If just one child / cop / person could be saved..

[X_Digger]

Something that seems to come up often in DU gun control debates (among others) that really bothers me is the justification of "If just one child / cop / person could be saved, it would all be worth it."

This removes any kind of objective criteria for deciding whether a piece of legislation / rule / regulatory scheme is effective or not. If crime goes down, the diminishing pool of victims is just as large to the absolutist who holds this position ("One death from guns is one death too many.") Even if crime goes up, the justification of "Well, we don't know how many more might have died without this" is given credence. Strange how a failure of the measure can lead to more of the same.

I do conflate the "if just one.." philosophy with the "one death is too many.." mantra, because it seems if you point out that the incidence of a particular crime is down, it's often followed by the second phrase.

There seems to be a disconnect between goal, action, and consequence. It's as though there is a measure of faith involved. "If this doesn't work, we must not be doing enough. I know that if we do this, eventually lives will be saved." Rarely is there serious discussion about whether or not the approach can reasonably be expected to result in the goal, it's "obvious" to those proposing action that A should lead to B. No rational discussion about the effectiveness of a law can be tolerated- those who do are painted as being against saving lives, or for killing innocents. In the absolutist's mind, it's all or none.

There's also a disturbing the ends justifies the means mentality involved. The lengths that these proponents are willing to go seems to know no bounds. Random pat-downs of the public, government tracking of ammunition sales, government tracking of guns via lojack type transmitters, door-to-door searches of those living in public housing- all have been proposed in the last year here at DU. The same kind of thinking brought us Guantanamo, torture, and warrantless wiretapping. I'm not equating the strict gun control to these, just noting that in the heads of those who propose such actions, justification is clear and absolute. "Just one life..", "One death is too many."

No consideration is given to unintended consequences. The burden on anyone else is considered inconsequential compared to the "saving of a single life". Never mind that the trust placed in the government's hands today can and most likely will be abused tomorrow under a different administration. Never mind that the very freedoms that our party claims to protect would be infringed by some of these actions. It always amazes me that this party is so adamant in it's protection of all amendments in the bill of rights except one. It can be legitimately argued that this particular amendment is as important in the preservation of the other nine as any of them, and more so than many. The same kind of incrementalism that the other side uses to infringe the other nine amendments- our own party tries to use those same tactics on the second. The only 'big picture' is the single goal- saving lives.

Saving lives is a laudable goal. But a life saved at the cost of constitutional freedoms- that's no trade worth making.

p.s. I couldn't end this post without friendly_iconoclast's wonderful graphic-

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Impossible to quantify.

Could cost lives too, even totally ignoring the unconstitutional nature of a complete ban.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. A national speed limit of 25 mph regulated by governors on vehicles would save thousands of lives.

Likely, tens of thousands of lives but that would be an inconvenience to the gun grabbers.


David

[Howzit]

5. 25 MPH limit would likely bore people into inattention, resulting into

pedestrians being mowed down by sleeping drivers...

[Hoopla Phil]

8. To quote (almost) the fictional character of Dr. House

If you really want to stop traffic deaths take out the air bags in the steering wheels and put in a sword facing the driver.

[Hoopla Phil]

3. If just one life can be SAVED by CCL then it's worth it.

[Hoopla Phil]

4. If it COSTS just one life to have that law then it's not worth it.

I used that one on waiting period laws. Example of a woman that just separated from her boyfriend/husband. Husband has pledged that if he can't have her no one will. She goes to buy a gun and is told that there is a 5 day waiting period. She dies at her ex-lovers hands that night.

If it COSTS just one life to have that law then it's not worth it.

[Howzit]

6. "No consideration is given to unintended consequences. "

That is because those who wish to control the behavior of others to "minimize harm" are not that interested in reducing general mayhem, only in advancing their own pet causes.

[inkool]

7. "It always amazes me that this party is so adamant...

in it's protection of all amendments in the bill of rights except one."

Unless those other amendments get in the way of removing some or all guns from private hands.

There are some who would like to ban guns based only on there appearance, how closetly the resemble other guns. Banning something because you don't like the way it looks seems kind of anti-first amendment.

You touched on the forth amendment with "Random pat-downs of the public" and "door-to-door searches"

I am waiting for someone to suggest quartering soldiers in homes with guns.

[X_Digger]

9. Holy cow! NYPD hands out informational cards to pedestrians who are stopped and frisked

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/04/30/2009-04-30_nypd_.html

The NYPD didn't answer lawmakers' questions about its controversial stop-and-frisk policy Thursday, but people who get patted down are getting clarification - on a card.

The department has begun handing out informational cards to people police stop and frisk, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Thursday. The cards, in seven languages, list general reasons why police might deem the encounters necessary.

A Daily News analysis this year showed that the overwhelming majority of people stopped and frisked are quickly let go without even a summons. Kelly said cards can help cops save time while clearing up confusion.

<snip>

It's unclear whether the card policy will soothe anger in some minority communities, where people have long complained that the stop-and-frisk procedure amounts to harassment. The Center for Constitutional Rights, working on behalf of four minority pedestrians, found that 80% of those stopped were black or Hispanic.

<snip>

The News found that only 6% of the 744,087 individuals stopped and questioned in a recent 18-month period were arrested. And of the 1.6 million stops by cops from 2005 through June of last year, only 2.6% uncovered a weapon or other illegal items.