IMG_2553.JPG

DBC

Welcome to deltabravocharlie.com. Here is where I share my thoughts on 2nd Amendment issues and the other enthusiasms that fill my days.

If It Saves One Life

If It Saves One Life

It is one of the biggest lies gun control people tell…if not the biggest.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard someone argue in favor of the latest, most awesomest new gun law proposal, acknowledging that although it won’t actually end violent crime, it will be worth it “if it saves even one life.”

Anyone who tells you this is the bar for success is a liar. A big, fat, pants-on-fire, Pinocchio-nosed liar.

The truth is that in our society, we happily accept thousands of deaths for mere convenience as a matter of routine. There are any number of laws we could pass which would save one life.

Ban alcohol.

Ban tobacco.

Ban peanuts.

Ban cars.

Some of these things cause a lot of death, and some of them only cause a little, but they are all widely accepted as a fact of life in the United States, and they are legal. Ridding our nation entirely of any one of these things would doubtless save at least one life (likely more than one), yet there is no serious movement to completely ban any of them.

And that’s despite the fact that some of these things are purely luxuries. No one needs to drink alcohol. No one needs tobacco. No one needs to eat peanuts. And don’t give me any of that crap about what you have a right to do, if taking away that right saves one life. You think a total ban on peanuts wouldn’t save one life? Of course it would, and what difference does it make whether or not you like peanuts?. But we would surely get more “bang for our buck” with total bans on alcohol and tobacco, right? Want to sit at a bar with a drink, a smoke, and a bowl of peanuts? Forget it. You don’t need it, and it would save one life.

I couldn’t even find a picture of all three together…

I couldn’t even find a picture of all three together…

“But Dave,” you say, “we do need cars!” Do we really? There was a time in this country where there were no cars, and people managed just fine. But it sure is nice to be able to live more than a mile or two away from your job, isn’t it? It sure is nice to be able to not have to hitch up the horse and buggy to go to the store and get groceries, huh? But people did it. (Some people still do.)

Livin’ life.

Livin’ life.

By now you’re probably thinking, “Dave that’s just silly. You can’t be seriously suggesting we return to travel by foot and by horse and buggy.” Of course I’m not. But what I am suggesting is that we are willing to accept death caused by cars in order (for those of us who aren’t killed by them) to enjoy a higher quality of life. Think about that. We will accept that cars kill people so that we can enjoy a more comfortable and convenient life.

“Now, Dave,” you’re thinking, “that’s not 100% true. We don’t just accept deaths caused by cars. We are constantly striving to improve safety and save lives on the highway.” No argument there. And if you are willing to accept the inconvenience and cost, there are things we could do to save at least one life when it comes to cars. How about mandating breathalyzer ignition interlocks on every car in the United States? Sure, it would be expensive and inconvenience those who don’t drink and drive…but it would save one life. How about we lower the national speed limit to 20 mph? Talk about inconvenient…but it would save one life. Too much? Okay…then let’s just mandate that all cars must be speed limited to not exceed…oh, pick a number…70 mph? Nobody needs a Dodge Hellcat.

Capable of 204 MPH. Nobody  needs  to go 204.

Capable of 204 MPH. Nobody needs to go 204.

But remember, we’re not debating cost/benefit, and we’re sure as hell not debating your silly rights. The debate we’re having is how to save one life, and removing cars from our society would save one life.

Or would it? Isn’t is possible that on the whole, cars save lives because now people won’t be dropping dead early from walking to work every day, or by the number of lives lost in horse and buggy accidents? Don’t cars save lives by making it easier to get to the doctor, and to the pharmacy to obtain life-saving medications? Perhaps, but again that debate gets into the area of cost/benefit analysis, and the gun-banners sure as hell don’t want to go there. Even the anti-gun CDC reluctantly confirmed over 2 million defensive gun uses per year, well in excess of any deaths by accidental, suicidal, or homicidal use of a gun. If you want to go all cost/benefit, guns win.

You should see by now where all of this “if it saves one life” stuff leads. It willingly ignores the reality that we do in fact accept a certain amount of death in order to enjoy the comforts of modern life and to enjoy the rights of free people. To say differently is a lie.

I Was A Gun Confiscator

I Was A Gun Confiscator

Good News

Good News