Conquer Club

First, sorry for another thread but I thought we needed a joint discussion.

I'll make a broad generalization as follows:

Group 1 supports the unrestricted freedom to bear arms. Group 1 also supports making abortion illegal.
Group 2 supports the restriction of firearms, up to and including making guns illegal. Group 2 also supports making abortion legal (in any capacity up to and including immediately before birth).

My question for Group 1: Why do you value life such that you would make abortions illegal but not restrict the ownership of guns which is proven to preserve life?
My question for Group 2: Why are you so adamant to allow the killing (or abortion, if you prefer) of the unborn but are also so adamant that "mass" (read more than 2 people) murders should result in the illegalization of firearms?

Basically, I'm trying to figure out why each group has such seemingly incongruous theories and positions.

valuing life and preserving life are not incongruent

thegreekdog wrote:First, sorry for another thread but I thought we needed a joint discussion.

I'll make a broad generalization as follows:

Group 1 supports the unrestricted freedom to bear arms. Group 1 also supports making abortion illegal.
Group 2 supports the restriction of firearms, up to and including making guns illegal. Group 2 also supports making abortion legal (in any capacity up to and including immediately before birth).

My question for Group 1: Why do you value life such that you would make abortions illegal but not restrict the ownership of guns which is proven to preserve life?
My question for Group 2: Why are you so adamant to allow the killing (or abortion, if you prefer) of the unborn but are also so adamant that "mass" (read more than 2 people) murders should result in the illegalization of firearms?

Basically, I'm trying to figure out why each group has such seemingly incongruous theories and positions.

I fall in neither camp, but have discussed this extensively of late with folks who are. And, well, even I can see you make a pretty big error in assessment.
Guns are for hunting and sport, plus defense , not just killing. Pregnancy can be seen as the beginning of life or as potential life.
Gun control advocates would say that guns are mostly ineffective as a means of defense and actually promote violence.


More clearly:
Guns are not about killing, first. They are about hunting and sport. These are still HUGE factors for many. And, people don't generally buy them to kill (criminals, etc aside), but rather to defend themselves against those who mean harm. The argument that this can be done without arms is rather moot, because you asked about intent and reason people want guns, not whether their views are fully legitimate.
Abortion, to contrast is, in their mind, fully intentional taking of a life.

Those who want abortion kept legal, to contrast, see pregnancy more as potential life. Also, its not a matter of liking abortion, but of saying that there are times when it, while not a nice choice, is the better of terrible choices. Above all, they feel that there are so many factors involved that this must be a personal choice, its not something anyone else can truly decide. Guns, to contrast, do not mean defense to them. They mean, at best, a weapon that is more often turned against its owner or picked up in anger because it is there. At worse, they are forces of intimidation used by groups of lawless individuals (or, if not exactly lawless, governed by self-made laws of greed and power) to dominate the innocent.

I agree mostly with what Player has touched on. One more key point.
Guns are an OBJECT while Abortion is an action.
Lets say someone uses a gun to go on a mass killing spree. We do not convict the gun of murdering many people. We convict the person. Guns do not by themselves kill people. People kill people.
Also Guns are illegal in China, so they just use Knives or other objects to go on killing sprees. Also... You can ban just about everything, but if you really want to harm others then you will always find a way around it.

I'm not exactly sure what my position on guns is, but let's say for the sake of argument that I'm in support of severe restrictions on gun ownership. I can do that and still self-consistently not have a moral objection to abortion because I don't think that non-self-conscious organisms have a right to life. Guns are generally used to kill people that are self-conscious, i.e. are moral persons, and so there is no real symmetry behind the situations.

Now many of the reasons why other liberals are OK with abortion are pretty internally inconsistent in terms of their own moral standards, not to mention more universal moral standards, so I'm not going to defend their positions. Their positions are nonsense. They just happen to be much closer to the correct answer than the pro-life folks are.

thegreekdog wrote:Why do you value life such that you would make abortions illegal but not restrict the ownership of guns which is proven to preserve life?

Are we really playing this game again?

So Mets is it OK to kill a children up to age three because they are not self aware?? I think we had this conversation before and you jumped ship when I asked this question.

What if I support ONE option from each group? I just never fit anywhere....

KoolBak wrote:What if I support ONE option from each group? I just never fit anywhere....

that is because the groups just pick their priorities based on number of votes they can increase for their group ...having one view does not mean you should automatically have the other view in the group by any means...

warmonger1981 wrote:So Mets is it OK to kill a children up to age three because they are not self aware?? I think we had this conversation before and you jumped ship when I asked this question.

Children are self-aware at some point prior to birth. They are absolutely not in any way aware within the first trimester, but beyond that... there is a debate over exactly when (and it no doubt varies with each child).

GabonX wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Why do you value life such that you would make abortions illegal but not restrict the ownership of guns which is proven to preserve life?

Are we really playing this game again?

yeah, the idea that guns are "proven to save lives" is definitely questionable. Its even a question in law enforcement (note that England does without them), never mind for individuals.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:So Mets is it OK to kill a children up to age three because they are not self aware?? I think we had this conversation before and you jumped ship when I asked this question.

Children are self-aware at some point prior to birth. They are absolutely not in any way aware within the first trimester, but beyond that... there is a debate over exactly when (and it no doubt varies with each child).

GabonX wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Why do you value life such that you would make abortions illegal but not restrict the ownership of guns which is proven to preserve life?

Are we really playing this game again?

yeah, the idea that guns are "proven to save lives" is definitely questionable. Its even a question in law enforcement (note that England does without them), never mind for individuals.

I think he's stating the opposite, that restricting gun ownership is proven to preserve life, but either way it's a false premise because neither conclusion is universally accepted. It's a hotly debated issue.

So to answer his question, the reason people may support gun rights, but not abortion rights when they claim they are for preserving human life, is because they do not believe that gun rights negatively affect the preservation of human life. They look at numerous examples in history and in the world today and conclude that people empowered to the right to self defense via firearms is a better way to preserve life than to ban gun ownership.

Whether or not that's true, I don't want to get into again, but that answers his question and should close out this thread.

thegreekdog wrote:Group 2 supports the restriction of firearms, up to and including making guns illegal. Group 2 also supports making abortion legal (in any capacity up to and including immediately before birth).

My question for Group 2: Why are you so adamant to allow the killing (or abortion, if you prefer) of the unborn but are also so adamant that "mass" (read more than 2 people) murders should result in the illegalization of firearms?

Killing a fetus =/= killing multiple teachers/students/shoppers/whoever in a public place.

So i'm guessing Greek doesn't actually fall in either group... that he instead is presenting the either/or question, as these seem to be the limited choices available to those of us who are US voters. (i.e. Democrats/Liberals vs. Republicans/Conservatives)

I understand that neither choice is ideal.

I further understand that these seem to be the only options presented by the two-party system.

I take the Capt. James Tiberius Kirk route a-la Kobayashi Maru. I refuse to believe there is such a thing as a "no-win" scenario. Eventually We The People will take back control from this ridiculous system we have fallen into.

Regarding these issues... I would be that 80% of US Voters would agree with the following;
... regarding guns;
*Some gun-control, specifically assault-type weapons being restricted.
*Waiting period for licensing.
*Restrictions for convicted criminals or people with mental issues.
*Heavy penalties for use of a firearm in commission of a crime.
*Closing of loopholes at gun-shows and private sales.
... regarding birth control / abortion;
*Easy and free access to birth control for people who have reached "the age of consent".
*Open public discussion for easy/free access to those even younger.
*Easy and free access for early term abortions.
*Possible restrictions for later term... past 26/27 weeks fetus' have 90% survival rate.
If you don't want a baby isn't reasonable to say that you should make that call within the first 26 weeks or so??? You might not know you're pregnant for 4-8 weeks, but by 8 weeks you should know. That gives you 18 weeks to decide. Fair?
*Easy and free access to healthcare for any pregnant woman who wants to carry to term and give up child for adoption.

Can I get 80% of this forum to agree these are (generally) good ideas?

thegreekdog wrote:Group 1 supports the unrestricted freedom to bear arms. Group 1 also supports making abortion illegal.
Group 2 supports the restriction of firearms, up to and including making guns illegal. Group 2 also supports making abortion legal (in any capacity up to and including immediately before birth).

Well I am not of either group. I generally support gun rights, but there is no unrestricted freedom to bear arms. Unless you want to use the arguments of the left and the right at the same time, no true conservative supporter of the constitution can in due conscience support the incorporation doctrine. The Second Amendment applies to the Federal Government, not to either the states or the local communities. Living in New York, I hate that with a passion, but logic doesn't give a rats ass about what I like and to impose my opinion on others in spite of law is progressive enlightenment.

So, for example, if I want to hunt deer on Long Island, I have to use a shotgun. This is because of the dense population of the island, which is different from that of upstate NY. I have no qualms with this reasonable restriction.

I can support both reasonable restrictions for guns and abortion. They do have to be reasonable, you have to have a reason to support them and not something you pulled out of your ass. A lot of the so called "assault weapons bans" are like that ... no really, the basic criteria for a gun is the bullet, the shell and how easy or fast it can fire a round. If you are restricting a weapon because of the piece of equipment that touches a person's shoulder you are being silly. Here are the definitions of the term ... assault weapon

Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock,[14] which reduces the overall length of the firearm[16]
Pistol grip, whether rifle, shotgun, or pistol[14]
Bayonet lug,[14] which allows the mounting of a bayonet

Yes, folks, this is PURE EVIL ...



Well, almost, if it had a telescoping stock it would be pure evil.

That's STUPID. That's illogical. That's common lib thinking.

New York had an assault weapons ban prior to 2013, but on January 16 of that year it passed the SAFE Act, which created a stricter definition of assault weapons and banned them immediately.[31][32][33] The NY SAFE Act defines assault weapons as semi-automatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, and semi-automatic shotguns with one military-style feature.[32]

Trust me, ever since the SAFE act, I haven't felt safe.

warmonger1981 wrote:So Mets is it OK to kill a children up to age three because they are not self aware?? I think we had this conversation before and you jumped ship when I asked this question.

I'm sure I said the same thing then that I'll say now: I don't think that beings that are not self aware deserve a right to life in the same way that most adult humans do. That doesn't mean I can say in an unqualified manner that it's always OK to kill human infants before they become self-aware; for example, if killing them also causes them pain, that would be morally relevant.

As for the age cutoff -- no, the first tendrils of self-awareness (or, more broadly, the understanding that the being exists through time) kick in well before age three. I think that if we are going to grant a right-to-life cutoff, it should almost certainly kick in by age one, if not well before, given current scientific knowledge.

As science continues to tell us more about the development process, that may change. We can only do the best with what we know now.

I think that.... nah.

jimboston wrote:So i'm guessing Greek doesn't actually fall in either group... that he instead is presenting the either/or question, as these seem to be the limited choices available to those of us who are US voters. (i.e. Democrats/Liberals vs. Republicans/Conservatives)

I understand that neither choice is ideal.

I further understand that these seem to be the only options presented by the two-party system.

I take the Capt. James Tiberius Kirk route a-la Kobayashi Maru. I refuse to believe there is such a thing as a "no-win" scenario. Eventually We The People will take back control from this ridiculous system we have fallen into.

Regarding these issues... I would be that 80% of US Voters would agree with the following;
... regarding guns;
*Some gun-control, specifically assault-type weapons being restricted.
*Waiting period for licensing.
*Restrictions for convicted criminals or people with mental issues.
*Heavy penalties for use of a firearm in commission of a crime.
*Closing of loopholes at gun-shows and private sales.
... regarding birth control / abortion;
*Easy and free access to birth control for people who have reached "the age of consent".
*Open public discussion for easy/free access to those even younger.
*Easy and free access for early term abortions.
*Possible restrictions for later term... past 26/27 weeks fetus' have 90% survival rate.
If you don't want a baby isn't reasonable to say that you should make that call within the first 26 weeks or so??? You might not know you're pregnant for 4-8 weeks, but by 8 weeks you should know. That gives you 18 weeks to decide. Fair?
*Easy and free access to healthcare for any pregnant woman who wants to carry to term and give up child for adoption.

Can I get 80% of this forum to agree these are (generally) good ideas?

You are correct in your assumption as to why I created this thread. I find these arguments to be largely incongruous (I suppose offense is intended to the rest of you, other than Mets) especially in the context of reasonable methods of regulation. For example, I do not understand, at all, why gun owners don't favor increased waiting periods or no guns for people on no fly lists. For example, I do not understand why pro-choice folks want religious institutions that do not believe in abortion to pay for abortions.

I don't like guns at all and I don't support "no guns for people on no fly lists." Those lists are despicable violations of due process rights.

Metsfanmax wrote:I don't like guns at all and I don't support "no guns for people on no fly lists." Those lists are despicable violations of due process rights.

get rid of the tsa and give everyone guns when you get on a plane. problem solved! TRUMP 2016

Restricting gun ownership would uncountably drive down the suicide rate of the mentally ill in society. I know they're an unfashionable group to advocate here, but it is a truth nevertheless.

Love to see some data to back up that obscure statement. For instance, are the metally ill averse to, say, jumping in front of a UPS truck? Or off'n a bridge? Or taking the old Estwing E3 to the head??

KoolBak wrote:Love to see some data to back up that obscure statement. For instance, are the metally ill averse to, say, jumping in front of a UPS truck? Or off'n a bridge? Or taking the old Estwing E3 to the head??

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
It is true, people with access to guns off themselves at a higher rate than people who don't have access to guns. And what really bothers me is how many of them are 14- or 15- year olds, who are just going through some moment of teenage angst, and probably would have turned out to be decent adults, if only they could have gotten past that brief period of turmoil.

Shooting yourself is just so quick and final. Take pills, you can change your mind and rush to the hospital before they work. Run your car in the garage, you can change your mind and shut it off. Shooting yourself just allows so little time to reconsider.

I'm not a gun hater, KB. I like guns, I grew up with guns, I used to enjoy some hunting. To be honest, however, the numbers are telling the truth. Guns are dangerous, and statistically they are far more likely to be used for some bad purpose than some good purpose. People buy guns for "home defense" but then their troubled teen uses it to kill himself, or they accidentally shoot their neighbour as a "prowler" because he was out back walking the dog, or they end up not being home when the burglar comes and their "home defender" ends up as merchandise on the street.