EDITOR’S NOTE: This is one of a series of articles on gun rights. Each addresses a common anti-gun trope.

“Children die from guns in households! If we can save one child’s life by banning guns, we should do it!”

I find the “one child” gambit to be one of the most loathsome political canards in existence. It’s cheap and dirty, it plays to and preys on emotions, and it implies the worst thing in the world about anyone who objects to the assertion. It’s also, as is so typical of political arguments that are rooted in forcing some to bend to the will of others, a “half-story” piece of illogic.

Before we get to the “half-story” problems, lets consider the legitimacy of utilitarian arguments such as this one. We can argue that the nation would be a safer place if police were empowered to search our homes, our cars, our pockets, and our persons at will. We can argue that national security would benefit if the government held veto power over everything that the press could publish. We can argue that some religions, sects and cults teach bad things and shutting them down would improve safety and security. All these are “save one child” arguments, and none of them are legitimate in a free society.

Nevertheless, if we do decide to go down the utilitarian path, if we do assert that “save one child” is sufficient to warrant infringements on liberty, lets consider some other places where we can “save one child.”

50 million households in the nation have firearms. By contrast, there are 13 million pools and hot tubs in the nation. There are fewer than 100 accidental child shootings per year, while there are over 1000 accidental drownings. If we wanted to impose a utilitarian argument, we’d serve the children of the nation FAR better by banning swimming pools.

Want another one? About 200 children per year are killed by automobiles backing up. How about we mandate circular driveways? Not enough room on your property for a circular driveway? Ok, then, park on the street. Oh, and to prevent backup problems on the street, lets draw lines that make parking spots twice as long, so you can pull in and pull out.

Want to save “just one child?” Reduce the speed limit to 20 miles per hour, across the entire country. Put regulators on cars that keep them from going any faster, and hundreds of lives will be saved each year.

Want to save “just one child?” Ban tobacco. Ban alcohol. Ban swing sets.

Ridiculous? Obviously. There are countless dangers in our every day lives, both to our selves and to our children. We do our best to protect them and ourselves, but we cannot wrap everyone and everything in bubble wrap. We do not ban swimming pools or swimming in the ocean, no matter that such bans could “save one child.” We don’t ban swing sets. We don’t ban tobacco, or alcohol, or five gallon pails. We don’t restrict the purchase of drain cleaning chemicals to licensed plumbers. We don’t ban high chairs or necklaces. We don’t mandate padlocked storage cabinets for detergents and cleaning supplies in every household.

It’s obvious that society does not actually follow a utilitarian “save one child” principle, which means that, when it is trotted out, there are other motives. I address those in numerous other Gun Rights Lessons.

Next, consider that “save one child” is also a half-story. If a law saves Jimmy but does harm to Joey, it did “save one child” but harmed another. If a law saves Jimmy but harms Joey and Janey, it did “save one child” but harmed two. This is the true emptiness of the “save one child” argument. If we wish to argue that that an action will result in a net positive number of lives saved, injuries avoided or individuals helped, we have presented a different sort of utilitarian justification – that of net benefit. This can be very difficult to accurately determine, in particular regarding guns in the home. How many children are saved from harm by armed parents? How many are protected from harm by the deterring effects of armed households? Home invasions are not common, but they do happen. This, and the other utilitarian argument that a gun in the home increases your chance of being shot, are Gun Rights Lessons for another day. Today’s argument is the “save one child” claptrap.

Gun rights lesson #704: If someone argues that we should do something because it will “save one child,” he’s either lying to you to bend your emotions or is ignoring the harm done by that something.”

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.