Too many variable,s including the fact that people don't usually see doctor's until something is wrong.
Printable View
Too many variable,s including the fact that people don't usually see doctor's until something is wrong.
I favor a ban on assault doctors.
If true, it would be a good "shock statistic" to use for antis, and I've seen it used before, as well as drownings, car accidents, and others of the many ways people die each year. The point isn't to get into the variables any more than the antis want to jump into the variables associated with firearm-related deaths. They don't want to talk about the lives firearm ownership have saved, so there's no reason to bring up how many lives these doctors have saved. Plus, all comparisons fall apart if you look too deeply at them.
Antis don't want to compare firearm-related deaths to other mortality rates or other causes of deaths because the shock is cushioned too much to get people emotionally charged (which is the ultimate goal: to people to react emotionally rather than rationally/logically). What they do is say "firearms have caused [x] deaths" and want to leave it at that, thinking that the high number (without context) is enough to make people want to do away with those unnecessary tools of destruction. When you put the number in context with other causes of death, suddenly the issue doesn't seem quite as nasty.
Also, there's a reason why I never see doctors wearing black scrubs/coats: they don't want to be compared to evil black guns.
I think that we should limit the number of (and size of?) magazines each doctor's waiting room has. Heck, such a defensive measure greatly reduced swine flu incidence!