They know that guns will never be banned or severely restricted in this country,
but every time anyone talks about it, they get to sell more guns.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)I do not trust there will not be bans in the next year or so.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)They count on extremely uninformed people as their base. If paranoid wingnuts didn't exist, the NRA wouldn't exist. There will be no gun bans, but the NRA absolutely relies on people like yourself who buy into their hype in that there will be.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> I don't own any firearms but this talk of banning firearms has made me decide that I WILL own one in the next month.
FUNNIEST thing I ever read, and a MEGA-obvious lie.
spin
(17,493 posts)in the next few months.
Also all this talk about new gun laws could seriously hurt some Democrats in the upcoming election. If the economy doesn't show some signs of improvement in the next two months this could also be a tight Presidential election between Obama and Romney. Romney is a weak candidate but many gun owners may show up at the polls as they might fear what Obama might do during his second term. Fortunately Romney is not all that popular with gun owners.
> Also all this talk about new gun laws could seriously hurt some Democrats in the upcoming election
Only because the fascist NRA targets them.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Because:
"Banning abortion would mean fewer being performed. It would prevent a hell of a lot of people being prevented from having one. Everyone? Of course not. But a lot."
We're not the UK. They have more social security and better education than we do. It is naïve to think that by duplicating another nation's laws, we will achieve the same result. One must consider how they arrived at the point where their laws were implemented and what the state of affairs and the economy was. We have a very different culture here.
If you can't acknowledge that, then you aren't living in reality.
mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)and I think comparing the UK and USA IS a valid comparison. People are being murdered in the US at such a high rate because there are so many morons walking around with a gun. As far as I'm comcerned people who walk around with guns ARE morons. All those law abiding, responsible gun owners out there scare the hell out of me. Law abiding and responsible until one day they aren't. You gun nuts are just that -nuts.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)That, again, is not the premise.
The premise is this: Both the need for guns and abortion arises from insecurity of some kind. Whether that is financial, mental, or any other cause for trepidation, that is the bottom line. A person seeks one or the other because there is something about their circumstances that requires it... rational or not."
That, and the post you responded to went straight over your head.
If you can't grasp the points of the conversation you're having, please.... just stop having it.
REP
(21,691 posts)A woman has an abortion because she does not wish to remain pregnant. Each individual has her own motivations driving that decision, some of which could even be defined as "insecurity" (financial, relationship, and/or housing, for examples) or not, such as not wanting to have a(nother) child.
Not every gun owner feels a sense of "insecurity," either. Some, such as those who compete in three-position and other forms of marksmanship, own them to practice a sport they enjoy. Others enjoy the artistry of historic weaponry. Yet others have other reasons that have nothing to do with with feelings of either physical and/or psychological insecurity.
To ascribe "insecurity" as a motive for either a reproductive decision or gun ownership is known as projection; and it says more about the person assigning this motive than it does those to whom it is being assigned.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Start here: "A woman has an abortion because she does not wish to remain pregnant."
Why does she not wish to remain pregnant?
There exists no answer that is not somehow linked to insecurity.
Your dollar store pamphlet psychology is pretty laughable. The fact of the matter is that every unpleasant or paranoid thing that humans do is based on some form of fear. I know you don't like it, but if you could actually sit and seriously consider the 'root of evil', you will find that it is fear.... which is also manifest as insecurity.
Try to come up with a reason for abortion that has nothing to do with insecurity. If you are honest, you will find there exists NO rational reason outside of insecurity.
That's not 'projection'
, it's reality.
You're right about gun ownership though, not everyone owns a gun because they are insecure. Although I would venture that the VAST majority of gun owners are very insecure about something. Me? Well, I practice honest introspection. I own weapons of various kinds not because I wish to use them on anyone, and not only because I'm very, very fond of practicing with them which, to me, is an art, but also because I'm aware of the internal demons (insecurities) that drive me to desire that feeling of power.
Unlike many, I'm honest with myself.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Here's a couple indisputable truths that those who refuse to live in reality will nonetheless dispute:
1) Banning abortion will not prevent people from getting abortions.
2) Banning guns will not prevent people from getting guns.
And here's an indisputable truth for you...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/31/number_of_gun_homicides/194,192,178,177,172,170,128,113,91,88,86,71,69,66,65,50,18,11,10
Guess where guns are handed out like candy?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Yes, Mexico is a beacon of enlightenment, education, and prosperity.
When the fire is small, a fire extinguisher will work just fine. When the house is on fire, you aren't going to put it out with the same extinguisher that Italy used to put out that grease fire in the pan on the stove.
Please either grok that or don't bother responding.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It contains nothing that alters the facts presented by the graph. You are protesting that if you ban guns people will still get them. Why yes, SOME people will. Some however won't. And some may get one only for a short time then get busted with it by police who now have the ability to do something about it before a theater full of people get shot instead of having to just ignore it because people are allowed to have a crazy arsenal in their house. And the ones that do get one and don't get busted with it may get one handgun rather than, say... half a dozen assault weapons and several thousand rounds of ammunition.
At first lots will be able to get one... because due to the very long time US gun policy has been the work of morons there are MILLIONS of them flooding the general population (and lots of people are getting shot? Shocking!). But you know what happens the longer people aren't allowed to go around buying them by the truckload, and the manufacturers scale back production, and they get taken out of circulation when discovered? I'm pretty sure you do. What happens is what you see up there on that graph in every other developed first world country on the planet.
BeHereNow
(17,162 posts)Guns are more easily obtained in this country than abortions.
Yet the arguments are identical.
Ironic isn't is?
I've said it for years and I'll say it again-
the lines have vanished and I can't tell the "right" from the "left"
most of the time.
Hegel would be so proud.
BHN 
bluerum
(6,109 posts)But I suspect he felt entitled to a much better job than woking at a burger joint given his education and intelligence.
Maybe he is right. Maybe society short changed him. But did people have to die and suffer? Who or what made this person think that he had a right to kill out of revenge? Or resentment? Or maybe a simple sense of entitlement.
He may have had a right own firearms, but that is vastly different than having the right to commit mass murder. And how, how on gods green earth does any of what you wrote justify what he did?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Because that is pretty much the same as thinking that there a single word of any kind in the OP that ATTEMPTS to 'justify what he did'.
I kind of get sick of saying this, but I never stop having to do so: Please, learn to read, comprehend, and understand the meaning of a post before you respond to it.
Or are you just looking for a way to attack the OP, and creating a strawman was the only resort at your disposal?
I'm thinking.... yeahprettymuch.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)No access to mental health services is at the root of most of these mass shootings, in several services were denied and the results of that denial were tragic..
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)jees, guns, religion abortion
three of the most heated arguments
Make PlanB OTC for all, or other drugs and have more birth control being taught and you don't need to have an abortion as such
but a gun killed abortions in Kansas didn't it?(by getting rid of the doctor, in a church of all places.
I don't worry about criminals getting armed, I worry about the ones that get guns legally
As times have proven, crime goes down when you keep the services available.
Repubs keep cutting things, and crime goes up. It's simple.
the best idea is to find some mythical new eye in the sky that can neutralize all bullets,
then one doesn't need the gun anymore, because they won't be able to fire
we can dream, can't we?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Didn't see any posts about it either.
bonzotex
(865 posts)Thoughtful Post. All bans are ineffective as long as there is demand for the banned thing. If you want less of a thing around, eliminate the demand or need for that thing.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)because after all, it's unrealistic to try to eliminate auto accidents.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Where in the OP does it suggest eliminating gun laws?
Seriously, you have a short-circuit. Let me try to help you:
"Banning Guns to Eliminate Gun crime" would equate, based on your failed attempt at an analogy, to "Banning Cars to Eliminate Car Accidents", NOT 'getting rid of traffic laws'.
You see, and I hope you work this out: The OP addresses the notion of banning guns, not on 'getting rid of gun laws'. The clue that you might have picked up on was the fact that nowhere in the OP is there any such suggestion.
But it is just as typical of an anti-choicer to mischaracterize the position of a pro-choicer as being 'pro-abortion'. Funny how both on the extremes resort to that sort of tactic.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)Yeah, I know: Good luck with that.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Abortion is a personal decision a woman makes about her body. No other living, breathing person gets maimed for life or killed when a woman has an abortion. Abortion does not come from insecurity, but from a woman's right to control her body.
Guns are a threat to decent society. The 10,000 Americans killed every year because of those weapons are testament to that fact. Gun control in civilized countries prove the point.
Your premise is wrong and completely out of line.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)I can't have a discussion with someone whose motives are entirely emotional. I just doesn't work.
You missed the premise entirely, and are not qualified to comment on it as such. Two truths you wish you could argue with, but cannot do so rationally:
1) Banning abortions will not stop people from getting them.
2) Banning guns will not stop people from getting them.
The rest is also true: People seek both out of insecurity. You may not like that truth, but it is not difficult to establish.
I'll put a test to you that you will either avoid or fail: "Give me any reason you can think of that a person would have an abortion, and I will tell you the accompanying insecurity."
And 'none of your business' means, "I don't want you to know my insecurities".
Lex
(34,108 posts)that is no reason not to ban it or make it illegal. Maybe we should make arson legal because if someone wants to commit it, they are just going to anyway.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Hey, if you insist that it'll stop SOME people from getting one, maybe it's a good idea?
As for the arson bit, for the second time I will point out what a stupid attempt to make a point that is. No one is suggesting making gun violence legal here 'just because it's going to happen anyway'. The correct analogy, if you'd chosen to put a little thought into it, would have been: 'Maybe we should make gasoline illegal so people couldn't commit arson'.
That, of course, would also be stupid.
Lex
(34,108 posts)regarding guns. You seem to think that it's either a "ban all guns" or do nothing choice. Which is idiotic.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Like so many people who can't be bothered to apply actual thought to what's in front of them, you just pretend in your addled mind that I 'think' something that is not reflected in anything I wrote.
There are intelligent people in this thread who understand the concept under discussion. Please read through some of what they said, try to get an actual grasp of it, and then perhaps you'll have something intelligent to say.
I, personally, waste no more time on people who make shit up or can't be bothered to understand what is under discussion because then they might not have a straw-man to argue against.
So welcome to ignore.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Is how many gun deaths are a result of illegally obtained guns?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)My guess is that the rate is very high in regions with tight controls, and low in those without. That should be obvious.
Lex
(34,108 posts)Banning guns is not the same as what we have now, which is the EASE of obtaining them.
Sensible gun (and ammo) laws is what we need.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)republican arguing about abortion, I will bring this up!
Thanks
