Roe vs Wade / gun laws

[placewherewebelong]

I have been reading with horror as the case has unfolded. I personally struggle to see how people can claim to be pro life then subject children to be potential orphans, or in care, or to live with parents who didn't want them, or as the product of a rape, and be so PLEASED with themselves. It horrifies me.

That aside -

why on earth is a country that still has gun laws where children are shot dead and people are encouraged to carry arms deciding that the biggest problem is stopping women from making their own choice about their own child and their own body?

I don't understand :'(

People who are pro gun rights in the US will accept any number of child deaths rather than allow even common sense controls. It doesn't mean that they don't "care" about dead children. They just care about having guns more.

The desire to own guns is deeper than needing to hunt or protect oneself from criminals or wild animals. It's to be able to fight the government.

This also ties into the posts up thread about why don't you just convince the majority of the people to be pro abortion? Because we are not a strict democracy, we have a reprentational form of government and many of our states have concentrated their political power in the hands of conservative politicians.

The constitution was not written by a majority of colonialists. It was written by a minority who used their political clout and firepower to overthrow England and then to drive out the Loyalists who politically opposed them and to reinforce slavery. In many slave holding states, slaves were the majority and yet were unable attain freedom through the democratic process. We had to have a Civil War.

Pro lifers want to have control over women's bodies and they don't want the Federal government to be able to supercede this power they have wrested for themselves and maintain by politically oppressing and disenfranchising anyone with contrary views. This is why the conservative Supreme Court has ruled the way they have, they want to throw power back to the states, many of which do not resemble a democracy in any way.

It's naked power, pure and simple. Control of women's bodies and guns go together. It has nothing to do with the sanctity of life or the wishes of the majority.

Thank you for posting that for me @Thelnebriati . I recommend everyone taking a look. The police officer who attacked that woman is running for political office and is basing his platform on gun rights.
According to his Twitter feed, he was inspired to run because his state had introduced legislation to ban high capacity magazines for assault rifles. Not even the rifles, just the magazines that hold large amounts of ammo. He's such a freedom lover that he went to an abortion rally with a counter protest group and beat up a woman. This is the perfect example of the paradigm.

‘The desire to own guns is deeper than needing to hunt or protect oneself from criminals or wild animals. It's to be able to fight the government.’

It’s to be able to (in their minds) resist a form of government that they might see as illegitimate. Increasingly in the UK we see rhetoric about the government trying to take power permanently, and trying to undermine the rule of law. Guns in the US are (in the minds of pro-gun advocates) about resisting that.

As I’ve said, I’m anti-gun, but a tyrannical government isn’t something to be sniffed at. It happens. Caring about it isn’t wanting to murder children.

‘But by continuing to allow guns, knowing they are responsible for the slaughter of women and children, how can they not see that people would view them as condoning this?’

Well, their argument (and it’s not completely without merit) is that anti-gun laws would succeed in removing guns from the very people who aren’t slaughtering women and children. Most of the gun crime is committed by people who wouldn’t surrender their guns if the law changed.

I’m not in agreement with them (I hate guns) but they are not condoning murder and it’s silly to suggest otherwise, because it just makes people double down. Better to look at the specific claims they make and see if they have merit.

This is also a good example of how "why don't you just persuade people around to your side" isn't a simple solution. We are in physical danger.

‘This is also a good example of how "why don't you just persuade people around to your side" isn't a simple solution. We are in physical danger.’

What do you propose rather than persuading your fellow citizens?

86 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and June 2022 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally.

‘86 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and June 2022 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally.’

That’s a much better argument than ‘they want to kill kids’.

Ending a child’s life with a gun = okay. Ending a child’s life as an embryo = bad. Makes sense to those ole’ Christian boys.

Its also been statistically proven that people who live in homes with handguns are over 50% more likely to be shot dead than people who live in homes without one.

It will surprise no-one to know that this disproportionately effects women. Living with a handgun owner increases the risk of being shot to death in a domestic violence incident, and it does not provide any protection against being killed at home by a stranger.

But of course every gun owner thinks they're a special case and will buck the statistics.

‘But of course every gun owner thinks they're a special case and will buck the statistics.’

I’m afraid this doesn’t make sense. In rural places in America more than half of households have a gun. The statistics are overwhelmingly on the side that they won’t die by gunshot wounds.

Thé US averages more than one mass shooting per day. How are you calculating that there have only been one hundred in forty years?

But they do.

They allow the law and instead choose to take on women despite the fact that they KNOW children are at risk.

Bollocks. It's clear that if the US sorted its gun laws, then less people would be killed by guns. We know this because it has been the case in countless other countries.

It's the Onion headline:

'No Way to Prevent This' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

We are dealing with people who shat the fucking bed at the idea of protecting others by wearing a face mask because it was such a fucking infringement on their freedom. They are so far beyond reasoning, there is just no point even trying.

One child is too many.

‘They allow the law and instead choose to take on women despite the fact that they KNOW children are at risk.’

Sorry, this really is poor argumentation. They are prepared to accept that some people will die (I wouldn’t be. I hate guns.) That isn’t the same as wanting people to die. They might have an abhorrence of murder and lawbreaking in general, and still prefer to have a gun for self-defence.

We have to stop monstering people on the other side of arguments to us. It’s destructive.

‘One child is too many.’

I agree. Still a poor argument if you want to base it on statistics. Nearly everyone who owns a gun will be fine.

But why are we sticking up for people who are in favour of a law that can only ever lead to murder?

they might be.

the people at the other end wont be.

‘But why are we sticking up for people who are in favour of a law that can only ever lead to murder?’

Because bad arguments don’t work.

‘the people at the other end wont be.’

But again, this is monstering. Nearly everyone who owns a gun in the US doesn’t murder anyone.

But all the evidence shows that with much tighter gun laws, less people die from guns.

These people don't care that little kids get murdered in their school, as long as they keep their right walk into a supermarket and pick a gun off the shelf.

‘It's clear that if the US sorted its gun laws, then less people would be killed by guns. We know this because it has been the case in countless other countries.’

The US isn’t the same as every other country. But I agree with you that passing a law to get rid of guns in the US would reduce the death toll.

You still have to pass the law via democratic norms in each state.

I don't care. the law has resulted in dead children, so I don't care if there are lovely gun owners.

@achillestoes but they can if they want to. And sometimes do. That's the whole point.