Why Gun Abolishment is needed for the Consistent Life Ethic and for Leftist Values

There's a bit of hypocrisy with the CLE and Leftist spaces not talking that much about gun abolition despite support of guns fundamentally clashing with all of the other values. Though there is a rising number of people who are because they are fed up with the amount of mass shootings in the US. But here are some of the reasons gun abolition fits in well with leftistism and the consistent life ethic.

Guns are the ultimate way to value property over people. When people say they would shoot someone who was trying to take their gun, they are showing that an object means more to them than someone else's life. They are putting the right to life below the right to own property. They are an example of someone who shouldn't own a gun because they think it's ok to kill someone so easily.

Thousands of accidental shootings happen in the US each year from guns. This is something that will never be able to go away based on giving people mental health because they were unintentional. It also means that gun control won't work in this area because someone could pass all the checks and still accidentally shoot someone. This happens in many different ways too...adults accidentally shooting kids, kids accidentally shooting adults, guns malfunctioning, cats and dogs accidentally stepping on guns and setting them off etc. Those lives shouldn't be cast aside as necessary casualties because people don't want to give up their guns. 

The Gun Industrial Complex makes a lot of money off of the sales of guns, accessories, hunting licenses etc. There are many different companies who have their hands in the pot when it comes to guns. The NRA is the head of the gun lobby and makes sure that guns remain legal because it's a multi billion dollar industry, bringing in tens of billions of dollars per year.

There are a million different ways to defend yourself and the idea that we have no other choice but to use guns to defend ourselves is manipulative and comes from the gun industry saying that because they just want to make money, just like how the abortion industry manipulates people into thinking they need abortion in order to have freedom. It's a capitalistic effort. People defend themselves in many different ways and with many different things on a constant basis and yet the gun lobby makes sure that the concept of self-defense is tied to guns so that people feel like they *need* guns...like they have no other choice but to buy guns or else they'll die. As we have seen with other subjects, industries make people feel like they have no other choice but to do something because it's the easiest way to make sure they do it and help pump billions into the industry.

This has resulted in there being over a hundred million more guns than people in the US. "More guns" can never be the answer when there is an excess of guns already. We have too many guns to even use. Because of the capitalist effort of the Gun Industrial Complex convincing more and more people to support guns so that the industry turns a profit, even when it goes against their other values, guns now outnumber the number of people that can use them. We need to go after the manufacturers who are preying on the vulnerable to get them to support guns so that they can turn a profit with their blood money.

Due to the capitalistic efforts of the gun lobby and industry, gun culture here in the USA is extreme and that's why so many people support guns here. They wouldn't had they been raised somewhere else, which we have seen by the rest of the world being extremely confused and scared by our gun culture. People are afraid to travel here because of the huge amount of gun support. Gun culture is a systemically oppressive power structure. It's an extreme form of toxic masculinity. It's treated as normal and kids are raised to believe that buying a gun is no big deal. Parents teach their kids how to shoot at young ages so that they think that's just what people do.

Guns cause a lot of trauma for groups that are most affected by them, such as women and POC and LGBTQIA+ folks. Women and female bodied people are many times more likely to die in domestic violence situations with a gun in the house. POC are more likely to die by the police shooting them than white people are. The answer to the police or the government having guns is not to make it easier for them to have guns, it's to call for disarmament and abolishment.

But instead of calling to disarm the police, people call to support more guns. When we are told that we have to use that which oppresses us, we are being oppressed further. It's like telling us that to fight rape, we have to become rapists ourselves. That harms us as well. When you, your friends or family members, or your minority group has been affected by gun violence, it is traumatizing to see people support guns. I love orgs like Gays Against Guns because they help show that minority groups, which are disproportionately victims of gun violence, need to stand up against guns, not support them. The systems that oppress us want us to support guns so that we will continue to be oppressed. It allows easier access for our oppressors to get their hands on guns.

The second amendment needs to be repealed because it is an unjust law. Just because a law exist doesn't mean it should continue to exist. We know this because Roe v Wade is an unjust law that was repealed for being unjust. There's no good reason to own a gun. Hunting animals is wrong, and there are a million different ways to defend yourself outside of guns. There are even various other objects to use for target practice. They're not needed even if the Gun Industrial Complex tries to manipulate us into believing they are.

The idea that banning guns won't stop people from getting guns is no different from the idea that banning abortions won't stop people from getting abortions. We already know that that's a bad argument so we shouldn't be using it with other subjects. Though banning isn't the end all be all. We need a cultural shift. We need each individual being able to have the strength to pull themselves out of the clutches of the lies that the gun lobby has spread and taking a stand against it.

When people bring up cars, they don't seem to realize that if the sole purpose of cars was to hurt and kill then yes everyone would support them being banned. And if you can use any household object to kill someone then you can use those same household objects to defend yourself and you don't need a gun. And if people kill people, and the problem is people, then why would you want the problem to have guns? The arguments those who support guns use are hypocritical in terms of how they view other subjects and just bad arguments overall.

It's hypocritical to support guns while being against the death penalty or assisted suicide. If you think a murderer shouldn't be killed for being a murderer (and I agree) then it makes no sense to say that someone robbing you should be shot to death. If you think people shouldn't be killed in war (and I agree) then it makes no sense to say someone breaking into your home while they think you are away should be shot to death. Guns are also the ultimate way to provide suicide assistance because it's one of the more lethal ways to do it and a hell of a lot more people would kill themselves if they had access to guns. It makes no sense to say you are against euthanasia/assisted suicide, or say phrases like "suicide prevention, not suicide assistance" and then turn around and support putting guns into the hands of people who will later use them to kill themselves.

There's nothing about supporting guns that fits in with a culture of life, equity, and social justice. Guns are violence just like abortion, war, the death penalty, animal agriculture, and police brutality. The arguments used to support guns are very similar, if not exactly the same, to the arguments to support of any other form of violence. Guns inherently go against the right to life. For further reading, please check out The Socialist Case for Gun Control by Nivedita Majumdar and What Gun Control Advocates Can Learn From Abolitionists: Slave ownership was once as entrenched in American life as gun ownership. by Manisha Sinha and Rebecca Onion.

Parallels of Veganism and Pro-lifeism

When talking about the comparisons of the issues of abortion and animal farming + exploitation, it seems that there are two similar sides that we can look at. The similarities between vegan arguments and pro-life arguments, and the similarities between animal exploitation arguments and pro-choice arguments. Similarities between veganism and pro-lifeism: *Both are centered around the idea of respecting life, especially that of the particularly innocent, vulnerable, voiceless, helpless, defenseless etc. *Right to life is present in both. With pro-lifeism, of course the unborn child is being killed so a focus is put on the fact that they have a right to not be killed and to continue their lives, and with veganism, animals get killed and thus a focus is put on them having a right to not be killed and to continue their lives. *Right to not be harmed and bodily autonomy, as well as the right to not be seen as property to be disposed of as one sees fit, is present in both. In an abortion, the child is dismembered with medical tools or sucked apart or poisoned etc. This harms them and takes away their bodily rights as their bodies are being harmed and destroyed. They are considered their parents’ property and they are at the will of their parents. With animal farming/consuming/exploiting, there are many different ways in which the bodies of animals are harmed and they are treated as objects and their bodily rights are taken away as well, whether that be abuse like being beaten over the head in some factory farms, or the stress of being artificially inseminated and having to give birth and being constantly milked, or going through training in circuses etc. They are literally considered the property of farmers and are at the will of those who farm them, train them, or are otherwise considered their owners. *Both point out that if one can't stand to look at gruesome pictures that are the end result of what they are supporting (abortion pictures/slaugtherhouse pictures), then they don't want to be supporting it in the first place. The idea is that if one finds it offensive then you are saying that something you support is offensive...so why are you supporting it? *Both see the genocide that is happening right before our eyes, and understand that it is prejudice and oppression. Both have trouble understanding why after learning our lesson with the past genocides, we still continue with this one. Some on each side make comparisons to the holocaust and slavery/racism as well as sexism. *Both mention that abortion or animal consuming/using aren't necessary, and talk about the other options that one has. For why should we go out of our way to cause all this death and destruction when we don't have to? For abortion, there is adoption (of which you can have open, closed, or semi-open, and they are free to adopt out), safe-haven/safe-surrender/baby-moses laws which let you leave the child at any police station, hospital, or fire department, no questions asked, kinshipcare or guardianshipcare, where you give the child to a family member or close friend to be raised, and this can be long-term or short-term, or a ton of options for help if the woman does think she can be a parent with the right help. That goes into various avenues such as financial, daycare, baby drives, housing, rights for pregnant women at school or in the workplace and things to make it easier like desks that fit the stomachs of pregnant women or set ups for her to work or learn from home etc. There's also talk of artificial wombs. With veganism, there's literally a vegan version of everything. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of edible plants that we have discovered so far and literally a vegan version of everything. If it's possible to make it non-vegan, it's possible to make it vegan. There are tons of vegan options at every store and you can veganize fast food meals as well. Those who are poor can be vegan, as many of us are. There are vegan leathers and soaps and this and that and the other. *Right to rescue is present in both. In the 80s and 90s, the pro-life rescue movement was underway with pro-lifers occupying preborn slaughterhouses to save the women and children inside. There has been a modern resurgence of this lately, led by secular progressive pro-life activists such as in PAAU. Animal rights activists also rescue animals from factory farms and other such things, such as with the recent Smithfield Trial which was a victory for members of DXE who saved a few pigs from slaughter. *Right to continue living so as to continue to use the other rights and choices they would have is present in both. Pro-lifers often talk about how the most important right is the right to life, as all other rights would be meaningless without it as you wouldn't be alive to get to use them. Vegans often point out that animals are here for their own reasons, just like us, to have their own lives and do their own things. They aren't here to be objects for the use of humans. That brings me to a related issue on the reverse... Similarities between non-veganism and pro-choiceism: *Both use a "choice" argument, and forget the victim at hand and their choices, and act like the perpetrator needs to have a choice to harm the victim. With animal using and consuming, they think it has to be the ones partaking in the using or consuming that need to have a choice to do so. Often you'll l hear something like, "It's my choice to eat meat. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you don't eat meat, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." With abortion it's the same thing, with the mother getting to choose to take her unborn child to a facility to be dismembered and killed. "It's my choice to get an abortion. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you wouldn't get an abortion, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." *Similarly, both use the bodies of those committing the act instead of the bodies of the victims to act like somehow disregarding one's bodily autonomy is the bodily right of another. For abortion, "It's my body, my choice." and sometimes "If it's in my body I can kill it." For animal consuming/wearing, "It's my body, my choice. I get to choose what goes in/on my body." Both actions require harming and killing someone else's body, but only the bodies of the ones doing said harming will ever be paid attention to for these sides. Forgetting the victim and acting like it's the other side that is in the wrong because they are infringing on the rights of those taking away the rights of others is an old way to pass off discrimination. *Both exploit women, those who are pregnant, and the female reproductive system, break up the mother and baby bond, and kill children. The abortion industry and pro-choice movement tell pregnant people that they cannot be mothers in whatever hard situations they are in so they have no other choice but to abort, or that their children are not children but just clumps of cells. This is exploitative and coercive. Abortion pits mother against child, breaking up the mother-baby bond and kills the pregnant person's baby for a profit. Many post-abortive people grieve their dead children afterward and develop PTSD or depression. The dairy, pork, veal, and eggs industries exploit female farm animals by forcing them to get pregnant so that they can produce milk or more animals to farm, stealing their babies so that the milk can go to humans or to kill the babies who are of no use to the egg industry or can become veal, and send the female children back into the same systems their mothers are in. This not only exploits the mothers and kills the children but also breaks up the mother and baby bond. Mothers are known to grieve their children who were taken from them. *Both use overpopulation as an excuse to kill the victims. With abortion, they say that humans are overpopulated and thus we shouldn't have anymore, as well as that since they think the earth is overpopulated, they'll have a horrible life so we might as well not allow them to exist so as to spare them a life in the overpopulated world. With animal consuming/using, they say that animals are overpopulated so we need to kill them so that their overpopulation doesn't get in the way. *Both use things such as pain, sentience, intelligence, size, looks, and ability to contribute to society as a way to belittle the victims and excuse killing and harming. They say that those who have yet to be born can't feel pain, aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. They say that those of other species can't feel pain (the classic "fish don't feel pain" myth for example), aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, animals like insects are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. Both of these not only are incorrect *at the very least* for some of those who have yet to be born and some animals, but also forget that there are many born humans, such as infants and other children and those along the wide spectrum of disabilities and diseases who also fall in those categories, yet they understand then that those things don't matter at all. How can you argue that if one isn't intelligent, they can be killed, if you understand that a born human who is mentally challenged needs even more protection than the average person? It's a might makes right attitude as well. "I'm bigger than you/smarter than you etc., so since I can kill you because you have less abilities than me, I should be allowed to have that choice." Discriminating against a group based off of their abilities, or Ableism, is another classic way to pass off discrimination, and is closely tied to eugenics. It has been said that you have to look at someone's differences and act like that makes you better, in order to get people to successfully oppress a group. For the unborn it's dehumanizing, for other animals it's speciesism. *Both use the arguments that these things have been happening for so long/are natural, and that people will still do them even if it's outlawed. Abortion is ancient so women will still find a way to do it they say. Animal eating is ancient and what we need to be doing they say. God put animals on earth for us to use they say. God aborts babies all the time they say. *Both try to brush off the act by talking about the fact that it is legal, as if somehow something being legal therefore makes it ok, or that somehow you shouldn’t advocate for the other side as if things can’t change from legal to illegal. *Both try to find ways to defend at least some abortion or animal killing/harming. With abortion they say "well it's ok if it's below a certain amount of weeks/well it's ok if she was raped/well it's ok if the child has a disability etc." With animal killing they usually go for the ones labeled "humane" "organic" "grass fed" “cage free" “free rage" without realizing the problems with these, or they point to specific animals. Or they'll just say "I wouldn't eat a dog but a pig is different." *Ultimately, both look at the differences we have from these groups rather than our similarities and use that as a way to exert power and control over them and "other" them to the point of death, dismemberment, and exploitation.