Posted on 01/11/2013 7:00:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
But, OTOH it may TAKE several lives while saving 1!
I think it was Thomas Sowell who wrote about this “if it saves 1” logic years ago in his column.
If gun control saves ONE life, how many lives will it take by preventing citizens from protecting themselves?
As Levin said last night. Unless they bring back DDT and larger/safer cars...
Plugs is full of shyt.
They’re going after guns because it is a conservative cause. It’s a way to blame shootings on conservatives. Purely, a political strategy, has nothing to do with saving lives.
Even Biden who is mighty stupid is not so stupid as to believe the diarrhea that flows out of his mouth. He along with the tyrant occupying the president’s mansion are simply excreting out the same old tired stuff to try and push their dream - A society where only the police and military are armed
“If it saves one life”- the last refuge of a statist looking to enslave you. Better to lose 10,000 lives as free-men, than to live safely as a slave.
If he won’t entertain the proven life saving method of letting upstanding citizens be armed, if he won’t investigate what HAS cut would-be massacres short many times, then he’s not serious about “if it saves one life...”
Well, then, VP Biden, how about we wipe out the CAFE requirements so that heavier (and, therefor, safer) cars can be produced? That would probably save at least several hundred lives/year early on, and once the auto fleet was once again filled with 4,000 - 5,000 pound cars (as it was pre-CAFE) that take advantage of airbags and better engineering, we’ll be saving thousands of lives per year. How about it, Joe? We know that the Greenies will all have a fit, but if it only saves one life....
Ditto for bringing back DDT - it kills far more malaria-bearing mosquitoes than other insecticides. Again, if it only saves one life.
Oh, and what about banning swimming pools? Your own CDC says that about 10 people per day die from drowning in pools. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html If it only saves one life....
How about banning fertilizer - you can make ANFO out of it when mixed with diesel. We already saw how lives were lost in Oklahoma City because of it. Heck, for that matter just ban diesel. No diesel and no fertilizer means no ANFO...and you’ve just saved lives.
You moronic imbecile.
Slow Joe’s “If it saves one life ...” doesn’t even pass a utilitarian test, much less the categorical imperatives of liberty, self defense and defense of others.
Joe Bob clerking at the U-Totem understands this.
Why can’t Washington DC? Oh yeah, we know why ...
Ban buggery.
Joe, government employee's at the local, state, and federal levels work all day in taxpayer funded buildings that can only be accessed by the public by going through metal detectors and passing armed guards, yet the pubic must send send their children to government buildings all day that you have declared to be "gun free" zones and are wide open to any criminal/nut-job/psychopath to come in and slaughter our children.
Can you explain that?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or the one. (Spok paraphrasing Dickens in The Wrath of Khan)
Maybe, using the same logic, back yard swimming pools should be eliminated because they have been responsible for more than one death. Or legislation could require a very high fence that is impossible to climb and kept locked - - subject, of course, to unannounced inspections. And when in use, there should be a certified lifeguard on hand at all times. See how far that law would fly.
Or maybe we should eliminated showers and stairs, since they are responsible for so many deaths.
Hey Biteme, just how does the above statement fit in with your party's pro-abortion stance??????
The “if it only saves one life” argument is behind nearly every liberal intrusion on individual rights, whether it be taxes on fast food, bans on tobacco advertising, mandated safety features on automobiles, etc., etc.. If you take that thinking to its logical conclusion, the government should put guardrails on every foot of public road and should restrict any vehicle from driving at a speed greater than 20 mph. And I’m sure there are some wide-eyed liberals who would do those very things if they thought they could get away with it.
Well according to a recent story of a mother shooting an intruder, because of a gun at least one life was saved, so the Second Amentment is well worth it.
Back in the Clinton days I used to argue with the antis, and when as always, somewhere is the discussion, they would pull that "if only" business.
I used to reply, "But what if it COSTS just one life?" I swear, they looked dumbfounded and couldn't/wouldn't reply. It was if that thought never occurred to them. After a while, I longed for that to come up just so I could blindside them and revel in their discomfort.
How many cops, Secret Service agents, military members take their own lives - it’s now an epidemic in the military - using their service weapons?
So, Joe, if it saves just one life...
And face it, Joe, these are the lives that are definitely worth saving.
What a completely foolish, nonsensical argument.
I am absolutely certain that the statistics of deaths of unarmed victims versus deaths of those who were armed during violent crimes would prove the argument that everyone should be compelled to carry arms. Logic would be on the side of arming everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.