How about we treat every man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion

[loyalsister]

<a href=".html" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt=" photo perspective_zpswvl3fex6.jpg"/></a>

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. What if a woman wants to buy a a gun?

[Mr Sancho Panza]

2. That was the first question that popped into my head.

Everyone always wants to make an exception for their concerns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. I'm curious to know why shooting is assumed to be an exclusively male past time.

I don't shoot a lot -- less than a dozen times so far -- but I'm good enough at it that I enjoy myself when I do go shooting. The amount of sexism that attends so many gun control arguments is just breathtaking, particularly for a Progressive forum.

[BlueCollar]

11. mass shootings appear to be an exclusively male past time.

Just saying...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. And that abrogates my rights, how?

[BlueCollar]

61. i was merely responding to your comment....relax

Changed text to read comment vs. Question

[Yo_Mama]

41. Not so. Amy Bishop, Jennifer San Marco

Brenda Spencer, San Diego school shooter.
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/21/opinion-female-mass-shooter-can-teach-us-about-adam-lanza/

Sylvia Seegrist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist

Laurie Dann:
http://www.westword.com/news/school-shooter-laurie-dann-only-killed-one-but-her-crime-was-memorable-for-other-reasons-too-5865565

There are others. I believe these incidents somehow vanish from mass consciousness. These are ones I personally remembered enough about to pick them up with a google search. Laurie Dann was guns and arsenic.

Bishop was the college professor who shot up her colleagues at a faculty meeting. It turned out later that she had shot her brother as a teen, and she is believed to be the person who sent a pipe bomb to another professor.

I wonder why our collective memories selectively edit on a sex-biased basis?

[Beaverhausen]

59. The most recent was 1988?

Please, you merely enforced the fact that these mass shootings are mainly done by males.

[BlueCollar]

62. im guessing its because of

The sheer volume of mass killing by gunfire is generally attributed to men. It would appear that women tend to find alternative methods to gunfire when killing....

[Yo_Mama]

77. Amy Bishop was 2010. San Marcos went postal in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting#Shooter

Most of them are old, because hey, I'm old. The stuff that made the biggest impact on my memory of course occurred when I was younger. Nowadays I don't even read such stories.

But Bishop I remember because of the utter weirdness of it. I tried to cobble together a group from different decades based just on my memory, and I think I did a pretty good job.

The reality is that some women do get into killing rages.

[Yo_Mama]

78. These were all shooters. It happens.

I am sure it there are others. I searched my memory particular for mass shootings by women at schools. San Marcos was workplace. One of them was the mall shooter in PA.

[ncjustice80]

72. Violence is generally a male thing.

There are handful of women in the mix, but mass shooters are generally male.

It is kind of like domestic violence. I'm sure there are a teeny tiny fraction of men abused by women, but every time I see some pathetic MRA come crawling out of the woodwork with his sob story about how he was a "victim" of a woman (who probably beat tbh) and was victimized by the evil man-hating court system, I just have to shake my head.

[Yo_Mama]

80. Domestically, females get physical at home at somewhat similar rates to men.

That's another skewed lens.

Women victims are more likely than men to suffer severe injuries, though.

http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/

More men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence within the past year, according to a national study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (hereinafter NISVS) released in December, 2011, within the last 12 months an estimated 5,365,000 men and 4,741,000 women were victims of intimate partner physical violence. (Black, M.C. et al., 2011, Tables 4.1 and 4.2) 1 This finding contrasts to the earlier National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden, P. G., & Thoennes, N., 2000)(hereinafter NVAWS), which estimated that 1.2 million women and 835,000 men were victims of intimate partner physical violence in the preceding 12 months. (One-year prevalence “are considered to be more accurate [than lifetime rates] because they do not depend on recall of events long past” (Straus, 2005, p. 60))

If one adds in rape (606,000 victims) the total is 5,427,000 women-but there is an issue of double-counting of an incident as both rape and intimate partner physical violence. 2 Of the lifetime rape victims, 82.8% were also victims of physical violence. This suggests that a sizeable portion of the 606,000 rape victims are included in the 5,427,000 physical violence victims. But even if one ignores the double-counting of rape and physical violence, the number of female victims of rape and/or physical violence is 5,427,000 for women, contrasted with 5,365,000 male victims of physical violence, so it is safe to say that about half of the victims of physical violence are men.

Not only do they, but it happened in my own family, and it was pretty extreme. That too is not reported and somehow censored out of our mutual consciousness, and women are less likely to be punished for it. A doctor (retired) in my home town was shot by his wife. He survived; he refused to testify against her, and she was never prosecuted. Shortly (hey, I am not from a big town) the whole town knew that he had had an affair.

It is true that women have biological differences that tend to produce lower rates of extreme aggression, except under acute emotional pressure.

Men, however, tend not to talk about it.

Here's a paper looking at findings from various studies:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V78%20Clincal%20level%20symmetry-Published-11.pdf

[jeff47]

5. Woooooooosh

Both are constitutional rights. Only one has a giant number of barriers.

But good job focusing on the minutia.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. The minutiae of gun control would affect women as much as men.

So that would still be more barriers imposed against women as men and all based on the fallacious assumption that women don't buy guns.

[jeff47]

39. Because the restrictions on abortion have absolutely nothing to do

with the sex of the people that get abortions.

But yes, let's fixate on the OP saying "men". That way we don't have to get into a pesky conversation comparing how these two constitutional rights are treated. And you can keep precocious safe.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. The graphic in the OP is attempting to make guns ownership a male-centric issue.

Except gun ownership is not.

I doubt anyone is going to argue the graphic is pro-choice and pro-RKBA. It seems squarely planted in the pro-choice, anti-RKBA column. I have encountered far too much sexism and outright misogyny from gun control advocates -- accompanied by condescending pats on the head telling me I'm just a muddle headed girl who doesn't know what's best for her -- that I find it difficult to just let these things slide even when they're nothing more than a poorly thought-out FB post.

[Ed Suspicious]

25. Intentionally obtuse. Surreal to witness.

[azureblue]

34. better to compare

guns and motor vehicles -license and test gun owners just like motor vehicle owners.

[jeff47]

38. You don't have a constitutional right to drive. (nt)

[ncjustice80]

73. You *shouldn't* have a constitutional right to carry a mass murder device. n/t

[Beaverhausen]

8. How many mass shootings are carried out by women?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Gun control laws don't make that distinction.

[loyalsister]

15. Do you really think someone has proposed this as legislation?

Or are you willfully overlooking the obvious "what if" tone?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. I must have missed the obvious "what if" tone under the overwhelming "DERP!" tone.

The author thinks they're being clever but the fact of the matter remains the gun laws they would see enacted would also affect women. If two wrongs don't make a right then 2 wrongs against women in exchange for 1 wrong against men isn't any better.

I stand by my assertion that graphic is based on the sexist and fallacious assumption that women aren't a substantial part of the gun owning and shooting community.

[loyalsister]

18. So, how do you read this comparison

How would conservatives who support Kim Davis react if a clerk denied a gun license? Is the immediate concern for gay people who want a gun license or is the comparison clear?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. Truth be told the only graphic I can see is one comparing abortion to gun licensing.

For some inexplicable reason if there is a graphic about Kim Davis and gun licensing I cannot see it and I have not commented on it. I have only commented on the graphic comparing gun regulation to abortion regulation.

However, based solely on your post I will offer my thoughts regarding Kim Davis and gun licenses --

Welcome to Why I Became an Anarchist! Because, at the end of the day, it does not matter what the law says people are going to do what people want to do -- and far too many of those jackasses are people in power. Cops murder and steal, clerks don't issue licenses, spending occurs outside constitutional delegation of powers, etc., etc., etc.

We're supposed to be good little citizens sitting there quietly with our hands folded neatly in our laps while our keepers just do whatever the hell they want, even if it means choking a good man to death over the taxes on a 50-cent cigarette. They park their yachts in tax safe havens on their way to their exclusive country club to dine with CEOs and pause to tell us how they've heard we're upset about income equality. They tell us they hear our concerns that insurance companies are interfering with healthcare, then stick a gun to our heads and tell us we must all sign on with an insurance company.

Do we want marriage licenses and gun control?

The Kim Davises of the world come with that. So too the bureaucrats that can't be bothered to update NICS to keep guns out of the hands of people who have been identified as homicidal. And gun law enforcers who choke unarmed men. No amount of words on any amount of paper is ever going to change that. Laws are thimbles bailing against the tide of human nature.

And if you could create a regime of laws that would overcome human nature?

We would cease to be human.

[ncjustice80]

74. Ever watch Mad Max?

Anarchy isn't all hemp and roses. It just turns into another kind of dictatorship, only instead of having things like medicine, fire fighters, and well-maintained roads, we have Mogadishu.

I'm all for personal freedoms, but certain aspects of humanity must be strictly regulated so we don't destroy everything. Socialism (and eventually Communism, when we reach that level of societal maturity) is the way to go.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. Do you know what's more amazing than you cite a movie to scold me about fantasies?

The fact that you're not alone. It's actually a common fallacy.

Where I live the people have self-organized to form a fire department. We also built our own community center building to house the FD and it also serves as library, home schoolers, places for dances and social functions. We don't have police but we also don't have crime.

Socialism (and eventually Communism, when we reach that level of societal maturity) is the way to go.

Some communists speak of society evolving into a stateless society. Anarchists beat them by a few thousand years. And I don't buy into the tripe I have surrender every facet of my life to stick my thumb in the eye of the Goldman Sachs crowd. All communists will do is sit stunned as the Board of Directors for Goldman Sachs morphs into Comrades of the Politburo before their very eyes. Communism thinks it can change human nature, anarchism just rides the tides.

[ncjustice80]

81. Except you still enjoyed government protection.

You were able to set all that stuff up because there was still a federal and state government protecting you. You don't have to worry about, say, a drug cartel rolling into your commune, machine gunning everyone, and taking your hard earned supplies.

I think it is great you made a self sustaining, peaceful community, I really do. But don't act like you exist in some kind of vacuum- you could not set that up in a country that wasn't already relatively peaceful and stable, with a strong State to protect you and roads built for you to use to engage in trade with others.

And Communism doesn't change human nature, human nature must change to embrace Communism. Socialism is just part of the path to reach that society.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. In Mexico the cartels have infiltrated the state and federal governments.

When the people took matters onto their own hands they were able to fight back.

[loyalsister]

83. There isn't a graphic here

It was circulating on FB and yet again, you miss the point of the rhetorical thought experiment. How do you think people who defend Kim Davis would react to a clerk who refused to issue a gun license because it goes against their religious beliefs.

I don't buy the idea that it's human nature to seek fame and notoriety by denying people their rights. Or that mass killings have anything to do with natural impulses. Immediate violent responses, maybe but not planned mass murders.

My observation of anarchy ideology via my sister is that it is not much more than a childish temper tantrum over having to fill out forms every now and then, and follow a few rules.

[ncjustice80]

85. Agree!

[Rocknrule]

3. But vaginas are dangerous, guns aren't

[cascadiance]

20. I guess a vagina and a knife is too dangerous to let live...

Perhaps they don't need guns to be considered dangerous!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141223431

It's strange how three male "deputies" with lethal weapons aren't able to use non-lethal force to arrest a suicidal 55 year old woman with a knife. And you think a day later that law enforcement here in Oregon would be more careful with crap like this!

[loyalsister]

29. Extremely!!

<a href=".html" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt=" photo witchhunt_zpsi2psmcvf.jpg"/></a>

[azureblue]

37. to conservatives, yes

a vagina most be controlled! /s

Guns, no....

[TexasProgresive]

6. How about getting a majority of women in state legislatures, Congress

The supreme and other courts and the executive branches, and then, maybe, maybe things would be different. After all there are a majority of women in proportion to men so why not?

[loyalsister]

14. I'm all for that!

More women have to run for office to make that happen. We need to have massive national and local recruiting.

[NonMetro]

10. Love It!

[daleanime]

13. K&R.....

[CTyankee]

17. what a great idea!

[Ilsa]

19. How about we treat every person who wants to buy

a gun just like every person trying to get an abortion? Make buying a gun as difficult as buying an abortion, with waiting periods, doctor clearances, education requirements, etc.

Just take the sexism out. It isn't necessary.

[loyalsister]

22. It's sexist to point out sexism???

Legislators have been willing to infantilize women when it comes to their constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. And, a majority of citizens either support it or sit back and let them get away with it.
But if such policies were enacted in a context that would directly affect men, there would be widespread outrage.

[susanr516]

32. ^This.^ nt

[Ilsa]

57. I don't want to argue about the sexism. i want to

Change the damn gun laws.

[smirkymonkey]

66. +1000

[loyalsister]

23. Faulty reasoning?

The risk of killing living breathing people that can operate independently compared with termination of pregnancy where a woman's bodied is required to provide sustenance is apples and oranges.
The difference between how men and women are treated under the law can most definitely be reasonably compared.

[Codeine]

26. This is a pro-choice board.

GTFO with that nonsense.

[restorefreedom]

42. so no dissenting opinions allowed?

i am prochoice too but people are entitled to their opinions.

[Codeine]

43. "Opinion"

It's bullshit trollery of the most obvious sort and the poster needs to move the fuck on to a place where he or she is wanted.

[restorefreedom]

46. this is a place for discussion

i don't know this particular poster, but we are a large group here. there will be diversity and difference of opinion, even on very sensitive subjects.

sharing an opinion we may not like isn't necessarily trolling imo.

[etherealtruth]

47. People are entitled to their opinions, most assuredly

they are NOT entitled to post any and all opinions here (actually none of us are "entitled" to post anything here)

[restorefreedom]

49. i guess i don't know about the inner workings of the site

and that is probably ok...i don't necessarily want to watch the sausage making.

[etherealtruth]

50. Those are the workings of all moderated sites

You post within the rules of that site or you don't post. No one is entitled to anything

[restorefreedom]

51. if its their site,

then they can set the parameters. i mean, i am not paying for bandwidth or hosting fees, they are.

[Iggo]

48. Fuck their anti-choice opinions.

[Iggo]

35. Terminate the life of a what now?

[smirkymonkey]

40. Enjoy your stay, troll.

[Dont call me Shirley]

24. Ka-Boom! Excellent analogy, loyalsister!

[flying_wahini]

27. That's a thought worth sharing!

Thanks LoyalSister!

[Jean Genie]

28. guns and abortions

BRILLIANT ANALOGY!

[etherealtruth]

45. 2nd amendment and 14th amendment to the constitution

... and the disparities and treatment of individuals seeking protection under each is certainly poignant and pertinent

[love_katz]

30. I saw this posted elsewhere with an additional line...

something about how the guy wanting to buy a gun would be required to have an ultra sound wand shoved up...somewhere...just because.

You are actually being nice, loyalsister.

I just don't understand the disconnect nor the mean replies.

[loyalsister]

33. I'm amazed at the number of people here who don't get it

or maybe they do but pretend not to in defense of a personal ideology.

[love_katz]

36. Sorry that is what is happening.

I wish more people would use their head for something other than a hat rack.

Hugs to you, for posting.

[SunSeeker]

63. Many men on the left are sexist. Nowhere near as many as the right, but still there

This site is not the most female friendly place. It has a "Men's Group" -- as if the whole site is not a men's group. Could you imagine the site allowing a "White Group"?

[smirkymonkey]

68. Some people really love their guns.

[LiberalEsto]

31. This is excellent!

Let's make it so.

[lame54]

44. Because nobody WANTS to get an abortion

[napi21]

52. That's Norman Goldman's recommendation.

He's been pushing this idea for several weeks now. He also suggests that we all begin local and get gun laws passed. Sure the NRA will take them to court, but that's the idea. Flood the courts with law suits. Some might stick like some have with State abortion laws but make 'em fight and scrstch for every win thy get.

[loyalsister]

55. Thanks for the source!

It popped up on my FB feed and I knew some peeps here would like it. The trick is to get the democratic lawmakers to abandon their fear of the NRA in order to actually pass those restrictions.

[smirkymonkey]

69. +1000

[KT2000]

53. I am very sad to see

how this post went over so many heads. It is a terrific analogy that has demonstrated a quirk of some kind in the gun discussion. It tells me that defense of gun ownership trumps EVERYTHING and there is no room for rational discussion or consideration for improving things.

[beac]

60. +1 to all you said. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

70. +1000

There are too many gun humpers here who refuse to discuss the issue of gun control reasonably. The only way to get their attention is with a radical idea, which happens to be not such a bad one.

[ileus]

54. How will every woman that wants to buy a gun, how do you want to treat her???

[hollysmom]

56. I want to know what the internal sonogram is going to be like

[loyalsister]

58. Maybe an FMRI and personality inventory would be better?

n\t

[DLevine]

64. Powerful. K&R. nt

[meaculpa2011]

67. You mean like this...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf

[onecent]

76. How about we leave women alone and let them do what

the fuck they want/need to do with their own bodies. A woman's body is not EVER going to be handled like
the gun problem. ha ha har

No fucking Man politician is going to EVER tell me what to do with my uterus. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Some laws are made to be broken.

And IF YOU CAN REALLY TRY TO put a gun law up against an abortion law then we should really have a fucking party....
bring it on.

[treestar]

79. True enough. A gun is a dangerous instrumentality

Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

and it seems less regulated than cars or driving licenses. The "good guy" with a gun should be vetted. Unless it is a hunting rifle, it is for "self defense" and people who really think they need one for self defense, unless they live in a very rural area, it is reasonable to wonder what drives that fear. Or people in very dangerous urban areas (though that could be solved by not having any guns at all).

Plus they should also have to prove they are taking courses on how to handle the gun, and refresher courses each year. IMO a lot of people think just having a gun is all it takes, but actually using it in self defense would be something they are not trained to do.

[3catwoman3]

84. Your OP goes right to the heart of the matter, and those...

...who are arguing otherwise are choosing to just throwing out a bunch of BS distractions, hoping to cloud the spot on value of our analog.

[Kang Colby]

86. What of the old adage, "two wrongs don't make a right".

Last edited Mon Oct 5, 2015, 11:20 PM - Edit history (1)

There are those of us who feel strongly about protecting a woman's right to chose ***AND*** protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms. I've often joked that gun control is to Democrats as abortion is to Republicans - a foolish, losing issue.

Some states, like Maryland and New Jersey treat gun owners the same way Texas and Alabama treat women who would like to make their own decisions regarding reproductive health. Courses, paperwork, expenses and fees, fingerprints, waits, and then additional waits, followed by more paperwork, and ultimately registration all wrapped up in ambiguously worded laws and inconsistent application of the regulations by Maryland State Police (MSP). A bureaucrat at MSP could wake up tomorrow, go to work, decide that a popular gun is now banned, and then apply the law ex post facto. This means that if you purchased the firearm *before* MSP declared it banned, you are now a criminal subject to imprisonment. Sound far fetched? MSP banned firearms with retroactive effect twice this past summer. Even if you hate guns, I don't know how anyone could think that is acceptable practice.

Several years ago, MSP approached local sporting goods stores and gun shops and essentially demanded that they keep ammo purchase logs. These logs had no legal basis whatsoever, and were likely established by fearful FFLs concerned about getting on the wrong side of the regulator. So what happend? Every few weeks MSP would collect the logs and compare them with MAFFS, which is the Maryland gun registry. Oh, you purchased ammo for a gun you don't have registered? Several people got late night visits from MSP for a discussion and firearms inspection. Never mind the fact that it is common practice to purchase ammo for calibers you don't own, this practice netted zero arrests, thousands of terrified gun owners, and was ultimately put to an end by 2A advocacy groups.

[U4ikLefty]

87. Wow, I put one gun-humper on ignore & his thread is now tolerable.

yay!!!