The anti-gun crowd is fond of saying that if just 1 life is saved by outlawing firearms, then passing such legislation will have been worth it. I believe that the pro-gun groups should co-opt the same slogan when pushing for CCW and pro-firearms laws. After all, we do believe that ownership of firearms by private citizens saves many more innocent lives.
"If just 1 life is saved..."
- Thread starter Pipper
- Start date
Unfortunately, the socialistic press and their firearm confiscation friends appeal to a thoughtless, self deceived crowd on the basis of emotion. They fail to mention, (because they decieve), that even when looking at the situation from a pragmatic point of view, rather than a philosophically principled viewpoint; that gun confiscation does not save life but relieves populations of people from their lives. "Hows that for a run on sentence. I'm just trying to get back at my English teachers of days gone by...."
That "just one life saved" hokey that the registration/ confiscation/ permit crowd espouses is quite litterally evil. That is not just my humble opinion. That is the opinion of many societies that were eventually denied the full liberty to exercise their God-given rights to self protection, only to be eventually denied their God-given rights to live free of mass rapes, tortures, and murders. These are the eventual conclusions of firearm laws following their slippery slope to disarmament.
Pipper, I agree with you that ownership of firearms by private citizens saves many more innocent lives. The above is not directed at you, but is rather expanding on what you have said. However, the ONLY truly pro-firearms laws that could be passed are those which abolish the ones already on the books. I know that there are pro-gun groups out there that talk about "enforcing those gun laws already on the books." But there are way too many on the books already. In fact I believe that it would be quite easy to show that any laws directed at this particular class of weapons used RATHER than the crime/criminal is useless, at best. The Vermont, no need to register or gain federal/ state permission, carry legislation is the only way to go.
I think that the premise of just how many lives are actually saved through self defense is a good one Pipper. Whether it be self defense from criminals (who don't obey the laws that the govt imposes), or self defense from the law makers (that kill far more people than the common street criminals).
Their comparison is a comparitively small group.... a handful. Ours counts into the tens of millions!
I don't have the time to right a term paper here and I doubt if anyone wants to read any more of my lengthy comments. But if you want some good reading and a place to start research on the subject, check out jpfo.org . They have some good info.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
That "just one life saved" hokey that the registration/ confiscation/ permit crowd espouses is quite litterally evil. That is not just my humble opinion. That is the opinion of many societies that were eventually denied the full liberty to exercise their God-given rights to self protection, only to be eventually denied their God-given rights to live free of mass rapes, tortures, and murders. These are the eventual conclusions of firearm laws following their slippery slope to disarmament.
Pipper, I agree with you that ownership of firearms by private citizens saves many more innocent lives. The above is not directed at you, but is rather expanding on what you have said. However, the ONLY truly pro-firearms laws that could be passed are those which abolish the ones already on the books. I know that there are pro-gun groups out there that talk about "enforcing those gun laws already on the books." But there are way too many on the books already. In fact I believe that it would be quite easy to show that any laws directed at this particular class of weapons used RATHER than the crime/criminal is useless, at best. The Vermont, no need to register or gain federal/ state permission, carry legislation is the only way to go.
I think that the premise of just how many lives are actually saved through self defense is a good one Pipper. Whether it be self defense from criminals (who don't obey the laws that the govt imposes), or self defense from the law makers (that kill far more people than the common street criminals).
Their comparison is a comparitively small group.... a handful. Ours counts into the tens of millions!
I don't have the time to right a term paper here and I doubt if anyone wants to read any more of my lengthy comments. But if you want some good reading and a place to start research on the subject, check out jpfo.org . They have some good info.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
If somewhere between 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped each year by a person with a handgun, then that accounts for a lot of "one life's" being saved by guns.
I think that it should be driven home to people that while outlawing guns or restricting their availabilty might stop a FEW criminals from misusing them, people having guns available to stop violent crimes allows 100,00's of thousands of good people to SAVE lives every year.
With the good comes the bad. Fortunatly, guns do many times more good than bad. (In fact, guns are used in less and less crime every year...it is the media that is making it sound like we have a growing problem). Just like with cars or kitchen knives, we have to accept the small percentage of abuse (only ~%1 or less of guns each year are used in crime, that means that %99 of the time, guns are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing and saving lives directly or indirectly).
The problem is, we hear in excrutiating detail every time a gun is misused, but no one wants to talk about all the cases where guns save lives every day. I wish they would just put one out of every ten stories about how a gun stopped a crime on the news.
A twelve year old near me chased off an intruder with a baseball bat recently, and it was on the news "what a hero he was" and "what a great story". The same thing happens with a gun, and no one hears about it, because no one wants to talk about a twelve year old using an "evil gun" to save a life.
Anyway, I think it is a good idea to turn their own slogan against them. Make an ad with someone being beaten with a bat, and say "If only one life is saved, it is worth it", then show a CCW carrier stopping the beating and saving the life. It happens all the time, it is not a stretch of truth. In fact, similar situations happen millions of times a year. Let's use their slogan against them and show how guns save lives. Use emotional ads showing guns saving just one innocent person in a realistic scenario, possibly using a real recent crime as an example, then then say "If it saves just One life it is worth it....but handguns actually stop more than ONE violent crime...they stop millions, every year."
I think that it should be driven home to people that while outlawing guns or restricting their availabilty might stop a FEW criminals from misusing them, people having guns available to stop violent crimes allows 100,00's of thousands of good people to SAVE lives every year.
With the good comes the bad. Fortunatly, guns do many times more good than bad. (In fact, guns are used in less and less crime every year...it is the media that is making it sound like we have a growing problem). Just like with cars or kitchen knives, we have to accept the small percentage of abuse (only ~%1 or less of guns each year are used in crime, that means that %99 of the time, guns are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing and saving lives directly or indirectly).
The problem is, we hear in excrutiating detail every time a gun is misused, but no one wants to talk about all the cases where guns save lives every day. I wish they would just put one out of every ten stories about how a gun stopped a crime on the news.
A twelve year old near me chased off an intruder with a baseball bat recently, and it was on the news "what a hero he was" and "what a great story". The same thing happens with a gun, and no one hears about it, because no one wants to talk about a twelve year old using an "evil gun" to save a life.
Anyway, I think it is a good idea to turn their own slogan against them. Make an ad with someone being beaten with a bat, and say "If only one life is saved, it is worth it", then show a CCW carrier stopping the beating and saving the life. It happens all the time, it is not a stretch of truth. In fact, similar situations happen millions of times a year. Let's use their slogan against them and show how guns save lives. Use emotional ads showing guns saving just one innocent person in a realistic scenario, possibly using a real recent crime as an example, then then say "If it saves just One life it is worth it....but handguns actually stop more than ONE violent crime...they stop millions, every year."
In this firefight with the anti-gun crowd, gun owners are armed with reason and the Constitution - federal and state. Gun controllers and would-be confiscators, on the other hand, have immersed themselves in emotion and self-righteousness. Gun owners seek to protect something tangible: their Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms, and with it the ability to defend themselves, if necessary, through their own efforts. They also understand that the founders designed the Second Amendment as a check on potentially oppressive government, especially federal government. The assurance that the Bill of Rights would include just such an amendment was necessary to win constitutional ratification from the legislatures of the original 13 states.
The anti-gun crowd sees little merit in the Second Amendment. Since they don't intend to exercise it, they're more than willing to give up their right to bear arms, especially if they can deny that right to everyone else. Gun control utopians just want the nasty things to go away. Once law-abiding citizens have surrendered their guns, these wishful thinkers sincerely hope that criminals can be disarmed, as well. Hoping tends to be a major element of their public policy agenda. They see no virtue in an armed citizenry as a deterrent to oppressive government precisely because they have unbridled confidence in government activism. They crave new laws and regulations, at any price, to reduce risk and make us all safer.
For them, the promise of safety trumps freedom. These are the kind of people who revel in the plea: "Even if it would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?" (The rational answer to which is usually, "no.") Passing a law, to them, is like a religious experience. They take it on faith that even the most impractical law will produce the desired outcome. It doesn't matter that they've passed a bad law, if the act of passing it makes them feel better.
------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
[This message has been edited by Elker_43 (edited October 12, 1999).]
The anti-gun crowd sees little merit in the Second Amendment. Since they don't intend to exercise it, they're more than willing to give up their right to bear arms, especially if they can deny that right to everyone else. Gun control utopians just want the nasty things to go away. Once law-abiding citizens have surrendered their guns, these wishful thinkers sincerely hope that criminals can be disarmed, as well. Hoping tends to be a major element of their public policy agenda. They see no virtue in an armed citizenry as a deterrent to oppressive government precisely because they have unbridled confidence in government activism. They crave new laws and regulations, at any price, to reduce risk and make us all safer.
For them, the promise of safety trumps freedom. These are the kind of people who revel in the plea: "Even if it would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?" (The rational answer to which is usually, "no.") Passing a law, to them, is like a religious experience. They take it on faith that even the most impractical law will produce the desired outcome. It doesn't matter that they've passed a bad law, if the act of passing it makes them feel better.
------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
[This message has been edited by Elker_43 (edited October 12, 1999).]
Eutopian socialism is the main philosophy behind this belief that the media and antigunners in general hold to. And they don't even know this well enough to express it in rational terms. You are right about the emmotionalism. The "bleeding heart liberals" will never realize that many millions of heart WILL bleed, quite literally if they get their way. They have shown by their lack of belief in human rights given by God, that they have little respect for life and an arrogant desire to control everyone elses life but their own. This control by them, thru govt, will lead to this eutopia. For great examples of this eutopian society, why don't they look at China, or the United Soviet Socialist Republic, or the National Socialist (NAZI) WWII Germany? They used the same philosophy to start with and look how many lives they saved. NO, they took lives! Innocent lives!
Reasoning and campaigns do not help with the eutopians. Education DOES help however, with those who WANT to know the truth. The very examples and numbers that you all mentioned might just persuade the uninformed, who do not rely upon, nor trust the eutopian socialists in the media and public schools.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
Reasoning and campaigns do not help with the eutopians. Education DOES help however, with those who WANT to know the truth. The very examples and numbers that you all mentioned might just persuade the uninformed, who do not rely upon, nor trust the eutopian socialists in the media and public schools.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)