Republicans love gun deaths

Candy, most Liberals argue that the father should have no say in the abortion.  Every Liberal argues that every baby gets no say in the abortion.

Nonsense. Utter bullcrap. Lies. Horseshit.

There is no baby to "have a say" in an abortion because no baby is involved--only a fetus, which is not a baby, no matter how much the conservitards say it is.

Now, back to the actual topic of this thread.

Candy, it's easy. You're right in that we can't really tell ahead of time when some addled loser is going to go off the deep end and shoot up a grocery store. What we can do, however, is make it much harder for him to do that. When you can go to any gun show, flash a few c-notes, and be handed a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute, something is seriously out of joint.

A ban on assault weapons is common sense. Mandatory background checks for all gun sales is common sense. What makes even more sense is to make private gun ownership illegal. Period. Second Amendment whine whine whine? Fine. Repeal it. Whatever jollies Cowboy Bob and Tucky Buckford get from fondling their collections of substitute penises are not adequate compensation for forty thousand gun deaths a year.

The simple truth is that no one needs a gun, NRA propaganda, "manhood," and "compensating for something" aside. And I definitely include self-defense; the number of opportunities to thwart a foul miscreant is vanishingly small, and is dwarfed by the number of deaths caused by having a hero manhood weapon in the house.

If conservitards continue to block universal background checks (and they will), perhaps they would support a broad list of exclusions from gun ownership, including mental health problem diagnoses, violent offense convictions, and so forth. Actually, naah, who am I kidding---they'll always get in the way of ANY meaningful gun reform. The gun lobby has the Republicans by the balls, and when stroking doesn't work, it tries squeezing. But usually, they don't need to exert any persuasive tactics. Gun love is alive and well in this country. Every time there's a mass shooting, there are thousands of people who fantasize about being the next shooter.

So apparently, the life of a viable unborn baby does not matter to some of you.  

There are roughtly 900 abortions of viable 3rd trimester babies each year. 

How many mass murders are there each year?

I think they both result in tragic deaths with people polarized on opposite sides.  If people, are really interested in "unity" and "saving lives", a compromise as "crazy" as what I suggest may be the only solution.

When a compromise is reached that satisfies nobody, you may have a "fair" solution.

https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/late_term_abortion_usa.html

Available data are sufficient to refute some claims regarding late-term abortions in the United States ("late-term" abortions here referring to abortions at >20 weeks' gestation). Here we use official data (from the Centers for Disease Control and state health agencies) to develop estimates of such abortions for 2005 to 2018. For the year 2018, best estimates (and plausible ranges in parentheses) for such abortions are: [B] 11,500 (9,100 to 15,400) at >20 weeks' gestation; 900 (400 to 1,600) at >24 weeks' gestation; and 160 (50 to 260) at >28 weeks' gestation. [/B] There were significant changes in the top states for percentages of late abortions in 2005-2018, reflecting relocations of late-term abortion "services". Based on information reported by Arizona, Florida, and Utah, probably 30-80% of late-term abortions are "elective" (non-health related), 20-60% are in cases of fetal health issues, and only 3-10% are in cases of maternal health. These figures are generally consistent with those reported both in Guttmacher Institute surveys and in past testimony by individuals who perform such abortions. 

By definition, there is no such thing as an "unborn baby." A baby, by definition, has been born.

By definition, anything that is "unborn" is not alive. A fetus is not alive, by definition. It is a part of its mother and cannot exist independently, which is a primary criterion for being alive.

I refer above to the science and the law regarding the matter. One's religious beliefs and/or emotions may say otherwise, but fortunately, we do not make our laws based on either.

It is a gross insult, based on the abovementioned emotions rather than reason, to say that people who support a woman's right to an abortion "don't care" about human lives or are mass murderers, blah blah blah blah blah. As a person who supports abortion rights, I can simply tell you that I believe that the rights of a woman take precedence over the (nonexistent) rights of a small blob of fetal tissue.

I deeply resent any such implication.

By definition a 3rd trimester "fetus" as you say IS VIABLE outside the mothers womb.  If a woman goes into labor in the 3rd trimester, there is a >90% chance of survival.  Aborting this fetus is killing a child who can and would live outside the womb.   A terrible thing.

Just as mass shootings with large gun clips is a terrible thing.

I am calling it what it is and offering solutions.  Some people love 3rd term abortions more than babies and some people love large clip guns more than innocent people.  If any of this makes you uncomfortable, I feel I've accomplished something.

Not at all. The gaping flaw in your argument is that "viable" is not the same as "alive." Aborting a fetus is NOT killing a child, regardless of what your emotions may tell you. The End.

Medical Viability Definition from Wikipedia - for your education and enlightenment:

There is no sharp limit of development, gestational age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable.^[1] While there is no sharp limit of development, gestational age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable,^[1] a 2013 study found that "While only a small proportion of births occur before 24 completed weeks of gestation (about 1 per 1000), survival is rare and most of them are either fetal deaths or live births followed by a neonatal death." ^[13] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 24 weeks of gestation survived, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survived.^[14]

^{Call me old fashioned, but I believe if a fetus were to "fall out" of the womb and have a >90% chance of survival, I consider that to be "alive".}   

^{You still proudly feel guns need many more restirctions while abortions any time are AOK.  That speaks volumes of your ability to think reasonably and your sense of humanity.}

You're speaking from emotion and religious belief, and therefore not rationally. The law must be rational, or it's useless.

Boom goes Kevin's "legal" argument - 38 states (including Democrat strongholds of Illinois, California, Massachusettes, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Washington) have laws on the books for fetal homocide where a person can be charged with the murder of an unborn baby.  How can one be charged with homocide for killing someone who is not alive?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization");