Young's Excellent Adventure in Gun Control Debate, Part 1

This is first of the breakdown regarding the Facebook posts from last month in the wake of the Newtown killings.

Here's the the WH petition that started this:  Support Law Abiding Gun Owners

[Link to the WH petition that I signed:  Immediately Address Gun Control Legislation]

We ask President Obama to support law abiding gun owners in this time of tragedy.

We ask President Obama to stand with law abiding gun owners in this time of tragedy. Guns laws could not have prevented Adam Lanza from killing 27 innocents. The real question is what made this disturbed young man into a murderer of children. Where is the outrage at the violent video games he played? A piece of plastic and steel doesn't have a will Mr. President. Evil is not law abiding, and Adam Lanza stole those guns after failing to buy one legally. it is America's law abiding gun owners who would have died with Victoria Soto and Dawn Hochsprung defending the children with only our bodies on December 14th, because it was already illegal to bring a gun into that school. Please don't pander to the politics Mr. President. A feeding frenzy of new gun legislation is not the answer.

Created: Dec 16, 2012

Having read this petition, I posted the following question:

Young Ho Kim Why do we need more guns when the shooter got the assault weapons from his mother's collection, supposedly a "law abiding gun owner"? Please enlighten me.

I mentioned "more guns" because the petition refers to the fact that it was illegal to bring a gun to the Sandy Hook Elementary.  My friend answered in a way that left me wondering if he even read the petition:

Name Removed I don’t know why you need more guns, but I own them to protect my family, my property and my liberty. It’s a right as designed by the founders of this country. If you want to take an indignant tone then focus that energy on the genocide that happens every day. More than 3000 babies in the womb are killed every day in the USA Over 1 million deaths. More than the top 10 killers combined. But I don’t hear the press calling for the end of abortion. You can't value those lives any less than the 20 that were killed. Selective indignation.  
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151337138501967&set=a.10150432746101967.412210.293920086966&type=1&theater

The image above makes a good comparison of gun deaths vs. other deaths, but I think that is sidetracking the issue at hand which is reducing gun violence.  My friend's entire argument is that if we are to work on preventing deaths, then go after the cause that is killing the most number of people.  Granted, a valid point to make, and aside from the deaths marked "unintentional", I believe there are people and groups advocating to prevent all of these deaths.  But why not reduce gun violence?  Only because it kills the fewest number of people based on the graphic above?

Then his point made a dramatic shift toward abortion because that kills way more than any of the ones listed above.  Wow.  How did my friend end up there?  Apparently, a death is a death, a killing a killing, they are all alike, regardless of the circumstances.  Therefore, only the most number of deaths should really matter, if at all.  This is a typical line of reasoning from most conservatives and libertarians that all situations and incidents are the same--e.g. racism, reverse-discrimination, affirmative action, quotas--all the same.  Aborting an embryo or fetus as an exercise of a woman's reproductive rights is the same as a deranged killer shooting 20 kindergarten-age children.  Wow, really?

I realize that this is arguing without giving equal time to my FB friend, but then right-wingers don't much like the fairness doctrines, either, so...part 2 coming soon.