5 million is bigger by headcount than Big Tech, while half the households is smaller.
Big tech lobbies for what serves its interests. NRA lobbies likewise. So does Stonewall, effecting change with fewer members and fewer interested parties.
When it comes to guns, what makes the USA different from the rest of the world? Tradition ("we've always had the 2nd A so it must be good") and lobbying ("nothing can prevent this" says only nation on earth where this regularly happens).
In the context of democracy, size is everything. Like, by definition. If the majority of Americans want guns, then you're never going to get a super-majority to vote to take guns away.
> Big tech lobbies for what serves its interests. NRA lobbies likewise.
The difference is that the NRA isn't a trillion dollar corporation. Its millions of individual Americans participating in the democratic process.
Do you think that people should never campaign for what they believe in? That people should not participate in the democratic process? Or do you only think that when the people in question disagree with you?
> In the context of democracy, size is everything. Like, by definition.
But (a) not in the context of lobbying, and (b) that still demonstrates a preference for dead children over lower gun sales.
> Do you think that people should never campaign for what they believe in? That people should not participate in the democratic process? Or do you only think that when the people in question disagree with you?
You're putting words in my mouth there.
They're free to campaign for things that I'm free to denounce as dangerous and myopic.
Abortion isn't done by gun, so that's a red herring.
Also, pro-choice has two disjoint aspects, such that any given pro-choice person may be either one alone or both together:
1. "Are unborn foetuses persons? No, they are not."
2. "Can you force someone to donate a kidney to save someone else's life, which is about the same risk? No, you can't even do that if the donor is already dead."
> We prioritize personal safety, not dollars
You think you do; I argue that the meme that guns provide safety is a false belief promoted by the people with an interest in guns.
Abortion still kills a child. Why is it ok prior to its birth but not afterward? Seems like an arbitrary line to draw.
> You think you do; I argue that the meme that guns provide safety is a false belief promoted by the people with an interest in guns.
That seems ridiculous given that a gun levels the field on attacker vs aggressor. Since you provided no evidence, that could be easily flipped right back around.
If an unborn child isn’t a person, then how come when someone murders a pregnant woman they are charged with 2 murders? Are we saying all of those charges are now invalid and we need to re-hear some cases?
People with the position 1. I gave earlier specifically deny this statement.
I agree the line is arbitrary, which is also why I'm vegetarian — I draw the line for personhood to include many non-humans, and thus think killing (some) animals has moral equivalence to murder.
Conversely, a foetus starts off with no brain, so there is definitely a developmental level where I don't see it as a person — I won't care about squashing a fly, why care about a foetus whose brain is less complex than a fly?
There's some pictures floating around of the foetuses of different species, and it takes a long time for human ones to be differentiable from any others, so a moral position that they are already persons by this point should also make someone vegetarian for the same moral reasons they don't eat babies. (Obviously people don't work like that; consistency just isn't part of how humans do this sort of thing).
I'm in the second category of pro-choice, in that while I take no strong position on the personhood or absence thereof for an unborn foetus (I do take a strong position that embryos are not), I do value bodily autonomy to the level of "you can't force someone to do something as risky as donating a kidney even to save another life". Also that organ donation should be opt-out rather than opt-in, but that's a different topic.
> Why is it ok prior to its birth but not afterward?
We don't even have to think about whether or not the arbitrary line is that side of birth, because adoption is a thing.
It's like how nobody's going to care if barbers sell the hair they cut off, even though it's bad if a surgeon sold someone's amputated leg.
> That seems ridiculous given that a gun levels the field on attacker vs aggressor.
(I'm assuming you meant "attacker vs defender" because attacker and aggressor are synonyms).
It does no such thing outside of war, attackers have first-move advantage. Inside a war, the only reason it gives equality is that you tell who the enemy are well before they're in weapon range.
Also, guns aren't a single thing: a pistol, a hunting rifle, shotgun all have different qualities with regards to damage, range, and accuracy. I'm not going to look up which weapons are and aren't allowed in the USA as a whole (I'm not that interested in foreign law) but even limiting to just pistols gets you a significant variation in accuracy and destructive power.
> If an unborn child isn’t a person, then how come when someone murders a pregnant woman they are charged with 2 murders?
Charges are a legal question not a moral one, and that varies by jurisdiction and time. Whatever the moral reality is, it didn't change with the passage of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act nor does it change when leaving the borders of the USA. However, even here, looking at the background to that law, that would still be analogous to "if someone has ingested a poison which will kill their liver, but they can be saved by going to hospital, is it homicide to kill them before they get to hospital?" as the apparent inspiration for the law was people who wanted kids but the unborn were subjected to fatal injuries before birth.
> Conversely, a foetus starts off with no brain, so there is definitely a developmental level where I don't see it as a person — I won't care about squashing a fly, why care about a foetus whose brain is less complex than a fly?
Except the fetus' brain will develop into the most complex brain on the planet, if left alone. The fly's will not. A fly carries disease as well, that's why we kill them. (Humans also carry disease but only some of us consider them vermin)
> I'm in the second category of pro-choice, in that while I take no strong position on the personhood or absence thereof for an unborn foetus (I do take a strong position that embryos are not), I do value bodily autonomy to the level of "you can't force someone to do something as risky as donating a kidney even to save another life". Also that organ donation should be opt-out rather than opt-in, but that's a different topic.
The choice was already made. There are many ways to continue to have sex but not impregnate or get impregnated. What you're saying here is we must continue to allow this type of birth control to exist. We have pills, condoms, various spermicides, "pulling out", and the rhythm method (probably even forgetting some) and yet we have to continue to allow this "after the fact" method?
> We don't even have to think about whether or not the arbitrary line is that side of birth, because adoption is a thing.
It's like how nobody's going to care if barbers sell the hair they cut off, even though it's bad if a surgeon sold someone's amputated leg.
I have no idea what you're saying here. Viewing a child the same as hair or an amputated leg is a disturbing thought / visual.
> It does no such thing outside of war, attackers have first-move advantage. Inside a war, the only reason it gives equality is that you tell who the enemy are well before they're in weapon range.
It absolutely does. If someone robs you on the street, they are the aggressor. If they have a knife and you have a gun, guess who wins? If both of you have a gun, well now you're equal. The size of the gun doesn't particularly matter in this situation.
> Also, guns aren't a single thing: a pistol, a hunting rifle, shotgun all have different qualities with regards to damage, range, and accuracy. I'm not going to look up which weapons are and aren't allowed in the USA as a whole (I'm not that interested in foreign law) but even limiting to just pistols gets you a significant variation in accuracy and destructive power.
What is this even supposed to mean? Of course different guns have different characteristics. They all use various ammo and have different barrel lengths. Bullet weight, powder amount and barrel length all determine the velocity, and therefore the force, of the bullet impact.
> However, even here, looking at the background to that law, that would still be analogous to "if someone has ingested a poison which will kill their liver, but they can be saved by going to hospital, is it homicide to kill them before they get to hospital?" as the apparent inspiration for the law was people who wanted kids but the unborn were subjected to fatal injuries before birth.
Let's assume the thing growing inside the womb is a child.
Imagine a person you've never met. They will die if not for a miraculous treatment that requires some of your blood everyday for 9 months. But for the treatment to work, it also requires that everyday the person blood is mixed in your body. There is a small chance you'll die because of this treatment.
Should we force you to accept the treatment or should you have the option to not do it?
If you refuse the treatment and the person dies, would it be fair to equate you to a murderer?
You’re creating a twisted, unrealistic example. A pregnancy is not out of the norm and can be stopped prior to impregnating. There is no force, the person made a decision and changed their mind. Murdering a child in the process.
Imagine here is a terrible earthquake and many people need blood transfusion to survive. You happen to have the blood type O negative and know it can be used to save lives. You go to the donation center and right before the needle goes in, you panic and change your mind.
The same day a woman has a miscarriage because of trauma from the earthquake and a lack of emergency blood transfusion. Did you murder that child?
It was later revealed that this woman was 12 years old and raped by her father, but the miscarriage was judged suspicious by the authorities and are charging her with murder.
After all people who get pregnant made that decision. Pregnancy can be stopped prior to impregnation. She probably changed her mind and faked getting hurt in the earthquake. Also if she's a murderer, it's not a stretch to assume she's also a liar. She lied about her father and probably got pregnant by seducing one of her male friend.
Remember people, a child is dead! We have to investigate.
5 million is bigger by headcount than Big Tech, while half the households is smaller.
Big tech lobbies for what serves its interests. NRA lobbies likewise. So does Stonewall, effecting change with fewer members and fewer interested parties.
When it comes to guns, what makes the USA different from the rest of the world? Tradition ("we've always had the 2nd A so it must be good") and lobbying ("nothing can prevent this" says only nation on earth where this regularly happens).