I've seen several posts made on Facebook by self-described liberals which say something like the following:
"It's very simple. Making guns illegal will not stop gun violence. But making abortions illegal will stop abortions. Get it?"
The post is attempting to poke fun at hard-core conservatives' beliefs - those whom don't feel that any stricter gun laws will ward off gun violence any, but that outlawing abortion will prevent any such procedures from taking place. I can partially understand where these liberals are coming from in attempting to make such a comparison, however, I think it's the wrong one to make, especially if they're trying to persuade people that stricter gun laws are needed in this country.
The problem is in the absolutism of such comments. This has been an attempted arguing point by those on the far-right, saying, "Do you think drug laws still got broken after we passed them? Yeah. Well, same thing with guns. If gun laws get passed, there will still be gun violence."
While, again, like with the Facebook post by liberals, I can understand why some conservatives would attempt to make such an argument, it's still a very poor one to make. What they're essentially saying is unless a law can prevent 100% of crime pertaining to it, then there is no point in passing said law. That isn't the point in passing laws. In a perfect world, sure, that would be possible, but this is far from a perfect world. Laws are supposed to deter crime to a point where it decreases the odds of people being negatively impacted by others' recklessness or criminal behavior. No, stricter gun laws wouldn't completely prevent all gun violence. However, it would likely decrease gun crimes and with that, decrease the odds of people becoming victims of such crimes.
In outlawing abortion, such procedures would still be done, however, like with added gun control laws, such abortion laws would likely decrease the number of such procedures.
If liberals were set on making such a comparison, I think the wiser route would be to say something such as, "Passing more restrictive abortion laws will decrease the number of abortions nationwide, yet passing stricter gun laws won't decrease gun violence at all?"
The statement would not be absolutist, would not be playing into the hands of a far-right conservative talking point, and would force the pro-"life," pro-gun conservative to explain the seeming contradiction in rationale.
"It's very simple. Making guns illegal will not stop gun violence. But making abortions illegal will stop abortions. Get it?"
The post is attempting to poke fun at hard-core conservatives' beliefs - those whom don't feel that any stricter gun laws will ward off gun violence any, but that outlawing abortion will prevent any such procedures from taking place. I can partially understand where these liberals are coming from in attempting to make such a comparison, however, I think it's the wrong one to make, especially if they're trying to persuade people that stricter gun laws are needed in this country.
The problem is in the absolutism of such comments. This has been an attempted arguing point by those on the far-right, saying, "Do you think drug laws still got broken after we passed them? Yeah. Well, same thing with guns. If gun laws get passed, there will still be gun violence."
While, again, like with the Facebook post by liberals, I can understand why some conservatives would attempt to make such an argument, it's still a very poor one to make. What they're essentially saying is unless a law can prevent 100% of crime pertaining to it, then there is no point in passing said law. That isn't the point in passing laws. In a perfect world, sure, that would be possible, but this is far from a perfect world. Laws are supposed to deter crime to a point where it decreases the odds of people being negatively impacted by others' recklessness or criminal behavior. No, stricter gun laws wouldn't completely prevent all gun violence. However, it would likely decrease gun crimes and with that, decrease the odds of people becoming victims of such crimes.
In outlawing abortion, such procedures would still be done, however, like with added gun control laws, such abortion laws would likely decrease the number of such procedures.
If liberals were set on making such a comparison, I think the wiser route would be to say something such as, "Passing more restrictive abortion laws will decrease the number of abortions nationwide, yet passing stricter gun laws won't decrease gun violence at all?"
The statement would not be absolutist, would not be playing into the hands of a far-right conservative talking point, and would force the pro-"life," pro-gun conservative to explain the seeming contradiction in rationale.
Comments
Post a Comment