3 ms·

It's interesting to me that you bring up abortion, since to me, as an outsider (I'm not from the US), the mainstream US debates about abortion and about guns ha

It's interesting to me that you bring up abortion, since to me, as an outsider (I'm not from the US), the mainstream US debates about abortion and about guns have a lot of parallels. The "against" side tends to paint their proposals as "reasonable, common-sense regulations" but their more extreme arguments tend to be full of misinformation, misunderstandings and emotional pleas to the sanctity of life. On the other hand, the "pro" side either believes that all those "reasonable regulations" are just a transparent attempt by the other side to get their foot in the door, to move the overton window a little bit, so they can enact harsher regulations later, or that those regulations are not reasonable at all and will never be implement correctly. For example, whenever the pro-choice side hears someone from the other side propose regulations about requiring permits for clinics that perform abortions (something that in principle they might agree to), they fear that the person proposing the regulations isn't really pro-choice but only says that because outright banning abortion would not be politically feasible, thus they fear (rightfully so, since it has happened) those regulations will be so onerous or badly implemented that it will result in a de-facto ban on abortion, maybe those permits will be very hard to get or maybe the organization handing them out will be understaffed and underfunded (or both). Similarly, whenever someone who is pro-guns hears someone talking about mental health checks before owning guns (also something they might agree with in principle), for example, what they fear is that this system will be abused to deprive as many individuals as possible of their rights without due process. Thus, in this situation, neither debate will move forward because pro side does not believe that the anti side is proposing any legislation in good faith, and the reason they believe so is that in many cases that has blatantly been the case, leading to farther spreading of the divide. Additionally, as you say, someone might be both pro-choice and pro-guns but the political situation is such that they have to choose one or the other, and thus they choose the one they hold dearer to them, usually one that affects them more personally. Unfortunately for the pro-choice crowd, gun control laws seem to personally affect more people in the US than abortion laws.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
> For example, whenever the pro-choice side hears someone from the other side propose regulations about requiring permits for clinics that perform abortions (something that in principle they might agree to), they fear that the person proposing the regulations isn't really pro-choice but only says that because outright banning abortion would not be politically feasible To be fair, when speaking freely, the pro-life side admits that this is their goal. That is, most pro-life advocates proudly admit that outlawing abortion is their goal. The pro-choice side is so wary of these additional regulations because (as they are currently proposed) (a) their only possible outcome is to close lots of clinics, and (b) the argument that these regulations improve patient care is laughable. Contrast that with the gun-control debate, where the mainstream gun-control "side" is not advocating for a ban of all guns. Yes, they are in favor of banning some forms of guns (i.e. guns which were banned in the late 90s in the US) and things like mental health and better background checks, but a complete banning of guns is not something that they are arguing for.
projektfu 7y ago
A big difference is that there are numerous gun owners who believe in the right of self defense, hunting, and bearing arms generally, who support control in an incremental fashion and do not support confiscation. These people are being honest when they say their ultimate goal is healthy regulation of guns. In the abortion debate, the "reasonable regulations" are always proposed by abolitionists. The goal is never to make abortion safe and available, it's always to make it burdensome and difficult for both the provider and the patient. Newly empowered by the Trump administration and the sense that they have a new supreme court that will agree with them, they're dropping this tactic and have resumed pushing for abolition.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

> For example, whenever the pro-choice side hears someone from the other side propose regulations about requiring permits for clinics that perform abortions (something that in principle they might agree to), they fear that the person proposing the regulations isn't really pro-choice but only says that because outright banning abortion would not be politically feasible To be fair, when speaking freely, the pro-life side admits that this is their goal. That is, most pro-life advocates proudly admit that outlawing abortion is their goal. The pro-choice side is so wary of these additional regulations because (as they are currently proposed) (a) their only possible outcome is to close lots of clinics, and (b) the argument that these regulations improve patient care is laughable. Contrast that with the gun-control debate, where the mainstream gun-control "side" is not advocating for a ban of all guns. Yes, they are in favor of banning some forms of guns (i.e. guns which were banned in the late 90s in the US) and things like mental health and better background checks, but a complete banning of guns is not something that they are arguing for.

projektfu 7y ago

A big difference is that there are numerous gun owners who believe in the right of self defense, hunting, and bearing arms generally, who support control in an incremental fashion and do not support confiscation. These people are being honest when they say their ultimate goal is healthy regulation of guns. In the abortion debate, the "reasonable regulations" are always proposed by abolitionists. The goal is never to make abortion safe and available, it's always to make it burdensome and difficult for both the provider and the patient. Newly empowered by the Trump administration and the sense that they have a new supreme court that will agree with them, they're dropping this tactic and have resumed pushing for abolition.