TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,690
Disclaimer: This is something that I've thought about before and this is just a theory, speculation if you will, so don't take as an absolute fact.
My claim is that pro-lifers will oftenly find (other) reasons and ways to ban or restrict firearms even if mass shootings weren't as prolific as they are in the US in the recent years (both pre-pandemic and post pandemic). The recent years especially during the pandemic and even after the pandemic there were rise in firearm ownership across the populace as well as increase in mass shootings as well as violent crime (in various places) across the country. Therefore as a result, there has been more focus on the topic of gun violence and shootings in the news as well as talks of further restrictions on gun rights.
Not to get too political, but I believe that part of the reason there has been more pushback between two opposite both sides (conservatives and liberals) lies in the fact that because firearm ownership (from the 2nd amendment - the right to bear arms) is a constitutional right, therefore, people are less reluctant to ban it or restrict it outright, at least not without a lot of resistance from one of the sides and what not.
Now suppose (in an alternative universe) that we live in a world where mass shootings and homicides are not as prevalent as they are in the US but much rarer, and besides legitimate purposes for firearms (self-defense, recreation, and survival (hunting and other activities)), people are using it to check out of a shitty, awful existence, I still believe prolifers will find some reason to restrict (or even ban) firearm accessibility. Instead of more focus on the criminal aspect, they would likely concentrate more on the suicide and mental health aspect (more invasive probing and screening of mental illnesses, symptoms, behaviors, etc.) and use that as justification to hinder accessibility to the method, or even outright ban it (harder since the 2nd amendment and part of the US Constitution).
Meanwhile, SN (Sodium Nitrite) is a chemical compound that is used in curing and preservation of meat and while it isn't used for malevolent purposes, harm to other people (offensively), and generally for lawful purposes (I have yet to read about a case where one uses it for harm to others) is being restricted and even some prolifers are calling for an outright ban on it. It has become harder and harder to acquire said substance for reliability in CTB. Since SN isn't like the 2nd amendment, there is less pushback towards it's restriction of it's accessibility or even outright bans on acquisition (in some areas). Obviously someone who is determined will find ways to acquire it indirectly or directly, or even those who are fortunate, but those are outliers and besides the point. The point is that general accessibility has become more difficult due to prolifers pushing for restrictions for the substance, if not even outright pushing for a ban for it.
What do you guys think, is my claim pretty accurate, on point, or is there something else at play here?
My claim is that pro-lifers will oftenly find (other) reasons and ways to ban or restrict firearms even if mass shootings weren't as prolific as they are in the US in the recent years (both pre-pandemic and post pandemic). The recent years especially during the pandemic and even after the pandemic there were rise in firearm ownership across the populace as well as increase in mass shootings as well as violent crime (in various places) across the country. Therefore as a result, there has been more focus on the topic of gun violence and shootings in the news as well as talks of further restrictions on gun rights.
Not to get too political, but I believe that part of the reason there has been more pushback between two opposite both sides (conservatives and liberals) lies in the fact that because firearm ownership (from the 2nd amendment - the right to bear arms) is a constitutional right, therefore, people are less reluctant to ban it or restrict it outright, at least not without a lot of resistance from one of the sides and what not.
Now suppose (in an alternative universe) that we live in a world where mass shootings and homicides are not as prevalent as they are in the US but much rarer, and besides legitimate purposes for firearms (self-defense, recreation, and survival (hunting and other activities)), people are using it to check out of a shitty, awful existence, I still believe prolifers will find some reason to restrict (or even ban) firearm accessibility. Instead of more focus on the criminal aspect, they would likely concentrate more on the suicide and mental health aspect (more invasive probing and screening of mental illnesses, symptoms, behaviors, etc.) and use that as justification to hinder accessibility to the method, or even outright ban it (harder since the 2nd amendment and part of the US Constitution).
Meanwhile, SN (Sodium Nitrite) is a chemical compound that is used in curing and preservation of meat and while it isn't used for malevolent purposes, harm to other people (offensively), and generally for lawful purposes (I have yet to read about a case where one uses it for harm to others) is being restricted and even some prolifers are calling for an outright ban on it. It has become harder and harder to acquire said substance for reliability in CTB. Since SN isn't like the 2nd amendment, there is less pushback towards it's restriction of it's accessibility or even outright bans on acquisition (in some areas). Obviously someone who is determined will find ways to acquire it indirectly or directly, or even those who are fortunate, but those are outliers and besides the point. The point is that general accessibility has become more difficult due to prolifers pushing for restrictions for the substance, if not even outright pushing for a ban for it.
What do you guys think, is my claim pretty accurate, on point, or is there something else at play here?
