A question for pro-life advocates about the gun control issue
The following question arose for me tonight for the first time as I listened to a news program anchor talk about the effects on the human body of ammunition fired from an AR-15 (it does not leave neat, clean holes; it instead rips and tears the body apart).
I've heard pro-life advocates in the abortion debate endorse and justify the distribution of videos that reportedly depict the effects of an abortion procedure on the fetus. The American people need to know what an abortion does to the head/brain/arms of the unborn, is often the argument. The brain is sucked out. The arms are ripped off. etc.
In the spirit of that argument, do you think the pro-life advocates who endorse the distribution of those abortion videos would also support, for purposes of the gun control debate, the publication of images of the bodies of victims of AR-15 gun ammunition, so that they could know exactly what damage it does to the human body - the destruction AR-15 victims actually experience - as they decide whether to support a ban on such weapons?
Comments
-
I'm anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and anti-abortion based on God's will for "Christians only" under the New Covenant. But I believe God continues, as in OT times, to use all of the above in his wrath against sin in the people and world around us. And our message should be how to turn God's wrath into something positive through faith in Christ.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The following question arose for me tonight for the first time as I listened to a news program anchor talk about the effects on the human body of ammunition fired from an AR-15 (it does not leave neat, clean holes; it instead rips and tears the body apart).I've heard pro-life advocates in the abortion debate endorse and justify the distribution of videos that reportedly depict the effects of an abortion procedure on the fetus. The American people need to know what an abortion does to the head/brain/arms of the unborn, is often the argument. The brain is sucked out. The arms are ripped off. etc.
In the spirit of that argument, do you think the pro-life advocates who endorse the distribution of those abortion videos would also support, for purposes of the gun control debate, the publication of images of the bodies of victims of AR-15 gun ammunition, so that they could know exactly what damage it does to the human body - the destruction AR-15 victims actually experience - as they decide whether to support a ban on such weapons?
As usual you compare Apples and Oranges and paint pictures that are completely fiction.
Your post assumes we are ok with innocent killing, we are not. You don't need to go any further than that.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
As usual you compare Apples and Oranges and paint pictures that are completely fiction.Thanks for the "apples and oranges," David. It's been a few weeks since you last accused me of cross-pollinating them.
Please specify the fictional pictures that you believe my question paints?
Your post assumes we are ok with innocent killing, we are not. You don't need to go any further than that.
Whether people are "ok with innocent killing" is not at issue in the question I asked. If anything, I suppose, my question makes exactly the opposite assumption - that pro-life people who support distribution of abortion procedure videos would consider the lives of high school students gunned down with a AR-15 to be as "innocent" as the lives ended in abortions. That is, since they would oppose BOTH forms of "innocent killing," they might support distribution of images of what AR-15s do to the human body, as part of the gun control debate.
Side issues aside, David, I'd welcome your response to the actual question I asked.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
As usual you compare Apples and Oranges and paint pictures that are completely fiction.Thanks for the "apples and oranges," David. It's been a few weeks since you last accused me of cross-pollinating them.
Please specify the fictional pictures that you believe my question paints?
Your post assumes we are ok with innocent killing, we are not. You don't need to go any further than that.
Whether people are "ok with innocent killing" is not at issue in the question I asked. If anything, I suppose, my question makes exactly the opposite assumption - that pro-life people who support distribution of abortion procedure videos would consider the lives of high school students gunned down with a AR-15 to be as "innocent" as the lives ended in abortions. That is, since they would oppose BOTH forms of "innocent killing," they might support distribution of images of what AR-15s do to the human body, as part of the gun control debate.
Side issues aside, David, I'd welcome your response to the actual question I asked.
No. What I would rather put out is a documentary on how the FBI is more interested in pinning Trump to Russia than following procedure and actually protecting American Students by stopping this tragedy when they had the information and did not act upon it.
How's that for grisly?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
No. What I would rather put out is a documentary on how the FBI is more interested in pinning Trump to Russia than following procedure and actually protecting American Students by stopping this tragedy when they had the information and did not act upon it.Apparently, it's not well known among right wing politicos that the FBI is perfectly capable of - and in fact, depends upon - multi-tasking. The Bureau CAN and DOES regularly conduct multiple investigations simultaneously, across the country and around the world.
The FBI employs around 35,000 people, only a tiny fraction of whom work with the Mueller team, or worked on the Bureau's Clinton email investigation in 2015-16.
The human resources used for those two probes did NOT in any way take away from the Bureau's ability to act upon the tips it received regarding the Florida shooter, an ability, sadly, the Bureau failed to leverage.
How's that for grisly?
The "grisly" part of this, I guess, is the mangling of the truth about the FBI perpetrated by the right wing talking point you chose to include in your post.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
No. What I would rather put out is a documentary on how the FBI is more interested in pinning Trump to Russia than following procedure and actually protecting American Students by stopping this tragedy when they had the information and did not act upon it.Apparently, it's not well known among right wing politicos that the FBI is perfectly capable of - and in fact, depends upon - multi-tasking. The Bureau CAN and DOES regularly conduct multiple investigations simultaneously, across the country and around the world.
The FBI employs around 35,000 people, only a tiny fraction of whom work with the Mueller team, or worked on the Bureau's Clinton email investigation in 2015-16.
The human resources used for those two probes did NOT in any way take away from the Bureau's ability to act upon the tips it received regarding the Florida shooter, an ability, sadly, the Bureau failed to leverage.
I disagree. I think the whole department is working distracted because of this pathetic display of political weaponization of the bureau.
How's that for grisly?
The "grisly" part of this, I guess, is the mangling of the truth about the FBI perpetrated by the right wing talking point you chose to include in your post.
Mangling of the truth? And what truth was mangled? The part about wasting time trying to pin down trump? Or the part about them really messing up so bad multiple times that 17 people are now dead as a direct result?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I disagree. I think the whole department is working distracted because of this pathetic display of political weaponization of the bureau.You can obviously "think the whole department is working distracted." What I bet you can't do is provide a shred of evidence that supports your thought.
Mangling of the truth? And what truth was mangled? The part about wasting time trying to pin down trump? Or the part about them really messing up so bad multiple times that 17 people are now dead as a direct result?
And now you mangle the subject about which I claim you mangled the truth!
Remember your original claim:
"...the FBI is more interested in pinning Trump to Russia than following procedure and actually protecting American Students by stopping this tragedy when they had the information and did not act upon it."
That is, you claimed the Bureau was more "interested" in investigating the Trump campaign than protecting students - it was a hybrid of the recent Trumpster community refrain that the FBI's distraction with the Trump investigation contributed to the Bureau's failure to respond to the warning signs it received.
THAT'S the truth you mangled, David, for there is NO evidence - and you offered NO evidence - that the FBI can't do more than one thing at a time, that the 35,000-strong agency can't handle federal AND local issues simultaneously. You provided NO evidence that the agents in south Florida missed the warning signs BECAUSE of the Trump probe. OF COURSE you can "think" it and post it. But thinking and posting is not proving.
Lots of reputations of high quality public servants - "the whole bureau," including the agents in your state and community - are shamelessly besmirched by such unproven claims.
-
David...to some people truth doesn't matter. Such people invent their own truths. I suspect you are being trolled. That is just my opinion.
-
@GaoLu said:
David...to some people truth doesn't matter. Such people invent their own truths. I suspect you are being trolled. That is just my opinion.We have known that for years now in the CD community.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@GaoLu said:
David...to some people truth doesn't matter. Such people invent their own truths. I suspect you are being trolled. That is just my opinion.We have known that for years now in the CD community.
I think the truth matters to everyone who contributes to this forum. And the purpose of debate is to uncover it or prove what we say is true. I disagree with some of the positions held by others, but do not doubt anyone's integrity for a second.
-
@Dave_L said:
I think the truth matters to everyone who contributes to this forum. And the purpose of debate is to uncover it or prove what we say is true. I disagree with some of the positions held by others, but do not doubt anyone's integrity for a second.It isn't the whistle that pulls the train. He that hath an ear, let him hear.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L said:
I think the truth matters to everyone who contributes to this forum. And the purpose of debate is to uncover it or prove what we say is true. I disagree with some of the positions held by others, but do not doubt anyone's integrity for a second.It isn't the whistle that pulls the train. He that hath an ear, let him hear.
I'm saying we should not judge others' motives. We only reveal our own hearts assuming their motive is the same as our own.
-
@Dave_L said:
I'm saying we should not judge others' motives. We only reveal our own hearts assuming their motive is the same as our own.A curious thought. Not sure I follow the sequitur.
-
In scripture we can judge people by their works, but not by their motives which only God knows.
-
@Dave_L said:
In scripture we can judge people by their works, but not by their motives which only God knows.I am not sure what you mean by "In scripture we can judge people..." but I sort of get the drift, maybe. The second part I think I get: "...not by their motives which only God knows."
Thanks for the clarification.
