Why compare sex and firearms?
Sex:
- Fundamental to life
- Something every human is capable of, and that (except for Slashdot users ;), most experience in their life.
- If consensual, a source of pleasure and love.
Firearms:
- A tool which can be used for a varierty of purposes
- Must be purchased, i.e. it is a choice.
- I suppose one could compare firearms training/use to martial arts, in that it can have personal benefits, but at the same time it's original purpose and base function is to defend oneself from, or (with guns) attack and kill another person.
So why are we comparing these two things again?
I am for anyone owning a firearm being educated. I don't own a gun and enjoy knowing a bit about them. I am also for a reasonable degree of gun control, and for acknowledging the fact that the U.S. appears to be unique in terms of the frequency of mass shootings, and of taking action (increasing the availability of mental health clinics, finding ways to restrict mentally ill people from owning firearms which does not violate the second amendment, etc) to do something about this.
[Edit]
And no firearms (unless carried by an officer) in schools, on campuses, or in places of worship.
I feel like you've abstracted one level too far. We're not comparing sex and firearms in a concrete sense; we're comparing one type of education as an appropriate way to mitigate the potentially damaging effects that being untrained causes, and another type of education as an appropriate way to mitigate the potential damages of being untrained.
As it stands, it's no worse or less than the nauseatingly constant comparison between firearms and automobiles, when the more apt comparison (in my opinion) is comparing firearms rights vs. voting rights.
Off the top of my head... both can be used for enjoyment (I was going to say pleasure, thinking of the pleasure a shooter might feel at getting a bulls eye, but thought people might get the wrong idea), both can be used to hurt other people (I'm fairly certain more people have been hurt via sex and human relationships in general than from firearms - though obviously we are talking about emotional pain rather than physical pain, discounting the physical pain an STD can cause), both require choice (otherwise it is rape), both can kill (thinking of diseases like HIV in the case of sex), both ideally should require education, both require protection, if your SO is a screamer both might require ear protection, etc.
Armed with a rifle and a handgun, 14-year-old James Alan Kearbey, killed principal, James McGee, and wounded two teachers and a student at Goddard Junior High School.
> progressives rail against "abstinence only" sex ed and then turn around and promote the same thing for firearms.
Yes! This is a great point, that hadn't occurred to me before.
The current proliferation of firearms in the US makes education the responsible choice. If nothing else, you should know how to render a firearm safe.
Um, no, anti-gun laws are closer to nuetering than abstinence only education. One attempts to prevent the thing from happening the other refuses to provide actual education about something that is going to happen.
Abstinence only education is mandatory gun ownership and then refusing to provide any guidance beyond "don't shoot people".
I think the grandparent was speaking more of knowledge then possession of items. Many anti-gun progressives seem to know little to nothing about guns, be proud of their lack of knowledge, and recommend passing ignorant laws that will do nothing to reduce violence. It seems kind of appropriate to compare them - their attitude seems like "Guns are always bad, unless you're the Government, you shouldn't know anything about them or have anything to do with them, and just run away if you see one". Sounds kinda like "Sex is always bad, unless you are married..."
I think they thought they had a clever talking point that exposed hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance but failed to take into account that guns aren't dicks so the analogy falls apart immediately.
Also what about constant denunciation of military colonialism, police shootings and the militarization of law enforcement makes you think the anti-gum crowd makes an exception for the government having guns.
Oh, that's an interesting analogy. Another one I use to help sort out my feelings on this is recreational drug/alcohol use and recreational car use (probably not too long from now once they're fully automated). That is, how do we handle activities that a large fraction of society enjoys, but that nonetheless do pose risks to both themselves and others.
It's a standard "motte and bailey" argument [1]. What you're saying is the reasonable argument that anti-gun folks fall back to. But for many of them, they're always reaching for the whole enchilada. For example, although the Brady Campaign is only pushing for strong background checks at this stage, we know that their ultimate goal is an outright ban.
> we know that their ultimate goal is an outright ban
You think you know someone's ultimate, real goal? Assuming that they didn't publicize that goal - how do you know it? Are you privy to their confidential discussions, was an internal whitepaper of theirs leaked?
Yes, I always get steamed when someone tries to impute motives to some other actor. But I'm not resorting to such here. I know it because the head of the organization (a while back, when it was named NCCH) said so:
The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.
Thanks for responding and for the interesting link. Though AFAICT he seemed to be calling only for a ban on handguns (not all guns) - which, as gun control measures go, is much more rational than e.g. the assault weapon ban.
That is, indeed, the point of the "motte and bailey" strategy. When pressed on unreasonable demands, they'll re-frame the position as something within the Overton Window, but without actually abandoning the goal.
See my nearby citation of the guy who was heading the organization that later became the Brady Campaign:
"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."
You're quoting a guy from 40 years ago (1976) and making a slippery slope argument. Here is some more information on the Brady Campaign:
"In November 2008, Brady president Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, endorsed the American Hunters and Shooters Association saying, 'I see our issues as complementary to theirs.' He said, 'The Brady Campaign is not just East Coast liberal Democrats.'"
Most people who want to see more gun control are not out to ban all guns. Many of them own guns.
So by your argument, we should allow private citizens to own surface-to-air missiles, artillery cannons, landmines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, because abstinence from weapon ownership doesn't work?
Or is it more complicated than "abstinence"?
(I'd argue that it is. There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. It's a different category of activity.)
Just to quibble with your last point, I think it would be reasonable to say humans have a biological predisposition to use tools and to defend themselves. I know I have a very primal urge to protect my young children; I could see how that could manifest in someone else as wanting to own a gun to protect one's family.
Absolutely, but to frame that sentiment in the analogy with sex that the GP made would be something like "we have a natural urge to have sex, therefore we must protect sex toys". (That may or may not be a valid argument with respect to sex toys, but my point is it's a different one than presented above).
Put differently, "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => self defense OK" is not the same proposition as "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => guns OK". There's an extra step in the latter, "self defense OK => guns OK" (which I was not making an explicit evaluation on). The analogy in the GP is a false equivalence.
> There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one.
I'm not going to argue that a gun is the only or even necessarily an appreciable way to advance this in most individuals, but for many people it likely does work into this biological need:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#...
