- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 25,803
- Reaction score
- 20,579
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- 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.
Wow.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.
Wow.
I'll read this several times, it's so dense.
One thing I disagree with, though, is that inconsistency only matters with ethics. I think inconsistency is the source of so much rancor and perceived unfairness that it leads to great division.
Guns and drugs aren't so far apart for the purposes of the OP.
The widespread use of drugs is often excused by the social conditions some abusers have to endure. Inner city, poverty, etc. The implication, probably more than an implication, is that these unfortunates are not totally to blame for their drug use (and the crime to which it leads). They're represented as "victims" of the drug culture.
I think you worded it better when you said guns "can be used to victimize someone and that they are uniquely deadly." The same case is made for drug users.
Wow.
I'll read this several times, it's so dense.
One thing I disagree with, though, is that inconsistency only matters with ethics. I think inconsistency is the source of so much rancor and perceived unfairness that it leads to great division.
Guns and drugs aren't so far apart for the purposes of the OP.
The widespread use of drugs is often excused by the social conditions some abusers have to endure. Inner city, poverty, etc. The implication, probably more than an implication, is that these unfortunates are not totally to blame for their drug use (and the crime to which it leads). They're represented as "victims" of the drug culture.
I think you worded it better when you said guns "can be used to victimize someone and that they are uniquely deadly." The same case is made for drug users.
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.
Actually, that claim demeans the well meaning positions of honest people troubled by the two issues you don't think are as important as the third.Sorry, I see no equivalency between abortion, drugs, and guns. To link the three in any way, to me, is to demean the well meaning positions of honest people troubled by the issues involved in each.
Actually, that claim demeans the well meaning positions of honest people troubled by the two issues you don't think are as important as the third.
I was assigning no comparative value to any of them so as not to consider any of them less important.
Do you have an order of importance?
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.
Nor do I feel that the issues are related in any way either. However, the approach to a solution, or rather a resignation, could be similar.I wasn't talking about order or level of importance, simply that they are three totally different issues, not slightly connected, and well meaning people can have what you may call a liberal bias and a conservative bias depending on the actual issue. In other words, not ever issue of importance to society has cut-and-dried liberal or conservative constituencies.
Actually, that takes the comparison of left wing inconsistency a step further.Guns in the hands of honest citizens are a good thing. It is only in the hands of criminals that guns cause harm. And if guns are outlawed, and only outlaws have guns, then outlaws are given a strong advantage over honest citizens. In fact, this is the true motive of most gun control supporters—they are on the side of tyrants and criminals, who they wish to be able to prey with impunity upon an unarmed and defenseless populace.
Actually, that takes the comparison of left wing inconsistency a step further.
Many on the left will say words to the effect of "I too am uncomfortable with late term abortion and 13 year-olds getting abortions without parental permission, but we can't stop it because it could become a slippery slope toward limiting abortion rights for everyone".
Fair enough I guess. Societal freedom before the consideration of the individual, I get it.
Then why not the same reasoning for firearms?
Nor do I feel that the issues are related in any way either. However, the approach to a solution, or rather a resignation, could be similar.
In all three cases one could say that each of the behaviors is so prevalent that to end any of them would be impossible.
Abortion is anything-goes and the other two are permissible with limitations. jThe they're-gonna-do-it-anyway schtick could be appropriately applied to all of them but it's not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?