The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Gun control and abortion control||Date: 7/10/2013 1:19 PM|
|Author: JoelCairo||Number: 1888232 of 1977304|
There has been more than one post here recently about how abortions are going to occur, even if they are made illegal - that the more you restrict access, the more difficult you make it for a person to have one, the greater the potential for unintended consequences to occur, such as unsafe abortions.
This is true, not an argument. History of places where abortion is illegal shows it unequivocably.
So this brings be back to gun control. 30% more people in Indiana this year decided to apply for a handgun permit.
I think the NRA would argue that requiring permits is an infringement on the 2A, wouldn't they?
What is the possibility that those new owners are inexperienced with such and that they may have a higher incident rate to cause harm to themselves or others? The fear of someone making the ownership of such illegal has pushed more to obtain such. If ownership was actually made illegal, it is fair to assume that there would be unintended consequences not unlike what would happen if abortion were made illegal.
Well, putting aside the claim of some that registering to own weapons is an outrage, and granting the people of Indiana the right to impose that requirement, aren't you advancing the case that any time an inexperienced person acquires a gun of any type, they are more likely to increase the chances of unintended consequences? Sort of like driving without a learner's permit for young people? What if Indiana required people to take gun competence training before they get a license, so that it has taken a step to make sure gun owners know the ropes?
I find it interesting that this activity occurred. The outcry after Connecticut was aimed at automatic weapons, at huge ammo clips, and machine guns and assault weapons, not against handguns, and not to ban them, certainly. So the people who stepped up for permits were operating on a fear that is not realistic, although there are people who support a ban of all weapons.
So I don't think it is exactly an apples to apples comparison, since the goals differ. There is no push to ban all firearms, as there is a push to ban all abortion. If there were, I would certainly agree that neither would be successful, and both might actually increase the harm suffered through illegal activity.
I also agree that banning automatic and assault weapons will not rid them from society, although Australia figured out an approach that seems to have worked for them. However, without registration and tracking, we don't know what is out there, or even whether its in the hand of responsible citizens or not.
Here's another analogy: why do we have different levels of licensing for trucks & buses than for cars? Why are commercial pilots licensed only for specific models of plane they have shown they can fly competently and safely? Why can't we have similar differentiation when it comes to firearms?
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|