OK, so we’ve established that both the pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment groups see any laws that restrict their rights in even the smallest degree as an attempt to incrementally eliminate their rights completely. Got it. But what are the motivations of those who are attempting to limit those rights? What’s in it for them?
Let’s look at gun control first. The current rage is to ban so-called “assault weapons”, such as the Colt AR-15 or its derivatives (one of the most popular rifle configurations in the U.S.). Even if we assume that the anti-gun people are working to make the world safer, their efforts simply don’t make sense. Rifles of any kind, including all “assault rifles”, account for only a small portion of armed crimes or homicides. FBI statistics for the period 1993 through 2001 show that shotguns are used in homicides more than all other rifles – including “assault weapons” – combined. Knives or similar sharp objects are used in homicides four times more often than rifles, and even bare hands and feet are used almost twice as often. FBI data from 2006 – 2010 confirms these results. Interestingly, almost 10 times more people die in non-boating related drownings each year than are killed by assault weapons. So I ask: Why do the anti-gun people want to eliminate “assault weapons” when it will have less effect than outlawing backyard pools?
Next we look at laws that restrict abortions. Even if we assume that the only motivation of the anti-abortionists is moral in nature, what difference should it make to them if someone else has an abortion? Will the anti-abortionists go to hell if someone else has an abortion? What business of it is theirs, and what possible impact can it have on them? I have no problem if the anti-abortion camp attempts to prevent abortions by convincing people that it’s not the right thing to do, or by offering to raise the resulting children as adopted without charge or consequence to the biological parents. However, the use of laws to restrict the rights of others when the restricted action has no direct negative impacts on anyone else is not something I understand. What do they have to gain?
I’m going to propose a reason for both gun and abortion laws that may seem a bit strange, but let’s give it a shot anyway. I am proposing that the only purpose for such laws is to punish. For the left, useless gun laws whose only effect is to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens are use to punish the right, while the right uses abortion laws that have no positive impact on anyone to punish the left. Most gun or abortion laws have no significant positive effect on the population as a whole, but both serve to unnecessarily restrict the highly-prized rights of law-abiding citizens. What other purpose could such laws have but to punish opponents?
I think that the pro-choice and pro-gun lobbies should recognize the true purpose of their opposition and unite to put an end to useless laws whose only purpose is to punish law-abiding citizens.
Comments/questions welcomed.