TexasCHLforum.com

I heard the VP say again today, "If it will just save one life..." Are the 2A advocates countering with, "OK, then if it is shown, as it can be, that owners of firearms your are seeking to ban have saved their life or another's life by its use, then tell me why that does not counter your argument to ban such firearms? I'm not speaking of bloggers and such, rather I'm addressing the representatives of the various interest groups directly involved in the debate. If it has been publicly stated, can someone point me to when and where it has been said?

Such a stupid argument (Biden's, not yours).

Blackstone's Formulation: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished." - John Adams

The Mexican cartels, Central American Marxist revolutionaries , and Al Queda are finding common cause, and are eagerly watching the "assault weapon" ban crusade- particularly in regards to how Texans will respond.

They don't much like the idea of South Texas ranchers, and farmers having those evil AR-15's with 30 round magazines.

It just isn't fair. Afterall- WHO really needs an "assault rifle" with more than a 10 round magazine - to kill a deer ?

I get the feeling the NRA will sell us all out on the high cap mag ban just to get along and take some heat off of themselves.Not that it will make a shred of difference to stopping any rampages just overnight make millions of law abiding citizens criminals and no gangbanger is going to care about any ban. Any Republican going along with this charade should be shamed and challenged in a primary.

Update: From the NRA statement following the meeting, looks like the held firm.

Poldark wrote:I get the feeling the NRA will sell us all out on the high cap mag ban just to get along and take some heat off of themselves.Not that it will make a shred of difference to stopping any rampages just overnight make millions of law abiding citizens criminals and no gangbanger is going to care about any ban. Any Republican going along with this charade should be shamed and challenged in a primary.

Update: From the NRA statement following the meeting, looks like the held firm.

Quite the contrary. The NRA is gearing up to fight this tooth & nail. And it'll be the NRA that will be leading the charge. The assumption that today's meeting was going to be a lecture on the justification of the coming proposed weapons ban(s) was proven true. It wasn't a dialog or a discussion, as a discussion by definition requires input from both sides. Basically they both can now go to their respective camps and say "See, THEY won't reason". Really, it was just a prelude to the real fight.

TexasCajun wrote:

Poldark wrote:I get the feeling the NRA will sell us all out on the high cap mag ban just to get along and take some heat off of themselves.Not that it will make a shred of difference to stopping any rampages just overnight make millions of law abiding citizens criminals and no gangbanger is going to care about any ban. Any Republican going along with this charade should be shamed and challenged in a primary.

Update: From the NRA statement following the meeting, looks like the held firm.

Quite the contrary. The NRA is gearing up to fight this tooth & nail. And it'll be the NRA that will be leading the charge. The assumption that today's meeting was going to be a lecture on the justification of the coming proposed weapons ban(s) was proven true. It wasn't a dialog or a discussion, as a discussion by definition requires input from both sides. Basically they both can now go to their respective camps and say "See, THEY won't reason". Really, it was just a prelude to the real fight.

So true no one with half a brain thought the White House cared about what the other side had to say it was for show and show only. See WE tried to reason with them but they just don't listen. We have to twist as many arms in Congress as we can and at the least force a draw with a stalemate between the houses. We must not surrender another inch in the battle for our RIGHTS, any of them.

As the OP who asked a specific question, as the use of proposed banned firearms has "saved lives," can someone point me to where this has been stated to the opposition to counter their "if it only saves one life argument" to ban them. I respectfully ask my fellow forum members to stay on topic as, except for the first response, the responses so far have nothing to do with my question. Thanks.

Edit to add:

BTW, I'm guilty about this myself sometimes

About the only arguments that can be made FOR gun control are emotional ones.

All the scholarly studies are on our side. The constitution and the words of the founding fathers are on our side. The historical results of what does (nothing good) and doesn't (anything good) come from gun control is on our side.

The argument they are trying to use is very weak, even IF you agree that the law might save one life. It doesn't matter. What does matter is whether any benefit of that law (saved lives) exceeds it's cost:
-in money spent that could have been used to save MORE lives, say by giving free vaccinations, improving traffic enforcement, etc.
-in lives lost by people that were unable to acquire, or were disuaded from acquiring a means to defend tbemselves
-crimes committed that would otherwise go uncommitted because of a fear the victim might be armed
-the loss of liberty by the majority to prevent one minority (crazy/evil) from harming another minority (innocent victims)

The sad thing is, I don't think it matters. It's all about people demanding action, as long as it doesn't require anything from them and politicians doing "something" to placate them without regard to logic, reason, or the consequences.

punkndisorderly wrote:About the only arguments that can be made FOR gun control are emotional ones.
[...]
The sad thing is, I don't think it matters. It's all about people demanding action, as long as it doesn't require anything from them and politicians doing "something" to placate them without regard to logic, reason, or the consequences.

It's unbelievable that this week alone I've heard several well educated, historically conscious, rational, GUN owners say that AR-15 patterned rifles and semi-auto handguns should be greatly restricted or banned. All have said, "If it just saves one child's life..." or "Handguns in home are dangerous, but my shotguns are not..." or both! They understand and articulate that the second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about tyranny (and by extension protection). I feel the national discussion doesn't include statistics about how guns defend the innocent, or they get lost in the shuffle because they are difficult to quantify. Unfortunately, however, even if the discussion did, rationality and logic isn't being brought to bear.