"If it saves lives I am for it"

[Skeptic Bob]

In regards to the gun control debate I keep hearing politicians, talking heads, and regular people on the street say, "If it saves lives I am for it."

I find this sort of unconditional statement disconcerting. Is that really all that matters? And how many lives must be saved to justify infringing on a liberty? Most of us do strike a balance somewhere. I am personally fine with banning guns from flights. I am fine with the current speed limits. I am fine with requiring children be vaccinated to attend public school.

But that doesn't mean I am for anything that saves lives. I think wide spread stop and frisk could very likely save lives but getting wanted felons off the street. But I adamantly oppose it. I believe changing the maximum speed limit to 35 MPH would save lives. I oppose that. I believe outlawing swimming pools at homes with children would save lives. I oppose that. I believe banning all guns would save lives. I oppose that.

My guess is most of you will agree with me on at least one of those things. So while we may value life, we all strike a balance regarding liberty vs safety.

So I am curious, for those pressing for stricter gun control rules what numbers are you looking for? And what other things would you be willing to ban or restrict in order to save that same number of lives?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Whats hilarious is that gun control doesnt save lives, so they are dishonest.

I too do see pragmatic limits.

Carrying grenades around would seem a bit much right :lol:

 

[Deuce]

In regards to the gun control debate I keep hearing politicians, talking heads, and regular people on the street say, "If it saves lives I am for it."

I find this sort of unconditional statement disconcerting. Is that really all that matters? And how many lives must be saved to justify infringing on a liberty? Most of us do strike a balance somewhere. I am personally fine with banning guns from flights. I am fine with the current speed limits. I am fine with requiring children be vaccinated to attend public school.

But that doesn't mean I am for anything that saves lives. I think wide spread stop and frisk could very likely save lives but getting wanted felons off the street. But I adamantly oppose it. I believe changing the maximum speed limit to 35 MPH would save lives. I oppose that. I believe outlawing swimming pools at homes with children would save lives. I oppose that. I believe banning all guns would save lives. I oppose that.

My guess is most of you will agree with me on at least one of those things. So while we may value life, we all strike a balance regarding liberty vs safety.

So I am curious, for those pressing for stricter gun control rules what numbers are you looking for? And what other things would you be willing to ban or restrict in order to save that same number of lives?

Conversely, how many people are you willing to let die because you want to own a gun?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Conversely, how many people are you willing to let die because you want to own a gun?

Both you and the OP are making fallacious assumptions.

 

[GunFora]

In regards to the gun control debate I keep hearing politicians, talking heads, and regular people on the street say, "If it saves lives I am for it."

I find this sort of unconditional statement disconcerting. Is that really all that matters? And how many lives must be saved to justify infringing on a liberty? Most of us do strike a balance somewhere. I am personally fine with banning guns from flights. I am fine with the current speed limits. I am fine with requiring children be vaccinated to attend public school.

But that doesn't mean I am for anything that saves lives. I think wide spread stop and frisk could very likely save lives but getting wanted felons off the street. But I adamantly oppose it. I believe changing the maximum speed limit to 35 MPH would save lives. I oppose that. I believe outlawing swimming pools at homes with children would save lives. I oppose that. I believe banning all guns would save lives. I oppose that.

My guess is most of you will agree with me on at least one of those things. So while we may value life, we all strike a balance regarding liberty vs safety.

So I am curious, for those pressing for stricter gun control rules what numbers are you looking for? And what other things would you be willing to ban or restrict in order to save that same number of lives?

The lib mantra is "if it saves just one life, it's worth it"... That in itself it a dangerous statement.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Conversely, how many people are you willing to let die because you want to own a gun?

Me personally? If me personally giving up my revolver would stop all people everywhere from dying from gun violence I would give it up. But I don't think that is likely.

But as for the right of society as a whole to be armed? I am willing to accept thousands of deaths. At least as many as we currently have. It doesn't mean I am happy about it. In the same way I am willing to "accept" the deaths of cute little kids drowning so that people can have the freedom to swim and have fun. Just as I am willing to "accept" the bloody deaths of thousands of people every year in car accidents just so you can get to where you want to go a little faster.

Freedom is inherently dangerous. I don't like that fact. But I accept it.

 

[WCH]

It comes down to you being responsible for you and your family's safety or letting the government do it.

Trading personal safety for tyranny.

 

[PirateMk1]

Conversely, how many people are you willing to let die because you want to own a gun?

Life is a terminal disease. There is no cure. Its simply a matter of when and how.

 

[LagerHead]

Conversely, how many people are you willing to let die because you want to own a gun?

Not a single person has ever died because of a gun I, or anyone I know, has ever owned. That's literally hundreds, if not thousands of guns over at least 5 decades without a single death.

 

[jimbo]

Conversely, how many people are you willing to let die because you want to own a gun?

Did you miss the part about gun control doesn't save lives?

 

[Alban]

The OP is a red-herring anyway because gun control doesn't save lives - it takes guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands, while leaving them in the hands of outlaws.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Conversely, how many people are you willing to let die because you want to own a gun?

My owning a gun doesn't let anyone die. People using them to commit crimes does. Oregon is one example, but Chicago, DC, Baltimore, Detroit, etc are recurring ones.

 

[countryboy]

Conversely, how many people are you willing to let die because you want to own a gun?

My owning a gun does not cause anyone to die. Don't be ridiculous.

 

[calamity]

I have an idea. How about we lock up criminals and keep them in jail instead of letting them out in 5 years so that they can commit the same crime again?

 

[BretJ]

Conversely, how many people are you willing to let die because you want to own a gun?

Can we use that vacuous argument for a second? How many women are you willing to be raped or children beat because you want to consume alcohol?

 

[TurtleDude]

Can we use that vacuous argument for a second? How many women are you willing to be raped or children beat because you want to consume alcohol?

or have a penis that works? BAN VIAGRA-stop rape!!

 

[jimbo]

My owning a gun doesn't let anyone die. People using them to commit crimes does. Oregon is one example, but Chicago, DC, Baltimore, Detroit, etc are recurring ones.

That's the part I don't get. If black lives matter, or we have to do something to stop these killings, or white cops kill too many people, why just the relatively few mass killings by guns?

I went back and counted the deaths by mass gunfire vs Chicago murders. You had to go back over 15 years of mass killings to exceed the number killed in Chicago in 2015.