Skip to main content

Liberals may want to cool it with the absolutist gun control/abortion law argument

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...