|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 22, 2008 14:48:03 GMT -5
So what if you have to drive a ways to buy a gun? How often to people buy guns anyway? The gun shop doesn't need to be in a convenient location. So what if you have to drive a ways to get an abortion? How often do people get abortions anyway? The abortion clinic doesn't need to be in a convenient location. See what I mean? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 22, 2008 14:51:14 GMT -5
Who is complaining about the placement of abortion clinics within a city? I've never heard that complaint.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 22, 2008 15:14:54 GMT -5
Who is complaining about the placement of abortion clinics within a city? I've never heard that complaint. Saunterelle, you missed my earlier post in this same thread about the interchageability of arguments between pro-gun and pro-abortion advocates. See what I mean? Just try limiting the location of abortion clinics and see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 22, 2008 15:29:17 GMT -5
The problem with your comparison is that gun deaths amount to violently killing human beings who can feel, react, and draw on life experiences to comprehend what is happening to them. When someone is killed by gun violence it also negatively affects the lives of the person's family, friends, and community.
Abortion, on the other hand, amounts to snuffing out the potential for a human life. During the first trimester, it involves the removal of a cluster of cells, sometimes in the form of a fetus, that has no cognitive function, feeling, awareness, or reason for living. At that point I believe it is a woman's right to choose.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 22, 2008 15:51:34 GMT -5
Good info in your reply BigDog. You obviously know much more about guns than I do. i'm so proud of you! you get an exaltation for realizing that you DON"T know everything and you're NOT the subject matter expert on all topics. way to go, santurelle! guess i spoke to soon. your exaltation has just been nullified. semi-auto does mean "as fast as you can pull the trigger." this also applies to revolvers which will "fire as fast as you can pull the trigger." I've seen guys who can squeeze off 6 rounds from a revolver in less than 1.5 seconds! so, you see, it's not really the type of weapon that matters as much as the user's ability to employ that weapon. anti-gun nuts don't understand that at all. i don't think that cho nut from VA tech would have killed less people with revolvers. i think he would have killed less if someone else (a sane person) was carrying that day and would have capped his sorry ass after he first started shooting. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 22, 2008 15:52:43 GMT -5
The problem with your comparison is that gun deaths amount to violently killing human beings who can feel, react, and draw on life experiences to comprehend what is happening to them. When someone is killed by gun violence it also negatively affects the lives of the person's family, friends, and community. Abortion, on the other hand, amounts to snuffing out the potential for a human life. During the first trimester, it involves the removal of a cluster of cells, sometimes in the form of a fetus, that has no cognitive function, feeling, awareness, or reason for living. At that point I believe it is a woman's right to choose. i'm betting that you are childless. is that right? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 22, 2008 16:08:10 GMT -5
The problem with your comparison is that gun deaths amount to violently killing human beings who can feel, react, and draw on life experiences to comprehend what is happening to them. When someone is killed by gun violence it also negatively affects the lives of the person's family, friends, and community. Abortion, on the other hand, amounts to snuffing out the potential for a human life. During the first trimester, it involves the removal of a cluster of cells, sometimes in the form of a fetus, that has no cognitive function, feeling, awareness, or reason for living. At that point I believe it is a woman's right to choose. i'm betting that you are childless. is that right? Correct, but what does having children have to do with it? I'm simply referring to the scientific truth of the matter. I've actually looked into it intently, that's why I only support the right to choose abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Any procedures later than that should be banned in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 22, 2008 16:38:10 GMT -5
The problem with your comparison is that gun deaths amount to violently killing human beings who can feel, react, and draw on life experiences to comprehend what is happening to them. When someone is killed by gun violence it also negatively affects the lives of the person's family, friends, and community. And when someone is killed in a car crash? Are there not negative effects? Far more Americans die every year in car crashes than as a result of the criminal use of a firearm. Again, your emotional response misses the point. Lumping all deaths where a firearm was the instrumentality obscures the true nature of the "problem" or more correctly, the lack of a problem. I get it that you don't like firearms. Maybe you are outright afraid of them even though, like any inanimate mechanical device, they can't hurt by themselves. Whatever... you choose not to own a firearm. That is your right. Conversely, it is my right to own one if I chose... says so in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has aggreed. And so long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights then I am pretty much (or should be) free to exercise my rights, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. Wow.... and Barack said that deciding when life begins was above his pay grade. Pretty cool that you can decide all that for him. Now before you take a giant poop on me, I personally believe that up until a fetus is viable outside it's mother, it's okay. However, no matter what you and I feel, there is no enumerated right to choose to have an abortion, like there is for owning a firearm. End of story. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 22, 2008 18:51:50 GMT -5
Good info in your reply BigDog. You obviously know much more about guns than I do. I was referring to semi-auto weapons that fire "as fast as you can pull the trigger." Think of how many lives would have been saved during school shooting if the shooter didn't have these guns. And you know full well that the number of gun deaths in America is STAGGERING. Mexico and Brazil are 2nd world countries. I'm talking about 1st world, industrialized nations. America has more gun deaths than all of them COMBINED. No excuses. What is your solution to this problem? Think how many lives would have been saved during an incident at a school if a teacher could have reached into her desk or purse, pulled out a legally carried handgun and shot the thug. Look at that law school in VA a few years ago - of 209 printed reports, 204 said that the thug surrendered when confronted. Only 5 papers published what really happened - 2 students went to their cars, got their handguns, and then confronted the thug. When faced with armed citizens he surrendered. Most of the murders in the US take place in large cities, usually in a small inner city core area, and mostly in cities like LA, DC, Detroit, Chicago, which have defacto gun bans. If bans and restrictions wor so well, why is it that the places with the most restrictions have the worst problems with "gun crime?" States that have become 'shall issue' states have all seen drastic drops in violent crime. Much to the dismay of the anti-civil rights lobby, whos members dream of blood running in the streets. |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 22, 2008 18:59:33 GMT -5
It's the slippery slope concern that has gun nuts shaking in their boots. The truth is, as JMO points out, Obama won't ban guns any more than Clinton banned guns. Any restrictions aimed at LAW ABIDING citizens is unacceptable. This is something that the left doesn't get. Slick Willy happily signed the "Brady Bill", which prevented law abiding citizens from owning legit guns, and high-cap magazines. The Brady Bill incorrectly categorized many semi-auto long-guns as "assault weapons". I support keeping the guns out of the hands of the insane, violent felons, and those under age (under 18). I do NOT support attacking the rights of law-abiding citizens. With this said, no amount of controls will work when people (e.g. criminals) choose to disobey the laws anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 22, 2008 19:04:23 GMT -5
*bangs head on wall*
It is not the law abiding that needs to be feared. You're typical law abiding gun owner doesn't go around the hood committing drive-by's.
How much affect will gun control have on gang-banging thugs and other criminals when they often have stolen guns anyway... and at the least won't obey the laws in the first place.
IMO, gun control only hurts the law abiding.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 22, 2008 19:11:26 GMT -5
Good info in your reply BigDog. You obviously know much more about guns than I do. I was referring to semi-auto weapons that fire "as fast as you can pull the trigger." Think of how many lives would have been saved during school shooting if the shooter didn't have these guns. Gun control would only have prevented a legal purchase. Any joe blow can pick up an illegal semi-auto (or full-auto) on the street, usually at great prices. He would have likely gotten the gun illegally if it was banned. It's actually much easier to buy illegally in this country... no background checks, often 10% the price of a legal gun. Allowing the teachers to carry guns would have potentially saved lives. If just one teacher was able to safely return fire, the incident could have been defused before that many tragically died. I understand some people might call this a "Wild West" option, as it is scary to those inherently fearful of guns, but it at least gives the innocent a fighting chance. |
|
