Could our state and federal elected officials please explain the logic behind their responses to two current issues: 1. Increasing the prevalence of guns as a means of stemming a surge in gun-related violence; and 2. ending abortion by restricting access to birth control.

Jaclyn Low

Texas City


(7) comments

Carlos Ponce

"1. Increasing the prevalence of guns as a means of stemming a surge in gun-related violence". What stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun. Notice that many of the mass shootings occurred in "soft targets", ie, a location where gun possession is discouraged or against the law. Schools are "Gun free zones".

" 2. ending abortion by restricting access to birth control." - You may be referring to the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) where SCOTUS struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. But there is no restriction to birth control, only who pays for it. The cheapest birth control has a price tag of $0.00 - don't have sex.

Gary Miller

Carlos>You are exactly right, a good guy with a gun is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun. People without guns are just targets for bad guys with guns. Gun free zones are shooting galleries for bad guys with guns. Outlaw "gun free zones" to reduce the killing.

If I'm not mistaken women still have the "CHOICE" to not get pregnant or the "CHOICE" to get pregnant.

Cary Semar

Except in the case of rape.

Carlos Ponce

"Fewer than 1% of all abortions take place because there has been rape or incest involved to create the pregnancy."

Emile Pope

Typical responses...

Ted Gillis

I think what the original poster was getting at is the stark contrast in solving the two issues. If we combat gun violence by making guns more available, then why not use the same logic by making abortions more available to help combat the rise of abortions.

Wayne Holt

Ted, no one can speak for these two constituencies but it would seem the contrast is easy to define. The first issue, at least in theory, is to put self-defense tools in the hands of people to protect their life at a moment when no other assistance may be available.

In the second instance, innocent nascent life is being taken when there are obvious and easily obtainable alternatives. So if the intent of the writer was as you say, I don't think the parallel holds up to scrutiny.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.