A proposed bill concerning gun purchase in Missouri

[cambeul41]

I don't know when I have seen anything exhibiting such an ugly attitude towards gun owners as this
http://qz.com/565765/a-proposed-bill-in-missouri-would-make-buying-a-gun-as-difficult-as-getting-an-abortion/

Among its requirements that mirror the state’s restrictions on obtaining an abortion:

     •Buyers must review alternatives to purchasing a firearm (including peaceful and nonviolent    conflict resolution) and medical risks associated with firearms (including photographs of fatal firearm injuries) with the dealer, orally and in writing.

     •At least 72 hours before attempting to buy a gun, prospective gun owners must meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks of gun ownership, and obtain a written notice from the doctor.

     •The gun must be purchased from a licensed gun dealer located at least 120 miles (193 kilometers) from the purchaser’s legal residence. (That’s the average distance women must travel in Missouri to obtain an abortion).

    •Buyers must watch a half-hour video about fatal firearm injuries.

    •Buyers must meet with two local faith leaders who have officiated (within the past year) a funeral for a young (under 18) gun violence victim, and with two families who have been victims of gun violence.

     •On a weekend between 10 pm and 6 am, when gun violence victims are present, buyers must tour an emergency trauma center at the nearest qualified urban hospital, and get written verification from a doctor.

[wmenorr67]

Wow and I'm ashamed to say that most of my mom's side of the family is from Missouri.

Can't see this one even getting out of a committee let alone on the actual floor for even a hint of discussion.

[Firethorn]

Before you go getting all irked, this is a pro-choice political statement, not actually a gun bill.

At least get irked about the right things...

[cambeul41]

I suspect that Firethorn is correct, but I  still don't appreciate her tactic.

[tokugawa]

Well, yeah, but after you finally get the gun, do you then get to kill an innocent human being with no legal consequence?
 These folks logic train has never left the station.

[makattak]

Well, yeah, but after you finally get the gun, do you then get to kill an innocent human being with no legal consequence?
 These folks logic train has never left the station.

Of course the fact that after you have purchased the gun, you can reconsider and return it OR sell it off OR just give it to the police to rectify your decision to have WRONGRights or WRONGFun.

After you've murdered your baby, there's no chance to change that decision.

[lee n. field]

Before you go getting all irked, this is a pro-choice political statement, not actually a gun bill.

At least get irked about the right things...

I could tell, without following it down.

[AJ Dual]

The irony being, that abortion kills/prevents more Lefty voters from existing, who'd vote for that gun control.

[Jocassee]

•Buyers must watch a half-hour video about fatal firearm injuries.

I don't think this should be law, of course, but there's a lot of dumbasses that could benefit from that video

[Firethorn]

After you've murdered your baby, there's no chance to change that decision.

It's simple enough; if they're going in for an abortion, they don't consider it a baby(yet).  Please remember that the vast majority that abort do so in the first trimester; virtually zero do it in the third.  If it's happening in the third it's virtually always because something incredibly wrong has happened in the pregnancy.

That being said, it's an attempt to point out how horrible and unreasonable the 'measures' to ensure a woman going in for an abortion actually wants one are.

I'm going to say it simply, I see the salami tactics that pro-life people use to try to get rid of abortion as the same as the anti-gun crowd use.  Slice Slice Slice.

[makattak]

It's simple enough; if they're going in for an abortion, they don't consider it a baby(yet).

And? That's a complete non-sequitur to my point. If someone kills their baby, while believing he is not a baby, that doesn't change the finality of the choice.

If the person has regrets about purchasing a gun, they have options to reverse that decision. If a person has regrets about an abortion, there's no un-murdering the baby.

That being said, it's an attempt to point out how horrible and unreasonable the 'measures' to ensure a woman going in for an abortion actually wants one are.

Yes, it is attempting that. . And I'm pointing out that there are significant differences between the nature of the two decisions.

[Perd Hapley]

Wow and I'm ashamed to say that most of my mom's side of the family is from Missouri.

Can't see this one even getting out of a committee let alone on the actual floor for even a hint of discussion.

Confused Missourian here. You're ashamed because Missouri has (relatively) awesome abortion laws? Or because Missouri's gun laws are relatively awesome?

[wmenorr67]

Confused Missourian here. You're ashamed because Missouri has (relatively) awesome abortion laws? Or because Missouri's gun laws are relatively awesome?

That people in Missouri would elect someone that would try to compare gun ownership and purchases to the act of having an abortion.

[Angel Eyes]

Tempest in a teapot.  This bill won't see the light of day in Missouri.

[tokugawa]

It's simple enough; if they're going in for an abortion, they don't consider it a baby(yet).  Please remember that the vast majority that abort do so in the first trimester; virtually zero do it in the third.  If it's happening in the third it's virtually always because something incredibly wrong has happened in the pregnancy.

That being said, it's an attempt to point out how horrible and unreasonable the 'measures' to ensure a woman going in for an abortion actually wants one are.

I'm going to say it simply, I see the salami tactic that pro-life people use to try to get rid of abortion as the same as the anti-gun crowd use.  Slice Slice Slice.

 Yep. Exactly. Hopefully you did not intend the pun.  Now if one is gonna sell bit and pieces , it makes sense to wait till one can get the highest price....

[Hawkmoon]

And? That's a complete non-sequitur to my point. If someone kills their baby, while believing he is not a baby, that doesn't change the finality of the choice.

What if it's not yet a baby? Not everyone -- not even every Christian -- believes that human life begins at conception.

You are assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with your view is wrong. What if YOU'RE wrong?

[makattak]

What if it's not yet a baby? Not everyone -- not even every Christian -- believes that human life begins at conception.

You are assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with your view is wrong. What if YOU'RE wrong?

Ever taken a hunting class?

I might be wrong about the nature of an unborn baby.  I doubt it, but it is possible.

Now are you willing to admit you might be wrong about the nature of an unborn baby?

Because I'll take you back to my opening question: there's a principle of safe hunting that you don't take a shot (try to kill) something unless you are 100% sure it is what you are aiming to kill.

This is so that you don't kill a human by mistake. 

If I'm wrong, no one dies by not killing a "fetus" who is somehow not a human.

If you're wrong,  we've murdered 50 million people in this country.

[charby]

Ever taken a hunting class?

I might be wrong about the nature of an unborn baby.  I doubt it, but it is possible.

Now are you willing to admit you might be wrong about the nature of an unborn baby?

Because I'll take you back to my opening question: there's a principle of safe hunting that you don't take a shot (try to kill) something unless you are 100% sure it is what you are aiming to kill.

This is so that you don't kill a human by mistake.  

If I'm wrong, no one dies by not killing a "fetus" who is somehow not a human.

If you're wrong,  we've murdered 50 million people in this country.

The whole biology of conception wasn't really universally accepted until the mid 19th century, up until then the thought was man planted his seed into the woman, much as a farmer sows seed into the soil. The thought was a female had a nutrient to allowed the man's seed to turn into a human. Even in the 1600's a Swiss chemist was certain that if you cooked male ejaculate and horse manure at a certain temperature that would develop into a human, but without a soul.

[zxcvbob]

The whole biology of conception wasn't really universally accepted until the mid 19th century, up until then the thought was man planted his seed into the woman, much as a farmer sows seed into the soil. The thought was a female had a nutrient to allowed the man's seed to turn into a human. Even in the 1600's a Swiss chemist was certain that if you cooked male ejaculate and horse manure at a certain temperature that is would develop into a human, but without a soul.

I've tried it.  Didn't work.

[TommyGunn]

The whole biology of conception wasn't really universally accepted until the mid 19th century, up until then the thought was man planted his seed into the woman, much as a farmer sows seed into the soil. The thought was a female had a nutrient to allowed the man's seed to turn into a human. Even in the 1600's a Swiss chemist was certain that if you cooked male ejaculate and horse manure at a certain temperature that would develop into a human, but without a soul.

It's been tried and, actually, it works -- sorta.



You get a liberal.

[zxcvbob]

I must not have done it right.  (but it sounds like that was a good thing)

[Nick1911]

The whole biology of conception wasn't really universally accepted until the mid 19th century, up until then the thought was man planted his seed into the woman, much as a farmer sows seed into the soil. The thought was a female had a nutrient to allowed the man's seed to turn into a human. Even in the 1600's a Swiss chemist was certain that if you cooked male ejaculate and horse manure at a certain temperature that would develop into a human, but without a soul.

Not to call you out, but because I've never heard this before - do you have a reference handy?

[Fitz]

pretty sure he just used it as an excuse to keep jars of his own semen lying about

[Firethorn]

This is so that you don't kill a human by mistake. 

If I'm wrong, no one dies by not killing a "fetus" who is somehow not a human.

If you're wrong,  we've murdered 50 million people in this country.

You use 3 terms here.  Human, fetus, and person.  There are, however, some quirks.

A fetus is a human, no real question about it.
A fetus, however, isn't a person.  At least 'not yet'.  You look at historical societies, you can see ones that wouldn't ascribe a baby as being a person, they wouldn't even give it a name, until it survived it's 1-3rd birthday.  Many, many, only bother upon birth.

Persons, whether they're human, alien, AI, or even uplift, are what deserve our protection. 

I want abortion to be rare, yes, but in general I'd rather a woman carry a child to term because she wants to, not because she's forced to.

[Perd Hapley]

A fetus, however, isn't a person.  At least 'not yet'.  You look at historical societies, you can see ones that wouldn't ascribe a baby as being a person, they wouldn't even give it a name, until it survived it's 1-3rd birthday.  Many, many, only bother upon birth.

Persons, whether they're human, alien, AI, or even uplift, are what deserve our protection. 

And we've murdered millions on the basis of such quasi-religious dogma. The children of Taney live on.