“…If the complete left side of the “equation;” the “If it saves just one life” is assigned a variable say x; the true value of x is actually determined by the combination or product of two things: First would be the value of that one human life. The second would be the probability as expressed by the “if.” The product of multiplying the value by the probability would determine the value of x. This is similar to expected value in games of chance—how much is the prize, and what is the probability or likelihood of winning it.
However with regard to the use of this for the deprivation of say 2nd Amendment rights; there are at a minimum two other concerns:
First; there is the requirement that there exists a cause-effect relationship between the availability of that which is to be banned, and the subsequent unjustified loss of human life. Meaning; will the rights depriving banning of certain weapons actually save a life or lives, or will it merely cause the criminal to simply ignore the ban; or find a less expensive and thus more efficient means? The existence of a weapon itself does not represent any type of cause, but is merely a means. If the black market cost of a banned weapon increases enough, high explosives may then become relatively inexpensive.
The second concern; is the effect that the rights depriving banning of types of weapons could have on their lawful use as self-defensive tools. The use of a shotgun; (assuming these are not also banned); requires that the target be at much closer range than with a rifle. A handgun is a weapon of last defense/resort (excluding rocks, sticks, and fists); and thus the target generally needs to be even closer. Likewise; the banning of “high capacity” magazines might require the victim to have the criminal “wait while I reload.” Overall gun related deaths could actually increase—irrespective of any lack of reporting of the same.
But back to the “validity” of the “equation.” If this “logic” is sound; then it should be applicable to other matters.
Here again is the “equation:”
If It Saves Just One Life ≥ |Certain Deprivation of Constitutional Rights|
There is little doubt that more people are killed in automobile related accidents, than are killed by gun violence. So here, instead of applying this “equation” to the rights depriving banning of 2nd Amendments rights; what happens if this “equation” were to be applied to automobiles?
According to this same “equation,” but here with “it” referring to the banning of automobiles that “saves just one life;” if this equation were valid; i.e.; using the same “logic;” then the rights depriving banning of automobiles would certainly be worth it.
“Whoa—wait a minute! You can’t ban automobiles!” The correct response of course would be the question: “Why not?” If this purported “equation” holds; then many more lives would be saved by the rights depriving banning of automobiles, than would ever be saved by rights depriving banning of certain 2nd Amendment rights.
The answer of course lies in the actual value of |Certain Deprivation of Constitutional Rights| part of the equation. Those who would proffer rights depriving banning of weapons, do not see the magnitude of value of the 2nd Amendment infringements as being anywhere near the magnitude of the value of the rights depriving infringements that would be caused by the banning of automobiles. This is despite the fact that many more lives would be saved.
Those who proffer the rights depriving banning of anything, therefore have an “analog” view of rights; when rights are in fact a binary. They believe that it is they who determine for all, the values of these “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Since it is their view; that unlike 2nd Amendment rights; the harm caused by banning automobiles would be so great, that the loss of thousands of lives on an annual basis is a relatively small price to pay, compared to the abolishment of automobiles.
But according to those very Founding Documents which authorize the very existence of the very authority that those who wish the banning of otherwise constitutionally guaranteed rights proffer; the very purpose and function of government is “to secure these rights,” as “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…”
Government by design; is supposed to protect these rights on a binary basis, and not to determine the value of various rights on behalf of those from whom their “powers” are derived. And even if this were so, clearly the 2nd Amendment is of much more value than all others with the exception of the 1st—as this is precisely why it is the second, and not the tenth.
Once again here is the “equation:”
If It Saves Just One Life ≥ |Certain Deprivation of Constitutional Rights|
It would be interesting to try and apply this “equation” to the military.
It is more than arguable to state that the main purpose of the military is to protect the rights of citizens; most especially life and liberty. Thus this “equation” falls completely apart if an attempt is made to apply this to the military. The military is willing to lose countless numbers of lives in order to protect the rights of citizens.
So here the equation kind of “flips,”with the military: In fact with regard to the military, this equation now becomes:
|Certain Deprivation of Constitutional Rights| ≥ the loss of countless numbers of lives
How can this be? 2 + 2 = 4 works with money, bananas, electrons, and everything else known in the universe. It is much more reliable than even Geometry; as there is that pesky Euclidian vs. Non-Euclidian issue. (non-curved vs. curved universe)
But here it seems that this equation represents an absolute when proffered for 2nd Amendment and many other rights deprivations; not applicable with respect to utilizing automobiles for freedom of movement, and reverses itself with respect to the military. Thus this represents no equation or law at all. It merely represents a feeble attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Karl Popper is reputed to have stated:
“A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.”(2.1)
This is presented as an absolute in that: “A theory that…” in fact reasonably means “Any and all theory(ies) that…” Might it also be the case, that at least with respect to the subject matter at hand; that a modified reversal may also be true?
“A theory (or purported law) that explains nothing; can explain everything.”
If simply for the purpose of discussion, it is stipulated that this could be so; then the first; and likely the most common definition of a theory that explains nothing, is that it is merely idiocy—thus the “explanation of everything” is necessarily that the “profferer” of the same is merely an idiot. Voila!
Stated differently: “That theory you are purporting which explains nothing, is idiocy; and of no possible use. Who needs a theory that explains nothing?”
However it must be remembered that the word “idiot;” generally means “doesn’t know,” or “unknown.” This is seen in words such as idiopathic; meaning a disease with an “unknown cause.” It may in fact be the case that one who proffers that a theory or law that explains nothing, somehow explains everything; is that the “profferer” of this proffering is simply an idiot.
However; it may also be that said theory or law explains everything in another way. The same being: that this theory or law that explains nothing; does in fact explain everything; but the true “everything” is hidden. Meaning that the observer fails to grasp the true meaning; and thus here it is the observer that is the true idiot or “doesn’t know.” This is often because the scruples of the observer preclude the observer from true and correct observation.
Popper is also reputed to have said:
“Those who promise us paradise on earth
never produced anything but a hell.”(2.2) …”
“Statists Saving One” pp.8-13
Copyright © 2017 Quadrakoff Publications Group, LLC All rights reserved.
2.1 Popper, Karl, retrieved 10/17 http://www.azquotes.com/quote/687394
2.2 Popper, Karl, retrieved 10/17 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/k/karlpopper159604.htmlhttp://www.azquotes.com/quote/687394