My blog posts have never been political–rarely have they even been controversial–but I saw something floating around Twitter that’s worth writing about. What you’re about to read is an interesting proposition for gun control laws through the lens of a thought-provoking correlation with the current state of abortion laws.
My immediate reaction upon reading this was, “Yeah, I’m down.” Even though plenty of my friends and family have CHL’s (I am from Texas, after all), I stand somewhere in the middle on most gun control issues; I’m no expert, but I agree that if we’ll keep selling guns to the public, the purchasing process should be much more thorough. This is especially true in light of the news that the murderer behind this past weekend’s Orlando tragedy had legally obtained the two guns he had on his person, in spite of the fact that there had been two FBI investigations concerning him. (Surely this news was also the reason why the pictured text was spreading virally on Twitter.)
The longer my thoughts lingered on this post, more problems arose. While, again, I’m not opposed to increasing the difficulty with which people can attain guns, there are some notable and discussion-worthy problems I have with how this anonymous author presented his/her proposed changes.
First off, there’s a subtly sexist slant to this writer’s ideas. Biologically speaking, only women can get abortions. That’s a fact. But do only men buy guns? Of course not. That’s silliness, and it’s perpetuating a stereotype. To make men endure the same process that women undergo just because is ridiculous; nothing in the world should be done “just because.” That’s not fairness nor is it gender equality, especially when a woman who gets an abortion one week could be the same person buying a gun the following week.
My other primary problem with that post is its conclusion. It’s technically true, from its own one-sided perspective. A woman getting an abortion isn’t the same as shooting down a room full of people. Correct. But it’s also a “duh” statement. That’s like saying I’d rather buy a pet fish than have a son because my son might grow up to be a rapist and my fish won’t.
Yet there’s a totally different side to this argument that the author’s not willing to admit (because it would hurt the argument). If someone buys a gun, that doesn’t mean it will ever get used. Some guns sit in a drawer or closet forever. Buying a gun does not necessitate it ever being used to hurt a living organism. But having an abortion does necessitate destroying a living organism. It’s guaranteed.
(Side note: if you want to argue against my point from a Pro-Choice stance, I’d simply posit that even if you think a fetus doesn’t acquire its “humanness” until some indistinguishable point in its second or third trimester, it would be medically and scientifically false to think an embryo is not a multicellular organism.)
Is shooting and killing a room full of people worse than getting an abortion? Yes, absolutely. 1200%. But does that make the purchase of a gun more destructive than getting an abortion? That comparison doesn’t even make sense, and it is unscholarly argument-development to propose such a thing.
Agree? Disagree? Thoughts? Feel free to use the comment section below. You can also subscribe to this blog via email in the footer; most of my blog posts concern the music and film industries (with the occasional biographical piece), but I’ve got plans for more posts soon that will tie in themes from today’s blog with some other hot-button issues which have proven difficult to keep out of the public consciousness.
All things said and done, though, I’d hate to end today on such a somber note. Alas, there’s something else involving abortion that’s been spreading around the internet this past week, something I would consider far more hopeful. I implore you to read it: