I hear Barry making this argument with Anderson Cooper last night re: guns.
This isn't a knock solely at Obama for I have heard many more people than just him use this fallacious argument.
We could save a helluva more than one life if we mandated a 15 mph speed limit on all roads.
Or we banned skydiving. Or we banned motorcycles. Or we banned skiing, mountain climbing and riding in hit air balloons.
It just seems like an emotional plea, devoid of an real substantive meaning and defies common sense and appeals to some people who don't give it two seconds thought.
Thoughts?
For a lot of other posters I wouldn't but you've demonstrated that while we don't often agree, we're capable of something approaching reasonable debate, so sure, here goes.
My stance on this would be that of all the things you've named (guns, cars/transport in general for the sake of thoroughness, skydiving, skiing, mountain climbing), only one of those has the express purpose of death.
Maybe I'm missing something, but outside of Olympic target shooting, what purpose does a firearm serve other than killing or at least attempting to kill whatever happens to be in the line of fire, be it human or wildlife? Sure you could argue safety or protection, but the way in which a firearm achieves those goals is via the imminent threat of instant death.
The whole 'if it saves ONE life' thing is hyperbole, I grant you. Realistically any meaningful control put in place has the opportunity (not a guarantee, just an opportunity) to save far more than that, but the argument being made is that the numbers are essentially irrelevant; that any amount of change is worth taking the strides to do so. That doing anything is a far greater position to be in than doing nothing. This I imagine is the stage where our opinions will diverge considerably as I'd be inclined to agree with Mr Obama, but that's me.
"...only one of those has the express purpose of death."
You would emphasize "death" while I would put the onus on "life."
Meaning? You point to the bad outcome of a gun firing and I see the good. I see it saving a life, or potentially so. I am not knocking your take, it is every bit as valid as mine, we just look at this issue from such divergent points of view.
My main point is once any government starts going down the road of "if it only saves one life", wonder what else they will feel similarly about and try to control.
Maybe by our very makeup, Americans are more jaundiced against governmental power and control. The rights of the individual supersede the rights of the state. The state is in power to serve the people, not the other way around.
I just get leery whenever I hear this oft repeated phrase. It sounds like that person is appealing to the emotional side, not the logical side, and thus I have always believed when we let emotion affect our decision making process, the more likely it is to we end up making the wrong choice.
Thanks for your response.
Of course Obama et al. never broach the flip side of “what if it saves just one life”. . .
Which is, what if “it” (whatever the restrictive measure happens to be) results in the death of just one life or worse yet we save one life but “it” also results in 2 or more deaths.
One only has to watch Obama during his gun control town hall this week to see clearly that his only satisfactory end game is to eventually make illegal the private ownership of all firearms. Of course he did not say it directly but he did say in response to either the rape victim or Chris Kyle’s widow (I can’t remember which and I’m paraphrasing). . . . I think a legal gun owner is less safe for having a gun but that’s not what I am talking about AT THE MOMENT
"Of course he did not say it directly but he did say in response to either the rape victim or Chris Kyle’s widow (I can’t remember which and I’m paraphrasing). . . . I think a legal gun owner is less safe for having a gun but that’s not what I am talking about AT THE MOMENT."
I believe the same, as do many, yet I do not call for making "illegal the private ownership of all firearms."
The belief in the Second Amendment, and the belief that a person is generally safer not owning a gun vs. owning one are not mutually exclusive, nor is it hypocritical! 
for you, like skydiving, or training lions, although sky diving and lion taming are a lot safer than owning a gun.
You don't see many lion tamers commit suicide by sticking their head in the lion's mouth, or leaving the lion in the back yard where their son can find it, do you?
When there are 300 million lions residing in some 1/3rd of all households or you learn more about statistics, get back to me.
Admitting the Second Amendment exists or saying one believes in the Second Amendment is not mutually exclusive from one's desire to see it overturned or preventing one from doing whatever is possible to thwart it.
I can't see where someone who "believes in the Second Amendment" would "desire to see it overturned or preventing one from doing whatever is possible to thwart it."
You really thought that was going to fly?
"My infrequent dalliances back into your rabbit hole are for the potential benefit of others."
I hope the "others" are kissing your arse in eternal gratitude!
that when someone sounds like a pompous arse, they expect their arse to be kiss!
You must not have even watched his gun control town hall, never mind not paying attention for the past several years to his real gun control desires. I have to give him some credit though for the whole town hall thing although it was more a sign of desperation than anything else but he was not able to script it as he would have wished. The negative points raised caught him off guard just enough for another glimmer of his dishonesty to surface.
But go right ahead with your head up your "arse" as you continue in your diversionary attempts, this time to make it about me. From there you'll at least be close enough to kiss it yourself even if no one else will.
Even, as an NRA member and gun owner, I'm not worried! ;
and then in usual Obama fashion, go just a little bit further than the Constitution allows.
What he is doing however is making it less likely that I will end up voting for Hillary as she is very unlikely to undo any of his overreaching executive actions whereas virtually any one of the GOP candidates most likely will undo every one of them as their first official act upon assuming office.
I don't know how anyone can claim with a straight face that Obama would not have us going the way of Australia or Great Britain if he thought he had a prayer of succeeding.
In my view the old 'slippery slope' argument just leads to gun owners looking unreasonable. So, the longer gun rights advocates remain rigid in their opposition to any reasonable gun control legislation, the sooner the general public will side with those who want to take your and my guns away. Especially, if more and more law enforcement agencies and unions move to the side of stricter gun laws and enforcement, believing doing so gives them more protection.
If you can't agree that Obama not so secretly would love to repeal the 2nd amendment, I don't really see any point in continuing the conversation.
Posting Huff Po links that quote former Air America liberals is hardly proof Obama is not anti second amendment.
The problem is, we aren't dealing with "common sense" gun laws, we are dealing with people determined to chip away at our Constitutional rights until they cease to exist at all
...his life? Did you forget the part where he enlisted in the Marines? He was recommended for, and accepted to, the Naval Academy Preparatory school at Newport, Rhode Island. He completed the one-year course, and was accepted to the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.
He graduated the Naval Academy with a degree in general engineering and a minor in International Security Affairs. He became a cryptologic intelligence officer and by the time he left the navy with the rank of lieutenant, he had received the Navy Achievement Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Navy Commendation Medal.
Would you care to refresh our memories about your military career? I believe you've posted about it previously?
I thought you had respect for those who served, but apparently being an Air America radio host wipes out everything someone did before that.
Only a small handful of people ever hosted a radio show on Air America, virtually all of them rabid lefties. So yes, where it comes to gun control his history of hosting a show on Air America is much more relevant than his military service.
If a Fox news reporter came out against more restrictive gun laws, you would find that quite relevant. I see no difference here.
Exactly correct. Obama has openly praised Australia for their fairly new, very restrictive gun controls but we are supposed to accept on face value that he “believes” in the 2nd Amendment
Progressive Liberals in matt’s position give Obama a complete pass and attempt to distort the words of those telling the truth about Obama. I literally do not know whether guys like matt are letting their partisanship overshadow what they see as truth, or they truly can’t see the truth or they are just as disingenuous as is Obama.
This past week during Obama’s gun control town hall he told a woman whose daughter was killed by a firearm that his actions were going to make it harder and more expensive for people to get a gun. Within the same hour he also told rape survivor, who said she needed and wanted a firearm, there’s nothing that he’s proposed that would make it harder for her to purchase a firearm. He then proceeded to tell her that she would probably be safer if she had no gun.
Second Amendment believer my ass. No doubt he believes it’s written on paper as is the entire constitution. But a piece of paper has no powers. A piece of parchment can’t enforce anything. The Constitution is only as strong as those who have been temporarily been entrusted by us to be the keepers and enforcers of its words and ideals.
Obviously matt’s 38 special revolver or his bolt action 22 rifle are not going to disappear next year but he can’t tell me which Obama is telling the truth Does he know? Does he care? No one knows matt’s opinion because he’d rather spend his time attempting to put me down rather than address reality
and, while I have not read which laws he specifically was praising, I think it is pretty obvious he was talking about the mandatory buy back of automatic weapons and semi -automatic weapons only. Automatic weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment at all, and semi-automatic even if protected may still be subject to reasonable regulation.
So it is a little ridiculous to conflate Mr. Obama’s desire to reduce the supply of these lethal weapons to reduce mass shootings– which are either not protected at all or are subject to regulation - with not “believing in the Second Amendment.”
Now, I don’t doubt that Mr. Obama does not believe in YOUR view of the Second Amendment as expressed on this Board. But your view, thank goodness, is not the view of the Supreme Court and when Mr. Obama says he believes in the Second Amendment, he is talking about as construed by the Supremes:
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
“As president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
hear Obama! Riiiight!
Psssst! Some major points for you and Gag!
1. No one took guns away from the Australians, let alone their Prime Minister. They gave them up.
2. Australians still own guns. Some say at the same levels as in 1996.
3. Though they have more restrictive gun laws, it does not equate with taking all guns away, or even a reduction of gun ownership.
4. Hence, remarks by Obama, regarding Australia's gun laws, does not equate with a desire to disavow or repeal the second amendment
Would you care to clarify?
What good would that do? You’ve obviously chosen to believe President Obama is a perfectly honest broker in this regard while ignoring evidence to the contrary. You’ve already demonstrated you’ll use whatever straw’s at your disposal and will fabricate that which is missing. Just make sure you’ve got a trigger lock on that revolver and don’t forget to send in your 2016 NRA membership dues. Otherwise you’ll be staring at an old photo of Wayne LaPierre on the 2015 calendar hanging above your kitchen sink.
You can't answer the question!
that will satisfy you.
I'm not asking to be "satisfied." The only satisfaction I want, you can't give.
I'm just asking for a definition, or your meaning when you say "false choices."
How difficult can that be. You said it, so you must know what you meant by it.
My response and wrist are quite fine. The only satisfaction you want, yet claim you aren’t asking for, is unavailable from me. You’ll have to remain unsatisfactorily satisfied. Ironically I’m following some advice only recently posted right here.
"You got some splaining to do!"
"Say 'Good night; Gracie!" (my way of signing off from your limp-wristed attempt to save face!
P.S. It's not working!
he correct argument for any policy decision not barred by the Constitution, of course, is the risk- utility balancing test. We balance (1) the risk posed by the specific unregulated use of a firearm; (2) the cost of regulation and enforcement; and (3) the likelihood that the regulation reduces the risk
against the social utility to the citizen of the unregulated use of the firearm.
That is why it is so easy to conclude, for example, that assault weapons should be banned. The risk posed by these extremely lethal weapons is high, and the cost of regulation and enforcement moderate. We don’t really have the ability to measure how effective a national ban would be but we can postulate some degree of effectiveness on general principles of reducing supply. You rarely see murders by automatic weapons – why ? well, we have reduced the supply by making the sale of non-heritage automatic weapons illegal.
Conversely, the social utility of owning an assault weapon – i.e., the need of the average citizen to have one – is extremely low. You can defend your home just fine against the average burglar with a rifle or handgun and you don’t need one for hunting or target practice. No one really needs an assault weapon.
So you don’t ban assault weapons just to save one life, the fallacious argument made by Mr. Obama to justify regulations that will do far less to reduce risk than an assault weapon ban. But you don’t allow them either just because we really can’t measure how effective an assault weapon ban will be.
Whether there is a Second Amendment right to own an assault weapon, however, is a completely different question
Don't you know that the zombie apocalypse can happen at any moment?
She seems to do just fine with her Katana.
then they run the risk benefit calculations based on that. That's part of how speed limits are set; and re-set..... But government could not function if saving ONE life was worth unlimited resources. Perhaps POTUS was drawing on his brother's Jewish background, where the loss of one human life is said to be the loss of an entire world.
"Or we banned skydiving. Or we banned motorcycles. Or we banned skiing, mountain climbing and riding in hit air balloons."
Those are all situations and activites people voluntarily place themselves in.
Regarding your question, I view it in cost/benefit analysis terms. Like, in regards to reducing the speed limit, there is a benefit in saved lives and fuel, however what is the cost regarding time spent on the highway, and away from those things with feel need our attention? Fortunately, I have some leeway in choosing my behavior and speed. I can go slower on my own volition, go the speed limit, or go faster, and take my chances on getting a ticket, going to traffic school, and or pay a fine. All, for me, are part of a cost/benefit analysis I perform, and it can change day to day, hour by hour. However, I don't feel I have that much leeway in avoiding a bullet, nor having a loved one avoiding a bullet, particularly, once it's fired. I have, perhaps more leeway in avoiding a gun, and I'd like even more. In regards to it being an emotional plea, agreed! But, it's more emotional to the person who has been shot, or lost a loved one due to gun violence, than one who has not. Why would it be any other way? I always had guns; hunted, shot competitively on military shooting teams, but when my first born child came, I sold them all. I could rationalize in my mind, that I could keep them safely away, but then how useful would they be for self-protection? And, in the service we had a term called 'idiot proofing.' It was a procedure where the pilot, the co-pilot and the crew-chief, inspected, separately, the helicopter they were about to fly. This was done, because everyone makes a mistake; overlooks, forgets, or mispereives something, sooner or later. It's the same with guns. I made a cost/benefit analysis based on this understanding, and the value I placed on my newborn child. Would everyone's analysis be the same as mine? No! But, for myself, I knew I wouldn't be able to live with myself, if due to an oversight, on my part, the life of my child was ended.
It seems, each of us, will have to come to our own cost/benefit analysis based on limited data, since congress and the NRA, which I am a member of, are so deathly afraid of scientific research into gun violence. Too bad! I can only imagine that if there was more data available, people's cost/benefit analysis would change, and may tip toward wanting more restrictions placed on gun ownership.
But, I could be wrong!
-- Modified on 1/8/2016 12:25:09 PM
""Or we banned skydiving. Or we banned motorcycles. Or we banned skiing, mountain climbing and riding in hit air balloons."
Those are all situations and activities people voluntarily place themselves in. "
I agree - it is the choice vs non-choice - people want a risk free life accept for the things they choose to do which brings risk into their life.
you might want to avoid using an apples to oranges argument.
You do not have a choice as to whether someone ELSE slams into your vehicle with their car (or motorcycle).
I'd suggest you reframe the "gun-control" argument as a "weapons-control" argument; should we not control or ban all weapons that may be used by someone else to kill? What can be used by a motivated individual to kill? A car, knife, other even more mundane (or exotic) items?
It does not take a gun to kill, or to commit violence. It does not take any "weapon" at all. Motive is EVERYTHING.
Give me a rational basis to predict and control motive... and I'm all for it. Regulate the hell out of it.
If you truly believe that we all must perform our OWN analysis... then you cannot believe in compulsory gun controls - apples to apples
people willingly and knowingly assume the risk of being in a car accident presumably because of the benefit they gain by going wherever they were going. But that doesnt mean they want no Stop signs, speed limits, DUI laws, etc.. but with regards to guns, they do not see any benefit to themselves allowing someone else to have a gun.
Again, I think more restrictive gun laws would have very minimal (if any) impact on murders.
Well, I was just playing with the hand that was dealt me, so you might want to take it up with the OP!
"Motive is EVERYTHING." Really? I guess, according to the statistics, those who had handguns, had much more motive than those who had knives or poison, etc.
Or, it could also have to do with lethality. If you've notice the stories that came out from China, regarding someone going berserk on a bunch of school children, very few if any the children died!
Would it be unconstitutional to implant a chip in anyone convicted of a violent felony?
http://americangunfacts.com
Instead of waiting for ignorant city criminals who never learned how to aim a weapon before they went on drive by rampages and accidentally, indiscriminately, killing children and other innocent citizens, why not put forth effort to disarm those committing the majority of crimes ?
http://www.gizmag.com/radar-pedestrian-weapon-detection/26788/
see the statistics for the first year of Texas' open-carry law to know that armed citizens reduce crime. I will be back here to say I told you so.
...Yet somehow righties think it makes perfect sense for one issue but not another.
I agree completely that righties think it makes sense for one issue and not the other, but I have to say the same applies to lefties on THIS issue.
The right has the goal of making ALL abortion illegal in this country. Now they realize they can't just come out and say this and have any chance of achieving their goal, so they whittle away at abortion rights, proposing "common sense" laws that don't actually take away the rights of women to choose, but just restrict those rights.
The left does the EXACT same thing where it comes to the rights of American citizens to own firearms. They can't just come in the front door and say they want to confiscate ALL guns any more than the anti abortionist can overturn Roe v Wade. So they chip away at our rights until they think they have enough support to take all of our guns.
It like boiling a frog so slowly that he doesn't realize he's cooked until the gig is up. and BOTH sides do this, not just the one.
The principles in the opposing parties are also at war with other ideals within the same party. If you're Republican you're unwaveringly PRO-Life, yet support a DEATH penalty. If you're a Lefty you are expected to champion reproductive CHOICE; but then expected to surrender any choice to protect yourself and family from a criminal's harm or tyrannical government oppression. The GOP rants about privacy rights and individual freedom and then wants us to abandon them ALL in support of the MIC's endless war on terror. The RNC rants about our freedoms lost to Republican authoritarianism but wants invasive regulations on EVERYONE, every enterprise, and even our speech. These and many other innate dichotomies I feel create an ongoing subconscious 'mind-fuck' where the average citizen walks around intentionally confused and befuddled. Obama, Bush, Clinton and Reagan have all masterfully confounded the voter by subtly adopting and tweaking the opposing parties political planks and conning voters to defer to a controlling oligarchical leadership.
ANYONE who claims to be a die hard Democrat or Republican.
Neither party comes even close to speaking to MY interests.
People here wonder why I plan on voting for Trump. The answer is simple, although he is most certainly a flawed candidate, he comes the closest to not being the typical socially conservative GOP candidate. By political necessity he is going to have to pander a bit to those people, but he is the closest thing to an independent candidate I have seen for quite some time.
I also believe Jim Webb from the other side of the aisle could have been better than what we have been accustomed to, but he did a very bad job of getting his message out and was doomed almost from the start.