Right to LifeBoard

Where I live the government has banned a whole range of guns, and anyone want to guess what happened? Yeah, gun crime skyrocketed...

Kivektanna wrote:

Sooo if we take our knowledge on gun control and how banning guns doesn't work and apply it to abortion, based on what you guys have told me you would agree that banning abortion would not work, and that if women want an abortion, they will find a way to get one, regardless if they are banned or not.

Well, that's kind of different though, I mean, yeah some people will always get abortions, but you have to look at why they get abortions.

Take a woman who got pregnant accidentally who's somewhat poor, doesn't have a good job, or own a house, who's 'partner' (as they call them now) does not want a child and so he is pressuring her to get an abortion and since a baby isn't considered 'human' and she has all these other things to worry about and furthermore abortion is promoted as a non painful perfectly fine process (despite the fact that I've read quite the opposite from anyone who's actually done it), she will probably get the abortion. Whereas people get guns normally because they want protection or just to have fun shooting at stuff, so it's not really even close to abortion, and that's without going into how morally and scientifically abortion is just plain wrong.

Little side note here, I did have to write this as quickly as possible so everything isn't how I'd properly like to explain it.

Kivektanna wrote:

Sooo if we take our knowledge on gun control and how banning guns doesn't work and apply it to abortion, based on what you guys have told me you would agree that banning abortion would not work, and that if women want an abortion, they will find a way to get one, regardless if they are banned or not.

This is a commonly used comparison, but it ultimately fails because it presumes an equivalency between abortion and guns that is not there.

In short (I would be happy to expand on this at length tomorrow, I enjoy these kinds of conversations and I'm glad to have you debating here even if we may disagree), people who break gun laws to get guns aren't interested in the guns themselves, but what they can get via them: robbery, homicide, etc. Abortion, however, is sought for itself. The important thing about that difference is that the motivations are fundamentally different without that second step. If a crook wants to get a gun to rob someone with, they're already planning on committing a crime, so making getting a gun a crime is not a serious disincentive. If a woman is seeking an abortion, however, there's no secondary crime intended from that, so there's far less willingness to break the law.

In short, gun bans only really serve to make things "double illegal", and a crook already planning on breaking the law does not mind breaking it twice. Abortion, however, is a plain switch from legal to illegal, and while some will still try to get them illegally, those people are only a small fraction of those who would when it was legal.

Just to highlight it starkly: here's the graph for the abortion rate post-legalization. It absolutely skyrockets, doubling twice over within only a few years, because people are doing it now that it's legal, and weren't when it was not. Yet when you have a liberalization of gun laws, you don't see dramatic changes, because the crooks had already largely gotten theirs when they were still illegal. That's the difference, and it is borne out by the data.

https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/20170121_WOC633_0.png

Kivektanna wrote:

Thank you for the input everyone! Getting to know both sides of the argument is always quite enlightening. How would you guys feel about funding more extensive sex education programs, rather than banning abortion as a method of lowering the abortion rates?

I think the effect would be very marginal compared to a ban, talking about, in what I think would be an extremely optimistic situation, maybe a decrease of up to a quarter (I think it would be far less than that and may not decrease at all) compared to a ban that would likely cut rates 80-90% or more at minimum. An argument could be made for more extensive sex ed on its own merits, but I do not think there is any situation in which it is an actual replacement for a ban on abortion.

The flip side of it is that for me, and many others, abortion ought to be illegal on moral grounds even if it cannot be effectively enforced. My comparison is usually that of rape: imagine that you lived in a society in which it is not illegal to have sex with another person without their consent, and a proposed solution was increased education, or increased welfare, or something of the sort. Could they help reduce rape rates? They very well could-but there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that allows rape to be legal, and in the same sense there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that allows killing an unborn child to be legal. You want there to be less of them, but that's a bit hollow if a person is not legally protected from either having sex forced on them, or having a scalpel and forceps forced on them.

There's probably not universal agreement on that point among pro-lifers, but I think it is a strong majority opinion. We very much want to reduce the rate of abortions, but we also see it as critical that life is legally protected. Legal protection of unborn children happens to be the most effective way to reduce abortion rates, which helps the two goals go together nicely.

I have just joined so I probably don't have much of a say, but from what I am understanding we are debating whether guns should be owned by citizens or not. Hopefully this forum makes the right decision, which is keeping guns because nations like me who are new and slowly growing, need protection for their people and their country.

Roborian wrote:

Just to highlight it starkly: here's the graph for the abortion rate post-legalization. It absolutely skyrockets, doubling twice over within only a few years, because people are doing it now that it's legal, and weren't when it was not. Yet when you have a liberalization of gun laws, you don't see dramatic changes, because the crooks had already largely gotten theirs when they were still illegal. That's the difference, and it is borne out by the data.

https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/20170121_WOC633_0.png

Playing Devil's advocate here: With abortion being illegal before 1973, there's no real reason for us to have official stats about it before legalization. The procedure was not spoken of in "polite society" and could really only be gotten through shady "clinics" and backroom hack places. At least part of the reason you're seeing the spike is because it's actually trackable post-legalization. There's no way to know how many women died due to botched abortions before 1973, for example. Fast forward to now, we can see the rates of maternal death and the number of botched abortions.

The Confederacy of Beastland wrote:

I hate it. More guns. Not less guns.

My lib news app just informed me of a shooting at a school (where I am guessing no one had a gun except the criminal). I was listening to the 911 call from a teacher at Columbine when she was hiding under a table with her students while those kids were going around the school shooting. If those teachers would have had guns they could have stopped those kids way sooner. At a more recent shooting a few years ago (I cant remember which) where an adult shot up an elementary school, I was looking at the quote from some kid who was the only one in his class that didnt get shot ("He was a very angry man..."). If those teachers had guns, they wouldn't have even made it to that kids room. Just give them 22's. My old friend at school a long time ago told me in response to my suggestion "What??? Guns at SCHOOL?". Later, his libtarded ass told me "you really kind of disturbed me...could you imagine [one of our teachers at the time] with a gun??" He is stupid. Whether she is a good shot, that doesnt mean she is going to start waving it around pointing it at kids (at close range it is almost common sense and just seeing the gun deters the criminal). I told my libtard aunt who is a high school teacher the same thing when she was talking about how the staff was going over school shooting drills. she said maybe she deserves a raise for taking so much risk. I told her maybe she and the other teachers should be allowed to have guns and she rolled her eyes (okay. Die then, I'm cool with that). She ignored me like a condescending brat before I said it again. She said "well....anything that's at school a student can get ahold of". A student will get ahold of a gun illegally and shoot it if he really wants to and has the money. Many kids have their parents' guns at their house too...if she really cares, keep it in a fu*king safe (as they would most definitely provide safes if they gave teachers guns at school). In other words, my aunt is retarded in that aspect.

The only way the government can do whatever it wants to you is if you dont have guns. Remember, slaves weren't allowed to have guns either. They can take it from my dead body.

I thought your previous posts simply contained youthful immaturity but it's pretty obvious that you don't even care to show a semblance of respect for people whose views differ from yours, even your own family members. If we're talking about younger kids, then a teacher having a weapon in the class could potentially put them in danger if they get hold of it. If teachers could carry guns to school, and I'm not that much of a supporter of that to begin with, then they should at least be mandated to keep them in a safe location. It's quite likely that a kid who's been a victim of a school shooting would feel safer if there weren't any guns on the campus to begin with. You might pay some respect to the fact that such an experience would leave one scarred.

By the way, I'm not from a "libtard" state. I'm in Texas, the state with the most registered guns in the whole country.

Roborian wrote:

While I see that argument, the second line, the birth rate, seems to pretty solidly disprove it. If the idea is that women were having about as many illegal abortions before legalization, then the birthrate would be expected to stay about the same, as you just see a transition from 'back alleys' to clinics. However, that is not the case, instead the birthrate drops precipitously, by more than 25% in a matter of years, the largest and sharpest drop in American history by far. From 1970 to 1975, you lose over twenty births per thousand: at the same time, unsurprisingly, that you gain about twenty abortions per thousand. That can only occur if women who were previously foregoing abortions started having them once legalized.

I don't disagree that the numbers we have on pre-legal abortion cannot be determined with absolute certainty, but birth numbers are pretty darn solid (Social Security, Census, etc.), and as soon as abortion was legalized, dramatically less pregnancies were going to term, to an unheard-of extent. I think that, even if one did not have any abortion statistics at all, that that pretty concretely proves that the frequency of abortion increased exponentially after legalization.

Still playing DA: Sure, there's an initial spike in the chart you posted, given that women were no longer forced to carry pregnancies to term. After the initial spike, the trend line started to go down and has continued to do so. Add in that abortion become more licit to talk about in society so there was greater "freedom" to talk about and get the procedure. It would be interesting to see if the falling trend line happened in conjunction with increased birth control use, esp. since contraceptive technology has advanced far beyond the Pill.

Kivektanna wrote:

How do you guys feel about gun control?

Depends on what proposal is being advanced. I could get behind the following: Red flag laws, universal background checks on all gun sales, raising the federal age of gun ownership and possession to 21, closing of the gun show loophole, and a bump stock ban (My one thank you to Trump, he's the one who implemented the ban).

I would not support an Assault Weapons Ban, simply because studies showed that it was minimally effective. I'm skeptical of arming teachers, and I'd have to think about banning high-cap magazines. I haven't really looked into the last option.

Roborian wrote:

Best available evidence seems to suggest that having already had COVID is relatively equivalent to vaccination for quite some time, and with that in mind, I do not feel a need to roll the dice on uncertain long-term side-effects (though I believe the odds of such are slim) and/or wade into mildly murky moral territory.

Link to such evidence? Everything I've read indicates that even people who've had covid (whether mild, moderate, or severe) should get the vaccine after they've recovered. Even if you get one strain of covid, that doesn't protect you from other variants out there. I'm not questioning you to be snippy, I simply having a close family who is an epidemiologist trained to look at this kind of stuff in the medical journals. Nothing in said journals, that I'm aware of, says anything about getting covid being the equivalent of vaccination. That's why Trump, his wife, and little Barron all got the vaccine even after getting the disease itself.

Horatius Cocles wrote:

Link to such evidence? Everything I've read indicates that even people who've had covid (whether mild, moderate, or severe) should get the vaccine after they've recovered. Even if you get one strain of covid, that doesn't protect you from other variants out there. I'm not questioning you to be snippy, I simply having a close family who is an epidemiologist trained to look at this kind of stuff in the medical journals. Nothing in said journals, that I'm aware of, says anything about getting covid being the equivalent of vaccination. That's why Trump, his wife, and little Barron all got the vaccine even after getting the disease itself.

I don't mind the questioning at all, I'm hardly an expert on the topic and I'm quite open to being better-informed. I don't have anything bookmarked, but stuff such as this:

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210323/COVID-19-antibodies-protect-against-reinfection-for-at-least-eight-months.aspx

Thus, this supports the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 infection is followed by robust and durable antibody-mediated protection against reinfection. The degree of protection matches, at least, the preliminary results reported following vaccination with lipid nanoparticle-mRNA-based vaccines, at 90%.

Another is here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731v1.full

"The efficacy of natural infection against both documented and undocumented reinfection is crudely estimated at 93%—similar to the efficacy reported for two recently-developed COVID-19 vaccines"

I'm not making any universal claims, and I'm aware that there are surveys (and possibly/probably studies) out there that show different numbers, but it seems like there's a fairly solid backing to the idea that vaccination does not, at the least, provide dramatically greater protection than previous infection.

Roborian wrote:

I'm a bit curious: I'm glad that you don't support an assault weapons ban, but I'm curious as to how that dovetails with supporting the bump stock ban/confiscation. There did not seem to be any real evidence that bump stocks were ever really used in crimes outside Vegas, and the ban seemed more for appearances than effectiveness.

I'm also curious on the age requirement being higher than both voting age and the age to join the military, do you think those ages should be raised as well? (not snippy/rhetorical, legitimately interested in thoughts on age of majority and associated rights).

(Also, just as a point of information that might be helpful, the Assault Weapons Ban did also include a 'high-cap' magazine ban, so your views on the two might link up.)

Trump's ban got held up in the courts anyway, so it's not even in force right now. Given that a bump stock can give a regular rifle more machine gun like qualities regarding rate of fire, I don't think that it's a necessary component to a gun. I think that just amplifies the damage that the gun can cause in the wrong hands, which is what happened in Vegas. I don't see how a regular gun can't be used for self-defense or how a gun with bump stock really contributes to hunting more than a regular shooting rifle. The usual claim is that we want that gun/that accessory for self-defense/hunting and I don't see how having a bump stock aligns with those interests.

With the voting age, you can't hurt anyone by voting or not voting. I see raising the age of gun possession in this way: You're not yet a legal adult, yet you're allowed to possess a weapon that can cause great danger to yourself and others. If we restrict alcohol to minors on the account that they could get behind the wheel and kill someone on accident while drunk, then I don't see the necessity to give an 18-year old a permit for handling a lethal weapon. Are there some kids in rural areas/farm areas where they are super comfy with guns because they were raised with them? Sure, but not everyone comes from that background. Even if you did come from that background, I'd still prefer that someone be a legal adult before getting a deadly weapon. In Texas, you can't possess alcohol or tobacco unless you're 21 or more, and I think you could and should do the same with guns.

Regarding the military, I would prefer that it be raised to 21 as well. You should be an adult before you commit yourself to a MOS with life-altering consequences. I think someone should see more of life before going into an institution where they could choose a MOS that puts them on the frontlines. Also, let's be honest, many perks are given for signing up while in HS, and a lot of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds go for that. I think the decision should be thought through better. If a regular civilian couldn't get a gun before the age of 21, then why should an 18-year old who decides he/she wants to go into one of the service branches get training on guns?