"It's worth it if it saves one child."

This is a discussion on "It's worth it if it saves one child." within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Do you agree? It's hard to argue against that, or at least it's supposed to be hard to argue against that... I mean, if you ...

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 92
Like Tree77Likes

Thread: "It's worth it if it saves one child."

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,542

    "It's worth it if it saves one child."

    Do you agree?

    It's hard to argue against that, or at least it's supposed to be hard to argue against that... I mean, if you say no; you're another baby killer, probably an NRA member (after all, the antis flaunt signs saying NRA=Child killers), right?

    So, Here's the anti statement (we've all heard it):
    "If banning assault battlefield war rifles and/or super-high capacity bullet magazine clips, will save one child, it's worth it."

    What's your answer?

    This is mine (or, at least how I envision it might go):

    Gun Owner: "You know, you're right... If it saves one child, it IS worth it... So, If an assault rifle could save one child, we should not enact a ban on them, right?"

    Anti: "Well, um... I dunno, yeah I suppose, maybe..."

    GO: "Well, what if the evil assault rifle were in the hands of a child, and they used it to save themselves?"

    Anti: "Hey, I ain't talking about war zones, with little kids that have guns and use them against guys with machetes..."

    GO: "Oh... (pregnant pause, like maybe that's what you were going to talk about) I'm not either. I'm talking about right here in the good ol' USA."

    Anti: "Not necessarily, I mean, they could kill other people, too, with stray bullets and stuff... very dangerous."

    GO: "What if a child saved himself AND another child, using what you consider to be a "weapon of war, designed for the battlefield?" Should we ban his gun, too..?"

    Anti: "I doubt that would ever happen... "

    GO: "Well, it did happen, on at least one occasion: A 15 year old boy, saved himself and his 13 year old sister from TWO home invaders. The boy shot one man several times, no one else was shot, there were no stray bullets. And the criminal SURVIVED being shot several times by the assault weapon that you say is designed to kill multiple people in the least amount of time... Not only did the criminal survive being shot several times, he left the home and was driven away by his accomplice... Police apprehended him and his accomplice at the hospital, so that they could go to trial."

    Here's the News Report from Houston Texas: Boy Uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader - YouTube

    GO: "So while you cannot prove that banning assault weapons will save even one life, I can prove that having and using an assault weapon saved two children, did not harm anyone else but the criminal bent on their attack, and actually SAVED a child. NO, SAVED 2 CHILDREN."

    Anti: "Yeah but...."

    GO: "Yeah but nothing."

    Now, we need more ammo... Stuff that conclusively shuts down anti arguments, anti arguments that are based on wishful thinking, that can be refuted with facts... not statistics. And does so in brief exchanges, almost like comic book stories in simplicity (I mean, that's all they understand).

    Actual cases of women who stopped sexual assaults with firearms.

    Actual cases of straw purchasers who have been caught, and prosecuted (or set free) under existing laws.

    Actual cases of extended mags actually saving someone from multiple attackers.

    Actual cases of people defending themselves. WE SEE these stories frequently. The antis never do... The stories need to be shown to them...

    And somebody needs to broadcast these stories... to everyone... Pictures speak louder than words... Especially to John and Jane Doe, who don't have a dog in this hunt, but want safety that will never be attained, and they only hear one side... And that side seems so compassionate, and caring, and offers so many "common sense solutions" that will put an end to these tragedies.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,556
    I can never get the antis to stick to the scripts I read on here.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,629
    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    I can never get the antis to stick to the scripts I read on here.
    Improv, man, improv.

    I know... I don't expect anyone to hold to a script...But such a dialogue needs to be broadcast. on you tube on facebook on TV..

    Truth is, most antis walk away when they are being bested... they just KNOW they're right...
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,542
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
    I just suspect you're trying to encourage more dialog over this... thanks...

    You're right, the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the one.

    There are more law abiding citizens in this country than there are criminals. Those law abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves from criminals and madmen in whatever way they may choose.

    There are more law abiding gun owners in this country than there are people who want to limit the rights of those gun owners.

    There are about 800 Mayors Against Illegal Guns, that leaves about 9,000 or more cities with mayors that are not gun grabbers.

    So, yes, OV, you're right... The needs of the many outweigh the WANTS of the few (or the one).
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    1,897
    There's a much easier alternative to telling them these things:

    "I don't have to explain or justify my rights to you. Have a nice day."
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Array bombthrower77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    There's a much easier alternative to telling them these things:

    "I don't have to explain or justify my rights to you. Have a nice day."
    I'd prefer to at least have tried to talk some common sense into them before I decided to go to war. It appears you see that as a foregone conclusion.
    "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." ~ P. J. O'Rourke

  9. #8
    Member Array linuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Do you agree?

    It's hard to argue against that
    It's really not:

    "Everyone should have a gun. If it saves one childs life, it's worth it"


    Ta-da. Used their own argument against them :)

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array WHEC724's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    6,285
    It's tough to script responses to non-logical babble.

    Banning all hammers will save at least one child.

    Certainly banning all modes of automotive transportation will save thousands of lives.

    Banning bath tubs will certainly save at least one child.

    It's just not a rational assertion. What point is there arguing with insanity? You just have to either ignore it or overcome it.
    __________________________________
    'Clinging to my guns and religion

  11. #10
    Member Array lordofwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    306
    If we are just concerned with one child, banning automobiles and alcohol would be a much more important thing to do.

    But they really do not care about saving children, or they would be demanding cars that can go no faster than 60 mph and banning all alcohol products.

    No, they just use that red herring to try to get sympathy for their gun banning ways.

    Fortune Favors the Bold!

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,542
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    There's a much easier alternative to telling them these things:

    "I don't have to explain or justify my rights to you. Have a nice day."
    You're absolutely right...

    Unfortunately, you can also be right, and be telling me all about it from behind bars... For it's quite possible that some of the firearms you own can be made illegal. And, you might even get caught.

    It's quite possible that you may, some day in the future, wish to give your firearm(s) to your son, but be unable to due to the law... You may do it anyway, much to his excitement! And he might, in a moment of pride and glee, tell his closest friend. And someone down the chain of gossip will fully believe that if they see something they should say something, and maybe even if it's they just heard something...

    And maybe, just maybe, they'll come to your door and try to take your remaining guns... And you will scream "From my cold, dead hands!" And they'll oblige.

    But that's okay, you've got rights you don't need to justify.

    And we say antis have their heads in the sand.
    steffen likes this.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  13. #12
    Member Array Bmoliv66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by WHEC724 View Post
    It's tough to script responses to non-logical babble.

    Banning all hammers will save at least one child.

    Certainly banning all modes of automotive transportation will save thousands of lives.

    Banning bath tubs will certainly save at least one child.

    It's just not a rational assertion. What point is there arguing with insanity? You just have to either ignore it or overcome it.
    Right on the money

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,542
    I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just continuing the dialog. And understand this... I am not advocating a script for us to use against an anti... I am suggesting that scripts like this be used to broadcast the message... on the airwaves... in social media... and so on...


    Quote Originally Posted by linuss View Post
    It's really not:

    "Everyone should have a gun. If it saves one childs life, it's worth it"


    Ta-da. Used their own argument against them :)
    Wow, that was so sweet and to the point...

    "But guns have killed far more than they have saved. Children in the home with guns are a disaster and many children have died from firearms not involved in crimes."

    Ta-da. The argument means nothing, I know what's best for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by WHEC724 View Post
    It's tough to script responses to non-logical babble.

    Banning all hammers will save at least one child.

    Certainly banning all modes of automotive transportation will save thousands of lives.

    Banning bath tubs will certainly save at least one child.

    It's just not a rational assertion. What point is there arguing with insanity? You just have to either ignore it or overcome it.
    They don't want hammers, they don't want cars, they don't want bathtubs.... you see, those are accidents. "Guns are designed for one thing... to kill people... and assault weapons are designed to kill the most people in the least amount of time."

    Ignore it at your peril... or at least at the peril of your rights. Overcome it? With what, superior firepower? Good luck with that...

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofwyr View Post
    If we are just concerned with one child, banning automobiles and alcohol would be a much more important thing to do.

    But they really do not care about saving children, or they would be demanding cars that can go no faster than 60 mph and banning all alcohol products.

    No, they just use that red herring to try to get sympathy for their gun banning ways.

    Now, that's the truth.... but we have to show this to those who are not in the fight... and get them involved... And they tried the alcohol thing before... and frankly, if they ban guns in the same manner, I'll be all about obeying the law, at the very least, visibly. But you might find me at the local "shoot easy" from time to time.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array rammerjammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Posts
    3,224
    short answer... NO

    sometimes tragedy is the cost of freedom
    "Was there no end to the conspiracy of irrational prejudice against Red Ryder and his peacemaker?"

    Revolvers, “more elegant weapons for a more civilized age.”

  16. #15
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Why as gun owners do we try to dodge this question? What is wrong with the truth?

    "If it will save one child, it is worth it." - Wrong. It isn't worth it. To many people have died for our right to bear arms and that freedom is worth more than the lives of everyone who died at Sandyhook. Its a tough message and its hard to hear...but it's the truth. I am a father and would be devastated if it was my daughter that was there....but there is no way in hell I would give up freedom because someone chose to commit murder.

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

argue against saves one child

,

at least i saved one childs life

,

best 7 minute argument for gun control

,

if it saves one child

,

if one child can be saved, it is worth it.

,

right to bear arms not worth kids dying

,

the second amendment is not worth kids dying

Click on a term to search for related topics.