Guns and Abortion, Both Need to be a Right of Choice

Mary Zeiss Stange, a columnist for the USA TODAY took a look into two very pressing issues that are affecting the Unites States each and every day. The two issues that are on the top of the agenda for many women around the country are abortion and firearms. Ms. Stange was prompted to write this article shortly after the “March for Women’s Lives” and the “Mother’s Day March to Halt the Assault” went through Washington DC. These marches sound at opposite ends of debates, but realistically go hand in hand when it comes to women’s rights. It is interesting to see that women will fight for their reproductive rights and at the same time fight to put a damper in their own personal security. The writer believes that if women are fighting to have choice whether or not to end a life then why would they want to end someone else’s right to have the choice to protect themselves against harm, by being able to arm themselves with a firearm. Take many rape cases for example, abortion would not even be an issue if a woman had a firearm on them when they were being attacked. In a sense women are fighting to put themselves in danger by not being able to own these firearms.
While the right for abortion mainly affects woman, the right to purchase and posses a firearm affects the entire country. The “Mother’s Day March to Halt the Assault” was to pressure Congress to extend a ban on assault weapons, which was set to expire in September of 2004. Once a group wins a victory over an issue such as assault weapons ban, there is no telling where these groups will stop when it comes to all firearms throughout the country. The columnist is shocked to see that so many women are fighting to end one of their rights of protection, especially in this day and age where a woman must be able to protect themselves as well as their families at home and abroad.
There is a lot on the line on each one of the debates if either of them is to take a drastic change from status queue. Pro choice activists say that if Congress would overturn the ruling on abortion and outlaw it completely there would be many back alley abortions which would lead to many women’s deaths from not being able to get the proper medical care and the correct procedure. Many anti-firearms women believe that if the ban expires then all the criminals and mentally unstable people will be able to stock up on these weapons and kill a lot of people. These claims are all speculation and very far out there if you ask a lot of people. If abortion were to be outlawed then many women would think twice before having unprotected sex because they know they can’t just end a life before it causes them any physical pain. The claim that if the assault weapons ban is lifted then all the criminals will be able to stock up one these weapons and kill many people is not entirely true. The criminals are already going to have these weapons even if the ban stays in affect. The only people this ban will hurt are the law abiding citizens that just want to protect their lives as well as their families by owning these firearms. A survey taken in favor of the right to posses a firearm showed that eighty seven percent of women would carry a firearm illegally if they felt it necessary for their safety. If there are that many people willing to break the law for their safety there in no possible way that another weapons ban will do any good.
One of the few errors in the article isthe statement that most criminals use guns against one another. This is true, but these criminals also use these weapons on many innocent civilians. Many of the attacks where civilian lives are lost are just because the civilians were in the wrong place at the wrong time, such as a bank robbery, gas station hold ups, and other tragic events. There are few times where assault weapons are used to kill civilians because a criminal had a grudge on them. Criminals will most often use an easy to conceal weapon such as a gun hand or even a knife.
The main people who need to be convinced by the article are those who it is directly aimed towards, the women in the United States. The columnist urges women to take a look into what they are exactly fighting for and look into the causes and affects their opinions could have on the country. The women who are pro choice should especially step back and see that they are fighting for women to have the right to choose for their reproductive rights and at the same time want the right for all other American’s to own assault weapons to remain banned. The writer quotes, “It is odd that when it comes to gun control, feminists welcome the same sorts of government intrusion on individual rights that they rightly abhor when it comes to reproductive freedom.”
The article was very well written and there were no facts presented that would be necessary to take out to persuade the readers on the side of the columnist. Some facts that could be added to the article should be how the percentage of crime would keep increasing due to the fact that the criminals know that the general public is unarmed. It would also be helpful to persuade some people if they knew exactly how many crimes such as rapes and muggings have been stopped because the potential victim had a weapon and was able to scare off the attacker.
The conclusion given in the editorial was good but it would be stronger if the writer would close with a personal article or statement from a rape victim that is for firearms and how there might have been a different outcome in there tragic experience if the woman would have been armed. Even giving a statement from a potential victim that scared off their attacker with a firearm would help the writer to persuade even more people. It would leave a lasting impression on the readers if they could realize just how important it is for the general public to be able to have the choice to own a firearm.

Analysis of Editorial

The main argument in the editorial is that some people are complaining that there are not enough laws to restrict the selling of guns to people. These columnists just take one bead egg and exploit it and make a case about it and imply it to the entire gun industry when there are just a few bad apples as there is in any other industry.

Some of the claims and allegations presented are:

This is one of the 238 weapons that seemed to have been stolen or missing by gun dealer Brian Borgelt. (Appeal to Ridicule)

Br. Borgelt has repeatedly failed to track sales and inventory and to properly file background checks on purchasers. (Appeal to Ridicule)

After the sniper attacks the government revoked his FFL license. (AD Baculum)

Mr. Borgelt then sold his shop to his friend and is still quite involved in the business.

A Federal study in 2001 showed that three out of five guns used by criminals to less than 2 percent of federally licensed gun shops. (Bias in Sampling)

The columnist claims that since after the shootings gun dealers are if anything worse than before. (Bias in Sampling)

The columnist also implies that Congress is too afraid to take on the gun lobby. (False Dilemma)

The columnist also believes that legislation in congress affecting gun control would just further weaken the powers of federal enforcement agents to conduct dealer audits and that it is almost impossible for federal agents to crack down on these shops because of all the red tape involved. (False Dilemma)

It can take years to close a gun shop because of strict laws. (False Dilemma)

Claims congress just passed laws after the shootings to protect the gun industry from civil law suits. (False Dilemma)

These facts are very easy to write when there is no physical proof and or no citing of the sources in which this columnist has found this information from.

Guns

This blog tells about how just because there is a couple bad gun dealers out there and crimes that have taken place people want gun stores and people's right to bear arms to be terminated!