January 21, 2013, 09:23 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2011
Location: Gillette, WY
Posts: 135
|
Just think of all the lives that could be saved if everyone was locked in a padded room and fed through a slot.
|
January 21, 2013, 09:25 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Excellent analysis John. Thank you for taking the time to put it together.
|
January 21, 2013, 10:01 AM | #28 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,672
|
Actually, we need to use it daily, even repeatedly.
Driving while intoxicated kills 10,000 people a year. Alcohol needs to be regulated exactly as the anti's propose for guns - after all, if it saves one life, it's worth it. Mandatory three day wait for purchase. If it saves one life . . Mandatory capacity limit equal to three beers. If it saves one life . . Registered buyers list, with full and complete documentation each time, to show they were in possession while driving. If it saves one life . . . There a law sitting on the DOT desk about mandatory requirements for a back up camera. 160 children a year are killed because the driver (usually Mom) can't see where they are. That's 260% of the number shot in school. Ask why it hasn't been forced on the automakers yet, after all, if it saves one life . . . We could go on for pages with examples. The point is, USE IT! The more you use it, the quicker it becomes a tired cliche, and someone who might have been responsive to it initially will quickly be aware of how it's used to take advantage of them. After all, if it saves one life, it's worth it! |
January 21, 2013, 10:39 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
I played in my band at church yesterday. I went to greet some folks who are winter visitors. One of the wives asked me what I did in my spare time. I told her I play a lot of music and I shoot a lot.
They looked at me like I must be nuts. I won't bore you with the conversation but the outcome was fairly predictable. They do not understand how anyone would want to own firearms and would like to see them just go away. While the conversation was civil. . .I really wanted to slap some sense into them. Sadly, there are a lot of people who feel the same way. Some we know and some we don't. It does not matter that cars and alcohol kill many more than guns and in each of those cases we hold the PERSON accountable. With guns, that anger is directed at an inanimate object. It just defies logic.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
January 21, 2013, 10:47 AM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: March 5, 2012
Location: Valley Forge, PA
Posts: 80
|
If it "saves just one life" and costs $500 million dollars, we can't afford it.
If we were talking about something that could prevent homicide, rape, and aggravated assaults nationwide, then we might be talking.... oh right, firearms can already do that today for no extra money. |
January 21, 2013, 11:31 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
|
44 AMP nailed it:
Quote:
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member |
|
January 21, 2013, 02:09 PM | #32 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Excellent analysis. "If it saves one life" is the same lazy and cheap rhetorical dishonesty as "it's for the children."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
January 21, 2013, 02:20 PM | #33 |
Member
Join Date: October 29, 2012
Posts: 89
|
Whenever I hear that I ask how many lives would have been saved if our fathers (grand fathers in most cases now) did not fight WWII. No need to elaborate.
Bob |
January 21, 2013, 02:23 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2011
Location: Gillette, WY
Posts: 135
|
We are stuck with other peoples fears. Their afraid so want to take action and "control" their environment, so they can "feel" safe.
|
January 21, 2013, 02:23 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
Re this ïf it saves one life"", a couple of things come to mind.
1. The question of will it comes to mind. 2. Sound suspiciously like "do it for the children", which was and remains another load of crap. |
January 21, 2013, 02:47 PM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
January 21, 2013, 03:39 PM | #37 |
Member
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
|
As of 1998, airbags saved 22 people for every 1 person they killed, according to the NHTSA. Firearms are also used to save more lives than they are used to take unjustly.
And that's another concept a lot of people cannot fathom: the justified killing of another human being. |
January 21, 2013, 05:02 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,149
|
"If it saves one life" could be used as a reason to curtail any first Ten Ammendments in the name of the 'common good', something America seems all too willing to do these days.
We violate the 1st because all those protesters might just hurt someone. The 2nd because the US Constutution apparently isn't law in NY,CA,MD,NJ The 4th because they might be selling DRUGS. The 5th because again they MIGHT BE SELLING DRUGS! The 6th because he's a 'terrist. The 8th because 3 strikes is 3 strikes. etc. But if it just saves one life isn't it worth it? Answer: No. Americans didn't fight and die for a piecemeal Constitution. How about we just not screw with the bill of rights? |
January 21, 2013, 07:41 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,783
|
Quote:
Drives me insane having that argument, and I've done it many times.
__________________
Stevie-Ray Join the NRA/ILA I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed. |
|
January 21, 2013, 08:03 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
|
January 21, 2013, 09:06 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2011
Location: Gillette, WY
Posts: 135
|
Quote:
|
|
January 21, 2013, 09:34 PM | #42 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
We are getting railroaded by the uninformed masses, and it is happening because tens of millions have been convinced by our "education" system that we live in a "Democracy", that you can depend upon the government to give you everthing you might need, and that other people's property and rights can be taken because it is expedient to some popular "need". These "needs' can be manufactured whenever necessary, with the help of an effective political machine and a compliant press ..... it has happened before and it always ends up the same: The State amasses power at the expense of the Individual..... "If it only saves one life ....." is an excuse to stop thinking .... and an excuse for the State to do anything it wants, to whoever it wants, whenever, just so long as they can whip up popular support. |
|
February 26, 2013, 12:21 AM | #43 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
|
A couple of other treatments of this general topic with slightly different twists.
This author calls it the "Fallacy of Infinite Value", and points out that life, while valuable, is not infinitely valuable as the "If it saves one life..." argument implies. Society makes daily decisions that weigh the cost of human life against various returns. http://scruffylookingcatherder.com/?tag=/Infinite+Value This author approaches the fallacy from the standpoint that while the "If it saves one life..." argument attempts to imply that human life is being weighed against something less valuable, it is very often true that a more careful analysis will demonstrate that there is actually a life vs. life balance that is not immediately obvious. http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2013...mensurability/ For example, the argument that banning privately owned guns must be done if it saves one life, generally ignores the fact that privately owned guns are frequently used to save lives. In the final analysis, banning them could actually cost more lives than it saves.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
February 26, 2013, 01:05 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2010
Posts: 3,513
|
The argument itself makes me sick, and is probably the most Un-American thing to ever come out of a presidents mouth. Obama is basically saying if giving up your freedoms saves just one life it is worth it. Well, hate to break it to you buddy, but our country was founded by people GIVING their lives to protect our freedoms, and Obama wants to take them away with the stroke of a pen. Absolutely disgusting.
|
February 26, 2013, 02:00 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,360
|
I feel the same way; its is a false "feel-good" statement that sounds nice at first, but really is not a logical idea.
What If it saves one child's life, but allows hundreds or thousands to be stripped of their freedoms and rights? It goes along with the concept, punish the masses for the mistakes of the few. what disgusted me the most was when Obama signed his EO's while surrounded by children he used to parade his (I will call it) "Anti-Rights" orders. |
February 26, 2013, 10:24 AM | #46 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Reading the first article linked by JohnSKa is also related, though certainly not identical, to one of the arguments that I have raised. I don't know if it has a proper title, but I think of it as the "value judgment" argument.
The anti-gun folks keep saying "if it saves only one life, X must be done!" One problem with this thinking is that it operates on the assumption that all lives are of equal value. I take the (politically unpopular) position that some lives are actually more valuable than others. I've been called out for saying that I don't really care about the statistics on "gun deaths." (as though those are really any more problematic than, say, "chisel deaths.") There's a reason that I'm not all that concerned about the numbers, though. I've made a value decision: I value the lives of my friends and family members more than I value the lives of methheads who kick in doors at 3 a.m. That is one of several reasons that I own firearms. When I have time to illustrate this principle, I use what I call the Magical Gun Law example: Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
February 26, 2013, 11:11 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
If you are interested in the psych world's scholarly literature's main book on exactly this type of stupid decision making
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Shows how the emotional outweighs the rational.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 26, 2013, 11:22 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 213
|
If it saves ONE life...
Stole your post spats. I like it.
|
February 26, 2013, 11:41 AM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Actuarially, not so much. The insurance industry (and the courts) do it all the time. And this is where the whole thing breaks down. When you compare the cost of these measures with the value, in actuarial terms, of one child's life... it's absurd. But I'm really, really careful in picking the people with whom I use this argument. Most hate it. "Priceless" is one of my least favorite words.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
February 27, 2013, 08:53 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
Has anyone given much thought to the end game?
We have seen that gun bans don't have the desired effect. Assuming the worst and law abiding citizens are disarmed AND violence does not decrease, what comes next? I don't think I will see it in my lifetime but people who really love the ability and freedom to do what you want when you want and to go anywhere you want without having to show your papers are going to have to remain vigilant. Maybe I am paranoid but what I see is a move by some to have total control over others without the fear of armed pushback. I would love to be left alone. It seems that far too many people just do not grasp that.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|