• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortion, Drugs & Guns: A Societal Liberal Bias

Brooks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not that I have time for a deep response, but doesn't that cut both ways?
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.

It can work both ways. I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are anti abortion, pro gun and moderate of drug legalisation. In Britain we have strong gun control along with strong drug control, criminals still get guns and drugs into the country. The same thing can be applied to Abortion, desperate pregnant women will still find a way to get an illegal abortion. Anyone can use the argument.
 

Brooks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It can work both ways. I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are anti abortion, pro gun and moderate of drug legalisation. In Britain we have strong gun control along with strong drug control, criminals still get guns and drugs into the country. The same thing can be applied to Abortion, desperate pregnant women will still find a way to get an illegal abortion. Anyone can use the argument.
I'm against all three actually.

Across the pond from you, "they'll get them anyway" is an accepted argument for abortion and drugs but not for guns.
I just find that the inconsistency falls along a political line.
 

Brooks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Not that I have time for a deep response, but doesn't that cut both ways?
In reality, yes.
In accepted argument, no.

Obviously this whole discussion is anecdotal, but have you ever heard this argument made for firearms by the punditry class.
It's constantly made for drugs and abortion.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm against all three actually.

It was worth a guess

Across the pond from you, "they'll get them anyway" is an accepted argument for abortion and drugs but not for guns.
I just find that the inconsistency falls along a political line.

Both sides of the political spectrum will twist words and arguments to their own wills, its the nature of partisanship.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.

Iam more of a Lawyers, guns and money type.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It can work both ways. I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are anti abortion, pro gun and moderate of drug legalisation. In Britain we have strong gun control along with strong drug control, criminals still get guns and drugs into the country. The same thing can be applied to Abortion, desperate pregnant women will still find a way to get an illegal abortion. Anyone can use the argument.
So you are seemingly fine with criminals getting guns and dope into the country.
But are against law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves from said scumbags.
And if a woman goes to a "kitchen table" abortionist? Fine, hopefully she will get sterilized by accident.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
29,744
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The Brady assult gun ban took effect in 1994.
It did not stop 2 young men ( 19 and 20 ) from using one to murder my husbands cousin in 1995 when they were robbing him.

The one good thing about that ban was the fact they got mandatory life sentences because they violated the Brady law and used an assult gun during a felony.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,154
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.

Yeah, but I don't think that's the main argument for most people in any of those issues.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization, and pro-gun. So this isn't really an issue of where I stand, per se. And it also proves that you're generalizing about a huge group of people when you shouldn't be. After all, you're a professed conservative who's anti-gun. So it's kind of ironic for you to be generalizing the other way.

But I rarely see people argue any of these things, except maybe drug legalization, purely from a perspective that they'll get them anyway. It seems to be more of a tangential issue for most people. Or, if it comes up at all, it comes up in the context of the harm that happens from the black market, rather than the inevitability of acquisition. And in that case, there's a big difference in how these respective black markets operate, and they really can't be compared to each other.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
76,605
Reaction score
26,114
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Never seen those arguments SOLELY made for any of those issues, meaning as the ONLY reason.

moving on those arguments definitely apply though in all THREE cases as support but not sole defense of those things.

Im pro gun and yes most laws people suggest are absolute retarded and void of reality because all they will do is punish ME the law abiding citizen with no criminal record and empower the criminals.
Im pro choice because theres TWO lifes involved and even though its factually impossible i believe in getting as close to equal as possible and trying to respect human and legal rights as much as possible. ANd YES in some counties where abortion is illegal they have more than we do on avg.
Im pro-legalization of some drugs. ANd while yes again availability is a argument id never use it for a sole argument.

I dont see any bias though because ive never seen it based as a sole argument only a supporting one.
 

Ben K.

DP Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
4,717
Reaction score
1,981
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've seen the argument used vis a vie firearm controls.

Who says its not valid exactly?
 

Brooks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Yeah, but I don't think that's the main argument for most people in any of those issues.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization, and pro-gun. So this isn't really an issue of where I stand, per se. And it also proves that you're generalizing about a huge group of people when you shouldn't be. After all, you're a professed conservative who's anti-gun. So it's kind of ironic for you to be generalizing the other way.

But I rarely see people argue any of these things, except maybe drug legalization, purely from a perspective that they'll get them anyway. It seems to be more of a tangential issue for most people. Or, if it comes up at all, it comes up in the context of the harm that happens from the black market, rather than the inevitability of acquisition. And in that case, there's a big difference in how these respective black markets operate, and they really can't be compared to each other.
You're right, it's not a main argument for any of these.

It's not just applied to drugs. The whole "back alley abortion" meme is based on this same argument.

I have no agenda here either since I feel the same about all three issues.
My point here is just about the inconsistency.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So you are seemingly fine with criminals getting guns and dope into the country.
But are against law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves from said scumbags.

No the point is that criminals don't obey the law. I never said my positions when it came to those issues, don't assume them.

And if a woman goes to a "kitchen table" abortionist? Fine, hopefully she will get sterilized by accident.

That's a thing for the abortion thread.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No the point is that criminals don't obey the law. I never said my positions when it came to those issues, don't assume them.



That's a thing for the abortion thread.
Abortion is in the OP.
And what would you have us do, declare all gun owners in the US "criminals".
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,154
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
You're right, it's not a main argument for any of these.

It's not just applied to drugs. The whole "back alley abortion" meme is based on this same argument.

I have no agenda here either since I feel the same about all three issues.
My point here is just about the inconsistency.

When it comes to that particular argument, I don't think being inconsistent is a big deal.

It's an argument from practicality. All arguments from practicality stand relative to arguments from ethics.

If there's an overwhelming ethical imperative for someone about one of these issues, then the practicality of it can become less important due to the relative importance of the ethical stance.

Inconsistency is only a huge deal when one is inconsistent in their ethics. Being inconsistent about practical stances is just showing an understanding of their different factors, or possibly in one's view of how ethically important they are. And there's not anything hypocritical about that.

I think, also, they kind of exist in different places on the spectrum of personal rights. Again, I'm pro for all three, but I think it's easier to argue against guns from the perspective of how they can be used. For example...

I'm pro-choice due to personal rights, and there is never any situation in which a woman could possibly abort for any reason other than her personal rights, because the ZEF always exists in her body.

I'm pro-legalization, and although dosing someone is possible, it's possible with prescription/legal drugs too, thus rendering it irrelevant. Dosing someone is not unique to illegal drugs, so I can argue it from a pure personal rights perspective.

That's harder to do with guns, where it's irrefutable that they can be used to victimize someone and that they are uniquely deadly. Now, I think there are plenty of ways to mitigate this point as much as reality allows, and I don't think it's an overwhelmingly difficult argument to overcome as long as one's pro-gun position is well-rounded and comprehensive. BUT, I am just pointing out that it is different from the other two for this reason. For me, because of that, arguing pro-gun is not only about personal rights, but also about social culture and demonstrated models, which the other two aren't as much.

Because of that difference, issues of practicality can be given different weight, depending on a person's position.
 
Last edited:

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Abortion is in the OP.
And what would you have us do, declare all gun owners in the US "criminals".

Why do you automatically assume that I'm anti gun?
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just how you come off, how about clearing it up.

I couldn't give a **** if you own a gun or not, so long as you have the right to. That would be my position, however since I'm in Britain I don't feel the need or want for one, neither does the British public, so gun control prevails.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.

There's a fallacy in your argument:

The fact that some people use a flawed or incomplete argument to support a position does not mean that the position is itself wrong. Also, often people gloss over details in order to make a point. "People will get it anyway" is such a case. What needs to be examined is if there is any additional harm caused by forcing people to get something illegally (aside from the criminal penalties for breaking the law)

Take abortion, for example. By making it illegal, those who get abortions anyway as vulnerable to unsafe procedures by unlicensed providers.

The criminalization of drugs has been shown to create an huge bonus for organized crime syndicates

But in the case of guns, people who would get guns illegally in order to commit crimes would have gotten the guns either way.

Bottom line: "They will get them anyway" is a bad argument but that doesn't necessarily mean the position is wrong. It just means that the person making such an argument is not very good at debating the issue.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I couldn't give a **** if you own a gun or not, so long as you have the right to. That would be my position, however since I'm in Britain I don't feel the need or want for one, neither does the British public, so gun control prevails.

Naw, that dont sound anti gun at all.
And really did the Brit "public" demand it, or was it more between your rulers with powdered wigs and crowns?
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Naw, that dont sound anti gun at all.
And really did the Brit "public" demand it, or was it more between your rulers with powdered wigs and crowns?

Gun politics in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gun Crime

Responses to Home Office consultation on firearms law:

We received 96 responses to the consultation with a majority supporting the changes to the legislation outlined in the consultation document.

85% of respondents supported the view that the maximum sentence for illegal importation of firearms should be increased.

76% supported the view that a new offence of possession with intent to supply is needed and should be introduced.

Half of the respondents who supported the creation of a new offence and an increase in the sentence for importation stated that the maximum sentence should be life.

A common statement among respondents with experience in dealing with gun crime was that sentencing provisions for the importation and supply of firearms should be aligned with the importation and supply of class A drugs, which have a maximum sentence of life.

Source: Home Office – October 2012
 
Top Bottom