Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Pistol grips on long guns, and rifle crime in general. [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)They are so often crafted by men using women as their decoys.
If you ask the majority of pro-choice people if they like abortion, they will say 'no'.
If you ask the majority of gun owners if they like gun violence, they will also say 'no'.
Yeah, well, this pro-choice person wouldn't answer the question, because it's dumb.
If I did address an issue it could be interpreted as raising, though, I would say I would be pleased to see a lower incidence of unwanted pregnancies, since an unwanted pregnancy is a negative experience for a woman in numerous ways.
Nothing to do with liking or not liking abortion. I don't have emotions or tastes when it comes to medical procedures.
Now here's where your analogy falls on its face.
My policy position is to take measures to reduce the number of women faced with unwanted pregnancies, which is what a woman with an unwanted pregnancy would want: not to have an unwanted pregnancy. This would involve taking what we call preventive measures. Increasing access to contraception. Improving contraception. Enhancing awareness on the part of male and female persons about the risks associated with sex, and how to reduce those risks. Conveying the understanding that an unwanted pregnancy is not a bolt from the blue that strikes one in a billion women, it is a foreseeable event in a near-majority of women's lives, and that while it may not be preventable, the risks can be reduced.
Hmm. If we were to analogize those measures to firearms ... well, we'd be taking measures to reduce the risk of firearms harms occurring. Reduced access, especially to certain kinds of firearms; better control over who has access; better control of firearms through safe/secure storage; like that.
The relevant distinction between the two situations is that with sex, it is the participant herself who is at risk of unwanted pregnancy. No one else is affected by her behaviour. So coercive measures are not appropriate; it is her choice what risks she will take, and then how she will deal with any harms that result.
In the case of most firearms harms, it is not the participant themself who is at risk. It is other people - family, acquaintances, total strangers - and entire communities. Coercive measures are therefore appropriate.
See? That's how it's done!
In the first instance, what pro-choice (or any other) people think about abortion is of not the least slightest concern to anyone. The matter is one on which only the opinion of the individual concerned matters. We should provide her with assistance in avoiding harm, as that is what good societies do, but leave it to her to choose her course of action and decide whether or not to take risk-reduction measures.
In the second instance, what gun owners think about gun violence is also not of the least slightest concern to anyone. They, for the most part, aren't the potential victims of the gun violence that might be associated with their guns. So we must provide the potential victims with assistance in avoiding harm, as that is what good societies do, and use coercive measures to reduce the risks of those harms occurring.
I don't even have a clue how your post was intended to relate to the one before it, but I hope I've been able to help here!