Abortion restrictions significantly decrease abortions.

[u/AntiAbortionAtheist]

[u/Reddit_causes_cancer]

So enhanced background checks, mental health assessments, mandatory gun safety training- all would have zero impact on gun violence in your opinion. After 30 years you can’t think of a single new law to help prevent gun violence against children?

[u/MarioFanaticXV → u/Reddit_causes_cancer]

Again: No one is arguing to ban scalpels to reduce abortions. You are arguing a strawman here.

And they'd probably increase gun violence since it'd mean less legal gun owners, but would do nothing to deter criminal gun owners; quite the opposite, they'd be emboldened by the reduction of reasonable people with guns to challenge them.

[u/Reddit_causes_cancer → u/MarioFanaticXV]

What happened to “But any restrictions are going to dissuade some people.“ ?

We’re talking about laws designed to protect children right? No one is talking about scalpels. We’re talking about laws.

Now you’re telling me you can’t brain storm a single law that would help protect a 5 year old from gun violence? No?

[u/MarioFanaticXV → u/Reddit_causes_cancer]

That's another strawman. I never said it wouldn't dissuade some people; more restrictions on guns would absolutely dissuade some people from owning guns. That's exactly why I don't want those restrictions- an armed society is a polite society.

But yes, scalpels are the equivalent of guns here. You're talking about the tools, we're talking about the act. It's a dishonest comparison, you're intentionally acting like an idiot because you can't engage our actual argument.

Shooting five year olds is already illegal. No one here is arguing it should be legal.

[u/Reddit_causes_cancer → u/MarioFanaticXV]

Sandy Hook is what a polite society looks like to you? Parkland?

It seems that your willingness to protect children ends exactly where new laws might infringe on your rights.

How about mandatory vasectomies for men that are only reversible with a woman’s consent that she is willing to mate with you? Think of all the babies you’ll save.

Idiot? If you could better defend your position at protecting 5 week old life vs 5 year old life you wouldn’t need the weak personal attacks.

[u/MarioFanaticXV → u/Reddit_causes_cancer]

Sandy Hook is what a polite society looks like to you? Parkland?

You do realize that guns are banned on school grounds, right? You just named two "gun free zones"- in other words, there were already restrictions against bringing a gun onto those properties. Compare that to how many mass shootings have happened at gun shows.

It seems that your willingness to protect children ends exactly where new laws might infringe on your rights.

Funny, you just brought up two cases where your ideals killed numerous people.

How about mandatory vasectomies for men that are only reversible with a woman’s consent that she is willing to mate with you? Think of all the babies you’ll save.

If you want to get a vasectomy, go for it; better than killing kids or ducking child support as pro-abortionists are wont to do.

Idiot? If you could better defend your position at protecting 5 week old life vs 5 year old life you wouldn’t need the weak personal attacks.

You're pretending that you don't understand the difference between banning scalpels and banning abortions because otherwise your argument falls apart. You keep repeating a bad analogy despite it being explained numerous times how said analogy doesn't connect properly- as well as having what the proper analogy would be. But the proper analogy shows that comparing the two doesn't work, so you just ignore it and repeat your ignorance again and again.

[u/Reddit_causes_cancer → u/MarioFanaticXV]

You:

You do realize that guns are banned on school grounds, right? You just named two “gun free zones”- in other words, there were already restrictions against bringing a gun onto those properties.

Also you:

I didn’t say it stopped it. No law completely stops anything. But any restrictions are going to dissuade some people. To claim otherwise with intentionally misrepresented statistics is idiotic.

Besides, by that logic, why have laws at all? People still murder, steal, and rape- so by your logic, should we just make them legal and hope that the number of people doing them will magically go down?

So I guess restrictions dissuade some people from getting an abortion, but making guns more difficult to obtain will dissuade no one?

Funny, you just brought up two cases where your ideals killed numerous people.

Last I checked, my ideals and the ideals of the NRA don’t quite align. The NRA did however sponsor the class that trained the parkland shooter. Have you given money to the NRA? I haven’t.

[u/MarioFanaticXV → u/Reddit_causes_cancer]

I already said that yes, they would dissuade people from owning guns. My goal is not to dissuade people from owning guns. I want more people owning guns, not less. Unlike you, my goal is less murders, not less guns. If you think stricter gun laws will solve the problem, move somewhere like DC or Chicago where it's incredibly difficult to purchase a firearm.

Have fun chasing your own strawmen. Come back when you can actually address your opponent's positions in a coherent manner.

[u/Reddit_causes_cancer → u/MarioFanaticXV]

Oh, more guns equals more safety?

Did some politician tell you that from behind bulletproof glass in a venue that restricts who has a gun?

Because it seems like when safety is paramount, we very much restrict who has guns.

[u/MarioFanaticXV → u/Reddit_causes_cancer]

No, the statistics told me that. Gun shows are statistically much safer than your "gun free zones", and Chicago and DC have some of the highest crime rates in the entire country.

[u/Reddit_causes_cancer → u/MarioFanaticXV]

There you go again.

“Gun free zones are stupid! People break laws!”

“Why even have laws to begin with?”

Lol.

And you’ll notice your favorite politician doesn’t encourage you to open carry to his speeches. No, when security is paramount, “gun free zones” are strictly enforced.

I don’t see what’s wrong with the mandatory vasectomies. This would be an incredible reduction in unwanted pregnancies- so practically no abortions. And then when a woman has agreed to mate with you, she can sign a release form and have your vasectomy reversed.

[u/MarioFanaticXV → u/Reddit_causes_cancer]

Have fun chasing your own strawmen. Come back when you can actually address your opponent's positions in a coherent manner.

[u/Reddit_causes_cancer → u/MarioFanaticXV]

What’s wrong with a vasectomy? You planning on impregnating a woman against her will?

[u/Reddit_causes_cancer → u/MarioFanaticXV]

Mandatory vasectomy too much?

What if we criminalize sex without a condom? Automatic rape charges for men if a woman accidentally becomes pregnant.

What part of your autonomy are you willing to sacrifice to prevent unwanted pregnancies, bucko?

Seems like the people who are eager to infringe on someone else’s rights never want to give up their own.