If it saves ONE life...

Great post, John.

As charitable as the sentiment may seem, it is a utopian, elitist attempt to completely remove a perceived risk from society with heavy-handed, arrogant politics.

I recall a past Surgeon General that used this same approach with, "If it saves one child ...". Jocelyn Elders, I believe.
 
Last edited:
It's a lame argumentatiion device because it can be so easily refuted.

Then if posessing a gun saves one life - the previous argument is moot; and it can be easily proven that whatever style of gun you choose has already saved at least one life.
 
There is one life in Iran right now, that Obama refused to do anything about. An American preacher setting up orphanages was arrested back in June I think. If I remember correctly he's due to be executed today. Obama told his wife there was nothing he could do.

Just 1 life, Obama and you didn't even try.:mad:
 
I agree, just think of how many lives we could save if doctors were permitted to harvest organs from the elderly who are no longer contributing positively to society. We could also save more lives if we ban all motorcycles....and automobiles.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
We are stuck with other peoples fears. Their afraid so want to take action and "control" their environment, so they can "feel" safe. :(
 
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.
 
44 AMP said:
. . . .On reflection, it seems that the claim of "if it saves just one life.." is actually valid. But the lives saved will most often be those of the criminal attackers! . . . .
Click to expand...
This is dead on! It's not just about how many lives are saved, but which ones, as well.
 
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.
 
"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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
As much as those same people that firmly believe that in all the Amendments except the Second, the word PEOPLE means individuals. In the Second the word PEOPLE means militia.:rolleyes:

Drives me insane having that argument, and I've done it many times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top