Guns and Abortion: Extremists Resemble One Another
by Carol Crossed, Consistent Life Board member
Carol Crossed
At his press conference about gun control, President Obama was clear and uncomplicated: The Constitution protects the right to bear arms. But some restraints on our freedom are necessary to protect innocent people.
This should carry weight with Republicans since this is the same argument they make to Democrats about abortion rights. Even the most ardent supporters of both guns and abortion do not deny this intellectually honest reality: the byproducts of these constitutional rights are dead bodies.
Both abortion rights supporters and proponents of gun ownership tirelessly lobby to prohibit any reasonable restrictions. Polls demonstrate public support for limits, like the sale of assault weapons, and parental consent and informed consent for abortions. Fearing the slippery slope, no compromise can be broached by these extremists. Lobby industries are quick to remind us that they don’t purport to force anyone to own a gun or to have an abortion. Gun shops and abortion clinics, according to these defenders, should be accessible for those who want one.
Women are the marketing pawns in this sorry scenario of choice. The language both industries employ is nearly identical. Preying on women’s fears, a National Rifle Association ad reads, “A gun is a choice women need to know more about and be free to make. The NRA is working to ensure that the freedom of that choice always exists.”
However, the Journal of Public Health reports that if a handgun is in the house, women are five times more likely to be killed. Likewise, females are the gender of choice in sex-selective abortions. This preference for male children has created a severe ratio imbalance in some countries.
While many NRA-supporting Republicans and Planned Parenthood-supporting Democrats point fingers at one another, the only winners are lobbyists and legislators. Pro-gun rights and pro-abortion rights groups rank highest in political action committee (PAC) money raised and spent for lobbying, and to elect legislators to support their all-or-nothing agenda. The 2012 Federal Election Committee reports 7,000 PACs. The NRA ranks 15th, with $21 million to protect gun owner rights. EMILY’s List ranks fourth with $57 million to protect abortion rights.
Accurate information about violence is less likely to incite violence than it is to reduce violence. Martin Luther King Jr. said speaking the truth creates necessary tension to force social change. It is not meant to challenge the powerless to incite.
At a vigil after the shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic, a rally sign said, “Guns and abortion stop a beating heart.” There’s an opinion with something to offend everybody.
An insightful comparison and another well-written article from Carol Crossed. This one needs to be published far and wide.
I am a woman (for real; it’s not just an identity thing). I carry a sidearm every time I go out of the house. Yes, that means there are places I can’t go, like Post Offices. And, it means there are places I won’t go, like Target (ironically enough), which has made it clear that they don’t appreciate those of us who are well-trained in self-defense. Often, I carry at home. Why? Because research shows that 100% of home invasions happen in the home.
I have spent hundreds of hours of my own time, and thousands of my personal dollars, training – both legally and tactically. On a practical level, this means everyone is safer if I’m in the vicinity; primarily, my training is self-defense, but my training has prepared me for the rare moment when another innocent is the intended victim of death or crippling injury. I have literally been trained by some of the world’s best, and every single aspect – both legal and tactical – was exorbitantly undergirded by evidence. No one made claims they didn’t back up.
Incidentally, not only am I well-trained, by my husband is a retired law enforcement officer.
I’m several decades old, and have participated intensely in several highly-emotionally-charged issues. One important lesson I’ve learned: If I haven’t researched said issue thoroughly, there’s a lot of good-sounding propaganda out there that can cause confusion and misunderstanding. Moreover, anyone – well-intentioned people included – can be deceived.
Carol, you made this statement: “Even the most ardent supporters of both guns and abortion do not deny this intellectually honest reality: the byproducts of these constitutional rights are dead bodies.” Ma’am, I respectfully ask, “Whose dead bodies are you talking about?”
It’s an important question. Here’s why: If a man tries to kill me, I will stop him. By the way, please note the legal accuracy of that statement: In certain circumstances, I am legally allowed to use lethal force to stop a bad guy. Now, because I’m using lethal force, he may end up dead. But the distinction is important, and those of us who are well-trained understand it.
Now, same scenario, but I’m not carrying a sidearm. What’s the outcome? I’m the one who’s dead.
Carol, if you look at the research, here’s the evidence you will find: When good guys and gals have firearms, either there are fewer dead bodies, or else the dead body is the bad guy (as opposed to the good guy or gal it would otherwise have been). And no, contrary to the propaganda, gun control laws don’t prevent bad guys from getting guns; those laws only disarm law-abiding citizens. Think about it: It’s only the good guys, not the bad guys, that obey the law. This is why criminals have a term for “gun free zones.” Do you know what it is? Fish in a barrel.
Carol, you also made this statement: “the Journal of Public Health reports that if a handgun is in the house, women are five times more likely to be killed.” You didn’t give a citation, so I went looking. A generalized internet search yielded: “The Journal of Public Health reports that if a handgun is in the house, women are five times more likely to be killed by an abusive partner.” Ma’am, those last four words are a very significant ‘omission.’ I continued researching until I think I found the base-article upon which the aforementioned quote was based. Here’s what the article actually says: “A victim or survivor of IPV is five times more likely to die when an abusive partner has access to a gun” (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10209983/). Yes, usually the victim is a woman. But I challenge anyone interested in the evidence to notice that the author of that article strings together pieces of propaganda on-par with one who claims that the baby killed in an abortion is dead because the baby committed a crime.
The truth, as regards the extent to which firearms actually harm women, is very, very different than what your article implies. The truth is that firearms are a tool that many responsible women train with, and often carry. And please, don’t fall prey to the propaganda about so-called ‘assault rifles.’ The truth is that an AR is a very easy, effective platform for women – superior in several ways to a shotgun. The truth is that with these tools – rifles and sidearms – we save our lives – and the lives of others.
I stopped writing a moment ago, because this was already getting too long. But the evidence compels me to mention one more personal fact: I am a resident of the state of New York. That “5x more likely” propagandist article cries buckets of tears over the Bruen decision, claiming women will be hurt. Reality check, ladies and gentlemen: BEFORE Bruen, it took me TWO YEARS (2 years!) of political red tape before I was able to obtain a carry permit. (Even then, it’s not good in the City, but I don’t want to go there anyway). And I was the rare one to even try, because the process was such a pain. The truth is that Bruen empowered women to legally obtain the self-defense tools they need! The state of NY is still one of the most oppressive anti-self-defense states in the Union (THE STATE endangers women!) – but Bruen helped, a lot.
Thanks for this, Alicia. The article is 9 years old, but generally, I believe it still is substantially correct, particularly as it relates to interstate laws that attempt to limit guns and abortion. States should be allowed to restrict both, and other states should be compelled to honor those restrictions.
As you correctly alluded, the difficulty in purchasing a gun, for well or ill, would be significantly easier if there were no restrictions.
I appreciate your views and particularly that you have pledged only to use to gun in self defense.
Carol Crossed
Carol,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I realized that obviously I did not find the original article you referenced, seeing as it was written post-Bruen. I’m inclined to conclude that your source is probably in the Bibliography of the one I found.
Comment 1
You wrote, “As you [meaning me] correctly alluded, the difficulty in purchasing a gun, for well or ill, would be significantly easier if there were no restrictions.” The face of that statement is accurate, but the assumption that I oppose background checks is wrong. And, I dare say, nearly all of us who advocate for self-defense rights are in favor of background checks. What we object to is when a state looks at a good guy or gal and says, “I deny you the right to carry just because I want to do so.” That anti-Constitutional, let-the-good-guys-die-and-the-good-gals-get-raped-and-killed tyranny is what Bruen fixed.
Please, appreciate the real-life outcome for which myself and others advocate, because it negates your assumed conclusion: the difficulty in purchasing a gun, for well or ill, becomes significantly easier for good guys and gals, but more difficult for those with malicious intent. Granted, that statement assumes that the guy with malintent has a criminal record; therefore, it does not weed out every such bad guy.
At that point, some will say, “More restrictions are the answer!” That’s akin to: Let’s prevent drunk driving tragedies by making it illegal for EVERYONE to drive on the roads. The truth goes back to what I wrote previously: It’s only law-abiding citizens who obey the law. Criminals – by definition – are people who will procure the firearm they want in spite of the law.
The real solution – overlooked by far too many – is the evidence which demands that if you let the good guys and gals carry, it puts a whole lot more armed good guys and gals into the equation. Yes, that is a redundant statement, but people overlook it all the time. They also overlook the consequence: it tips the scales in favor of good guys, and against the bad guys – and they know it.
Evidence-based reality check: Gun laws don’t stop criminals, because criminals are people who break laws. The way to stop criminals is to get the fish out of the barrel, and arm the ones who are willing to accept the responsibility.
Comment 2
I respect your opinion that “States should be allowed to restrict both [abortion and guns], and other states should be compelled to honor those restrictions.” I doubt either of us have the time, and this is not the place, to open the Pandora’s Box of states’ rights [again, light-hearted smile]. The truth is, I probably fall pretty close to you on that spectrum. For the sake of finding common ground, we probably both agree that it’s good that states are compelled to honor other states’ driver’s licenses.
That said, I’d like to leave you with a question (for thought; you don’t have to answer online): Do you think states should be forced to honor other states’ carry permits?
Fair waring: I just handed you a double-edged sword, because any negative answer can be better-used to justify revocation of driver’s license reciprocity. The Constitution doesn’t mention cars; it does mention firearms. Cars kill, maim, and destroy the lives of a whole lot more innocent people than firearms. And, the lowest-common-denominator argument (i.e., if state A is more restrictive than state B, A does not have to honor B’s permit) is predicated on the claim that more restrictions = safer people; but the evidence demands otherwise: carry restrictions = more dead, raped, and assaulted good people.
In the end, if you’re going to deny carry reciprocity, you have to resort to the claim that states’ rights extend into the realm of subjective opinions, which means that a state is allowed to outlaw chocolate ice cream, just because 51% of its residents prefer vanilla.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my comments. Have a good day!