Do You Really Support Gun Control?

gun control abortion

An industry continues to profit off the taking of human lives and politicians behave as if this should be the accepted normal.

They repeatedly and somewhat callously speak of Constitutional rights, while rejecting any and all common sense regulations and restrictions due, in part, to their being bought by powerful lobbyist.

Virtually every other nation, including most of the European Union, has more strict guidelines that successfully reduce the number of lives lost. But it is no matter, politicians grandstand and rile up their voters by casting opponents as draconian and downright evil.

To make any progress possible, it will require many to show real courage in the face of demagoguery and outright lies. It’s unfortunate then that many in the media and virtually the entire Democratic party are fully invested in protecting abortion.

I’m not sure many abortion supporters realize how similar they sound to gun rights supporters, with whom they often (and vehemently) disagree. This is why I ask, “Do you really support gun control?” Because I’m not sure advocates for abortion realize where their reasoning leads on the issue of gun control.

Read New York Times’ much publicized front page editorial on gun control and tell me how the same logic could not be applied to abortion.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

If only the Times editorial board actually agreed with that. I’ve yet to see them advocate for any restrictions on abortion, much less “reasonable regulation.”

Do you see them calling for the U.S. to follow in the footsteps of European countries that ban abortions after 20 weeks? Actually, their tone on abortion is much less “we must do something” and more “how dare you do something.”

In a June op-ed, the editorial board argued against restricting “a woman’s right to choose” and for protecting “reproductive freedom.”

For the last several years, opponents of abortion rights have cloaked their obstructionist efforts under all manner of legitimate-sounding rationales, like protecting women’s health. This has never been more than an insulting ruse. Their goal, of course, is to end all abortions, and lately they’re hardly trying to pretend otherwise.

Odd how in this instance the board does not recognize trying to limit a recognized Constitutional freedom as praiseworthy.

When speaking about guns the same ones who dismiss claims about the rise of black markets for weapons and the notion that only bad men will have guns, immediately appeal to “back alley abortions” and exploitive providers when speaking of limitations on abortion.

Much like Ross Douthat, I am not a gun person and am open to persuasive arguments about limitations on types of guns and ammunition available to the average citizen. But I see no real desire on the part of gun control advocates to marshall such a defense of their position or even a recognition of what they actually want.

Abortion Hypocrisy

When I discuss my opposition to abortion, the usual retort is two-fold: 1) I have no room to talk because I am a man, therefore I’ll never “need” an abortion and 2) If I, or anyone else, doesn’t like abortions, we don’t have to have one.

So let me turn that around on the abortion advocate in favor of increased gun control.

Many such individuals live in major urban areas where police officers regularly walk the streets. Depending on their current attitude toward law enforcement, this may give them a sense of security that if they need to be protected by someone with a gun, the police can be there rather quickly.

More rural residents do not have such a luxury. Crime may be less frequent in those areas, but if there is a home invasion or something similar the role of the police will almost always be investigation after the crime, not prevention or intervention.

Therefore, if you are not in a situation in which you potentially need a gun for your protection, then (according to the pro-choice individual) you have no place in this discussion. Your assertions that you are safe actually disqualifies you from commenting.

Secondly, pro-life individuals are told to merely avoid abortions personally and that should be enough. Translated into bumper sticker sloganism, it would be: “If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one.” Why does that not equally apply to guns?

If you are a member of The New York Times editorial board — liberal, elite, upper class, living in a low crime area of town, police around regularly — and you don’t like guns, according to the pro-choice logic, the solution is simply for you not to get one.

Hypotheticals and Potential

The Times editor may reply, “Yes, but an individual with a gun can impact me. They could shoot me or a loved one, so the choice of another to have a gun can have an impact on me.”

Very true, but how is that different from an abortion? We have no idea what ramifications result from ending a human life through abortion.

If we are dealing purely in hypotheticals, which is what you must do when arguing for taking away guns from individuals who have not committed crimes, the human life never allowed out of the womb could have been the politician that united the nation around a gun control measure.

Gun control advocates often speak of the potential number of lives that could be saved through additional legislation, but if we are speaking about potential, what about unborn life?

Pro-choice individuals frequently refer to those in the womb as a “potential person.” As I’ve argued before, how can you advocate for the reduction of Second Amendment rights based on potential lives being saved, but ignore what is, according to your own rhetoric, a “potential” life in the womb?

To campaign for both gun control, but reject regulations on abortion, you have to make the case that a Constitutional right that was not interpreted as existing for 200 years of our nation’s existence is more important and legally secure than one that was literally written into our founding document from its inception.

That seems to be a hard case to sell and one in which the inverse is much simpler. I can, as many legal scholars and Supreme Court justices have, argue the right to an abortion never existed in the Constitution. But it would defy logic to argue the same for the right to bear arms.

Do you really support gun control? Because if you do and you desire to be even remotely logically consistent, I look forward to you joining with me in campaigning for additional restrictions and regulations on abortion.

5 Comments

  1. Shane

    “Do you really support gun control? Because if you do and you desire to be even remotely logically consistent, I look forward to you joining with me in campaigning for ADDITIONAL restrictions and regulations on abortion”

    Additional…That is really where your argument falls apart, because abortion is already restricted and regulated nearly out of existence. When gun regulations get to the point where there is only one gun store in your state, that you have to drive 150 miles to, take time off work so you can wait 72 hours, receive counseling and have to watch a graphic movie on the affects of gun violence. Then maybe your argument would hold water.

    Considering the gross differences in the amount of regulation, comparatively for abortion and gun control, it is actually very logically consistent to advocate for loosening the restrictions on one and tightening the restrictions on the other, that way they close the gap and meet somewhere in the middle. Encouraging the further restriction of the already restricted entity while doing nothing or very little for the entity with very little regulation only further widens the gap between the two and is therefore very logically inconsistent.

    • My point is the contradictory positions taken by the New York Times and others who oppose restrictions on abortion, but support additional gun control measures. I have yet to see abortion advocates discuss any regulations and restrictions as “common sense” or moderate. Any regulations are met with claims of a “war or women” or violating constitutional rights. I’d be happy to amend my article if you can point me to an op-ed by the Times where they advocate for restricting or regulating abortions in any way.

      You say that abortion has been regulated out of existence, yet hundreds of thousands, if not millions, happen every year in the U.S. Would you say hundreds of thousands of gun deaths would mean guns were regulated out of existence? Even with abortion at a 40 year low, the abortion rate is higher than the gun death rate, which includes suicides, accidents and homicides. In 2011, there were over 1 million abortions in the U.S. compared to slightly more than 10,000 gun homicides. Which of those two do you believe is in need of additional regulations to reduce its number?

      As to the differences between the restrictions, we can discuss the nature and extent of the restrictions for each. I think that discussion is needed. But it must be established and agreed upon that it is hypocritical to call for regulation in gun control and treat abortion as if it is beyond questioning. Do you think abortion rights supporters would be in favor of women being required to have a background check approved by the government before they can have an abortion?

      Again, I’m not automatically or completely opposed to increasing restrictions and regulations on guns and gun purchases, but I cannot help but roll my eyes at grandstanding journalists and hypocritical politicians who contradict themselves every time they discuss these two issues.

  2. Shane

    Thank you for the response Aaron, but I have to ask, can you point me in the direction of a New York Times Op-ed where they advocate for absolutely no restrictions or regulations on abortion? Because I looked, there isn’t one. If we are willing to agree that it is an acceptable argument that gun regulation and abortion regulation are comparable topics (which was the purpose of your piece) then I assert again, it is not contradictory or hypocritical to advocate for the loosening of restrictions of a heavily regulated entity while at the same time advocating for more restrictions of a loosely regulated entity. The goal being that the regulations become comparable and meet somewhere in the middle. That is a perfectly logical position to take.

    You say we need to have a discussion on the nature and extent of the restrictions for each and look at the differences. I agree, the problem is that conversation needs to happen first, before you go around making claims that people are being hypocritical. It may be entirely possible that the New York Times is being hypocritical but to establish that we would first have to determine that guns were already regulated at a comparable manner with abortion, or that guns are already regulated more than abortion. I personally think you would lose that argument, but we could have a healthy debate about it.

    You want to play a number’s game between guns and abortion, that is fine, I can play that game too. But before we get there, there are some problems with your choice of comparisons. Number one, according to roe v wade, women have the right to have an abortion if they so choose. So we could have 10 million abortions a year and if abortions were regulated in such a way as to prevent eligible women from exercising their right then we have a problem. I would say the same thing about guns, if guns were regulated in such a way to prevent an eligible gun owner from owning a gun I would have a problem. Which brings me to my own numbers game. The entire state of Mississippi has one abortion clinic, which the state of Mississippi has repeatedly worked to shut down. On the other hand Mississippi has hundreds if not thousands on gun stores across the state. Mississippi is trying to regulate abortions out of existence, they are trying to make it impossible for women to exercise their own rights, in their own states. At the same time they are trying to make it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to own a gun. Now that is a hypocritical response that I can’t help but roll my eyes at. Let’s look at Texas, they have a nice Supreme Court case right now. They want abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at hospitals. Why? Not to reduce the number of women getting abortions. But rather to make abortions safer for the women. If we apply the same logic to guns, we know that homes with guns are less safe than homes without guns*. So you have the right to own a gun, you just can’t own the gun in your own house, We are not infringing on your rights, we are just trying to make gun ownership safer for you. Do you think that is an acceptable regulation on someone’s gun rights? Of course doing that makes more sense for guns than abortions since what they don’t mention is that having an abortion is safer for the mother than delivering the baby**, and we let women deliver babies at home. Not to mention that a hospital can’t turn someone away during a medical emergency anyways.

    That makes my point, but before I leave I want to make sure I answer your question. Do I think women need to pass a background check to have an abortion? No, I do not, because it is her body, and I don’t think the government has an invested interest in what she does with her body. Now I understand that you may argue that abortion is murder. I may argue that abortion is not murder. We could have a very heated debate on the subject and never change the other person’s mind. The point is though, we could have a very informed, very intellectual debate on the subject with both sides having very valid points. However If you pull the trigger and kill someone, there is no debate, that is murder (or at best accidental manslaughter). The government however does have an invested interested in making sure suspected terrorists, violent felons, and the mentally ill don’t get their hands on tools designed specifically to kill people.

    *http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

    **http://www.reuters.com/article/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123#z3KIICZ7SDcbEjcX.97
    http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/why-abortion-is-less-risky-than-childbirth/

  3. Leah

    I’ll never understand the logic behind affirming that pulling a gun trigger and taking a life is certainly and unquestionably murder, yet pushing a syringe full of saline into a womb in which the resident cannot escape, the entire D&C procedure of the living inhabitant of a womb that cannot be escaped by free will, or an almost fully developed and viable baby can be delivered all but the head then a sharp tool jammed into the base of its skull again in a terrorizing and horrific situation that the baby does not have the free will and ability to ever TRY to escape…is not considered intentional murder. It looks much like a terrorist walking into a concert hall nobody can escape from and starting shooting at will to me. Abortion is terrorism.

About Author

Aaron Earls

Christian. Husband. Daddy. Writer. Online editor for Facts & Trends Magazine. Fan of quick wits, magical wardrobes, brave hobbits, time traveling police boxes & Blue Devils.