"If it saves one life"

Jeanette

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 11:13 am

After a terrorist attack, the justification for draconian crackdowns on muslims/immigrants is, "If it can save even one life." In other words, we should look away if some people's rights and freedoms are trampled as it's a worthwhile trade off for saving lives.

I wonder why the same argument does not apply to the gun control debate. Is it worth it to give up some freedom to own certain types of guns under certain circumstances if it can save "even one life"?

shoshanim999

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 12:21 pm

Jeanette wrote:

There always has to be a balance. Nobody would say that planes and cars should be banned because every so often there is an accident. Lives would seemingly be saved if there were no cars on the road yet people don't make that argument.

The issue with Muslims is that from certain countries there is such an incredibly insane % that support ideology that is completely contradictory to the American way of life. According to Pew research polls, in many of Muslim majority countries such as Indonesia, (200 million Muslims) Egypt, (80 million Muslims), Muslims in large percentages, sometimes more than 50%, believe that apostates should be killed, honor killings are justified, and believe that the U.S. or Israel orchestrated 9/11. Did you know that 78% of British Muslims believe that the Danish cartoonist that mocked Islam in a cartoon should be prosecuted? Letting in large masses of these types will inevitably lead to disaster. As far as gun control, I'm kind of in the middle. There are many arguments that stricter gun laws will only prevent the "good guys" from having guns. For the record, the states in the U.S. with the lowest amount of gun violence, is NOT correlated with the strictest gun laws.

shoshanim999

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 12:37 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Can you bring some examples of lives that were saved by civilians armed with AR15 rifles?

Aren't those weapons banned anyway? I don't think anyone would argue about those weapons. What about handguns? The overwhelming majority of gun violence in the country is committed with a hand gun. Are you saying to ban all handguns?

SixOfWands

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 12:41 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

No. AR-15 are not banned. The Florida murderer purchased his legally.

HappyGoLucky1

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 12:45 pm

ITA.. Nobody is arguing with completely getting rid of firearms... But the restrictions MUST be tighter! There was absolutely no reason for this to have happened. The fact that a mentally unstable NINETEEN year old can obtain an automatic firearm LEGALLY is propostrous! Yet in a few days, the story will die down and all will be forgotten until the next one comes around..... The NRA will continue making their billions at the people's expense.
But if it were a Muslim suddenly everyone's running to enforce absurd bans and regulations "If it can save one life"
Ridiculous.

shoshanim999

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 12:51 pm

HappyGoLucky1 wrote:

What absurd ban are people talking about with Muslims?

HappyGoLucky1

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:03 pm

You don't remember Trump's executive order to ban all Muslims from certain countries (which just by the way Saudia Arabia who was responsible for 9/11 was NOT on the list as a few others...) from about a year ago? The ban made no sense, the countries they picked never even attempted an attack on US soil. But hey... "if it could save one life.."

Jeanette

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:05 pm

animeme wrote:

The civilian who shot the gunman near the church (I don't remember the details) used an AR-15, and said he couldn't have made the shot otherwise.

What is the ratio of people shot/killed by AR-15s versus killers stopped by AR-15?

Also, even if it's true that he could have stopped him only with an AR-15, that was after the shooter had already killed a bunch of people. If AR-15s are so great at stopping mass shootings, why couldn't the shooter be stopped earlier?

SixOfWands

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:13 pm

Football player killed in an accident caused by a drunk undocumented immigrant:

"This is just one of many such preventable tragedies .... We must get the Dems to get tough on the Border, and with illegal immigration, FAST!"

Seventeen people murdered by citizen who purchased and owned his gun legally, notwithstanding his repeated online threats.

Thoughts and prayers, folks. Thoughts and prayers.

(And I'm not blaming Trump or the Republicans entirely. Plenty of blame to go around.)

WhatFor

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:18 pm

animeme wrote:

The civilian who shot the gunman near the church (I don't remember the details) used an AR-15, and said he couldn't have made the shot otherwise.

This story actually proves why a "good guy with a gun" isn't enough. More than 40 people were shot before the good guy with the gun was able to intervene.

Said intervenor was also an actual gun shooting instructor with the NRA, so he basically made a career out of guns, which enabled him to shoot the bad guy with the gun. How many people who buy guns are going to make careers out of gun training?

Consider the fact that if assault rifles weren't legally sold to the general masses, we wouldn't need the good guy with gun and forty people would not have been shot. It's amazing to me how people can seriously look at all the data, look at all the deaths piling on top of deaths, and think that the solution is more assault rifles for everyone.

Fox

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:22 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

What absurd ban are people talking about with Muslims?

There are no bans on Muslims.

This is just an example of, "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules" and "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

If you create a false comparison or conflate things erroneously -- and then repeat it endlessly -- you'll eventually get people to accept your comparison. This has worked well for the BDS movement, for example.

The real response, of course, is that we should do as much as possible to stop people who say they want to kill us. Some of those people wish to kill us specifically because we are Jewish, gay, or infidels. Others wish to kill us because they are mentally ill.

Most Muslims aren't actively seeking to kill us, nor are most mentally ill people. It is tough to figure out who's who, though, and mistakes are made in all directions by government, law enforcement, and individuals.

Fox

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:32 pm

HappyGoLucky1 wrote:

Um, no. The ban was not against "Muslims."

Oh, and it was based on countries the Obama administration had selected as dangerous hotspots.

Saudi Arabia has plenty to answer for with regard to funding some of the organizations that promote violent jihad, though the Crown Prince seems to be reversing this practice.

Most of the countries where radicalization occurs have never attacked the U.S. yet are a fundamental part of the jihadi recruitment and training process and definitely pose a danger.

Please don't pretend to be suddenly shocked or upset by travel bans. President Obama imposed them, as did Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. Whether they are good policy is questionable, but this is not some new, partisan idea.

WhatFor

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:32 pm

Fox wrote:

People used this comparison to say that the administration seems to have no issue taking action when the problem is as big as terrorism. It's only when it comes to US gun violence that they will do nothing, but weaken gun control.

As to your contention that there's no ban on Muslims, hot off the presses, from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today:

You may agree or disagree with this federal appeals court, but it's clearly not coming out of nowhere.

(For anyone who wants to read the full opinion, is available here: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/ne.....trump

But this has nothing to do with the gun control discussion. My understand is that it was raised to show that the administration has no issue taking action on other issues.)

WhatFor

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:35 pm

Fox wrote:

Again, read the decision issued today by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fox

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:45 pm

WhatFor wrote:

As to your contention that there's no ban on Muslims, hot off the presses, from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today:

Comparing a travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim countries -- even if it had the effect of religious discrimination -- with a "ban on Muslims" has got to be one of the most dishonest things I've heard.

Of course, the irony is that most of those countries once had vibrant non-Muslim populations. Gosh, I wonder what happened to all those people?