# "I am not anti-guns. I am anti-bullet holes in my patients." **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 9, 2018, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268 "2018-11-09T23:42:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2018, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/282 "2018-11-18T16:16:22Z")
It is high time in America for antis to stand up and be proud of being anti whatever they’re against. Be anti-gun, anti-Trump, anti-abortion, antivaccine, anti-whatever you deplore or revile. Yes, we know you shy away from the “anti” label for fear that people don’t like negativity. But your euphemisms generally range from moronic to actively deceptive. So march proudly in your anti-dom.\* \*The Antifa get my grudging respect for at least being proud antis, despite their other loathsome characteristics. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/283 "2018-11-18T17:50:21Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > I don’t get riled up about armed robbery. I get riled up about unnecessary killings. A lot of armed robberies also involve unnecessary killings. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2018, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/284 "2018-11-18T21:23:57Z")
I thought I’d throw this into the mix.Washington state voters approved 1639 in the last election. [The initiative](https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf) will > [@](#): > > Create an enhanced background check system applicable to semiautomatic assault rifles similar to what is required for handguns, require that individuals complete a firearm safety training course and be at least twenty-one years of age to purchase or possess such weapons, enact a waiting period for the purchase of such weapons, and establish standards for the responsible storage of all firearms. Maybe I should say “would” because the NRA–surprise, surprise–filed suit almost immediately, and one city, Republic, Washington, is apparently going to try the ol’ nullification bit that worked so well in 1833 and declare itself a["sanctuary city"](http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/nov/15/republic-wa-considers-becoming-a-sanctuary-city-to) for gun owners who don’t like to play by the rules. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2018, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/285 "2018-11-18T22:45:41Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Finally, you nailed it. It is hard, to prove intent, as I kept saying. You were trying to say that the ATF could prosecute these guys, but just chose not to. I kept trying to point out that there was more than that to it. > > And they use a mind reading machine for that? How do they prove that I intended to sell it when I bought it, and that I didn’t decide to sell it later, when someone made me an offer? > > Imagine if we made people selling guns have to confirm the identities of the people they were selling them to, rather than just taking their word for it? Then they would no longer be able to pass that background check. > Then we should be able to prosecute them for the laws that they broke, correct? Sounds like a no true scotsman to me. They are legal, until they sell the gun, but only if they know that they are selling the gun illegally, which you have no way of determining. > > If someone can buy a gun legally, then they are a legal owner. Your attempts to redefine what a legal owner is does absolutely nothing to stop the flow of guns into the hands of criminals. > > . Well, it can be pretty easy. First of all, criminals are stupid and they can just admit it, or they can be taped saying so. Next you have to convince a jury, and if I was on a jury and they brought in a guy who purchased 20 AR15s from Dave’s Gun store on Nov 18th and sold them to various bad guys and criminals over the next few days, hell yes, that solid evidence of intent. They have convicted quite a few straw man sellers. So, it certainly can be done. So, the guy shows you a fake id. Are you then Ok with that sale, assuming you dont know it’s fake? We can prosecute for straw man sales. No, if you buy guns with the _intent_ to resell to another person, you are \*not buying that gun legally. \* ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2018, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/286 "2018-11-18T23:02:38Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, it can be pretty easy. First of all, criminals are stupid and they can just admit it, or they can be taped saying so. And these straw sellers that the ATF just chooses not to prosecute, are they the smart ones that realize that they shouldn’t admit it? > [@](#): > > Next you have to convince a jury, and if I was on a jury and they brought in a guy who purchased 20 AR15s from Dave’s Gun store on Nov 18th and sold them to various bad guys and criminals over the next few days, hell yes, that solid evidence of intent. You have to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt. How do you prove that they were not just bought because you like AR-15’s, and then a few days alter, people started making offers for them that were enough above the markup that you really couldn’t refuse? > [@](#): > > They have convicted quite a few straw man sellers. So, it certainly can be done. And yet, people still sell their guns to criminals and get away with it. > [@](#): > > So, the guy shows you a fake id. Are you then Ok with that sale, assuming you dont know it’s fake? At the very least, it creates some level of accountability. If it is from out of state, you know that you shouldn’t sell it. When the police come to talk to you because the gun that you purchased was used in a crime, you can tell give them more information. If you give a fake ID at the gun store, and they don’t know it’s a fake, are _you_ okay with that sale? As I’ve said before, I would consider a valid CCW or other sort of carry permit to be considered an adequate background check. Are you saying that CCW’s are so easy to fake that they are worthless? > [@](#): > > We can prosecute for straw man sales. Only if the straw purchaser basically begs to be prosecuted. > [@](#): > > No, if you buy guns with the _intent_ to resell to another person, you are \*not buying that gun legally. \* Oh, well, then if you aren’t buying the gun legally, then they shouldn’t sell it to you, right? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/287 "2018-11-19T05:36:02Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Why do our gun laws do NOTHING when gun laws in other places work? > > Could it possibly be because our gun laws focus oninstead of actually reducing the number of guns in the country? No wonder they don’t do shit for reducing violence. It’s not a matter of number of guns or type of guns. It’s a matter of how you view guns. For people in other developed countries, guns are either: a tool of your trade (soldier, farmer, LEO), a hunting tool, or a sports item. Not a symbol of the greatness of their country. Not their most important freedom. Not a self-defense tool. For a lot of Americans, they are those last three things. And that’s what’s a huge difference. We look at guns and we see metal and wood; you guys look at guns and see second amendment rights. Many Americans identify the second amendment and the US so strongly that they even honestly believe people in other countries can’t own guns, or that it’s not possible to travel to any other country with a gun - neither of which makes any sense! ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/288 "2018-11-19T10:01:03Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > It’s not a matter of number of guns or type of guns. It’s a matter of how you view guns. > > For people in other developed countries, guns are either: a tool of your trade (soldier, farmer, LEO), a hunting tool, or a sports item. Not a symbol of the greatness of their country. Not their most important freedom. Not a self-defense tool. > > For a lot of Americans, they are those last three things. And that’s what’s a huge difference. We look at guns and we see metal and wood; you guys look at guns and see second amendment rights. Many Americans identify the second amendment and the US so strongly that they even honestly believe people in other countries can’t own guns, or that it’s not possible to travel to any other country with a gun - neither of which makes any sense! You’re right in some of those senses re: attitudes, but the right to use firearms to defend oneself is recognized in (at least) Northern Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and I believe Estonia. The Czechs have an ongoing debate on whether to adapt their version of the Second Amendment. It’s not gone far yet, but interestingly there is no clear partisan slant on it there. Mexico also has the right to bear arms in their constitution, but it has not been de facto supported by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/289 "2018-11-19T10:15:12Z")
And in a lot of other countries people have the right to bear arms but never put it in a Constitution or equivalent document(s) because we see it as absurd as putting our right to breathe air in there. What next, “people shall have the right to have sex”? We regulate both the right to bear arms and the right to have sex, but we don’t feel the need to list either one as being something which exists. As for the right to breathe air, it’s not even regulated. And, we don’t see the exercise of any of those rights as being something particularly patriotic, nor peculiar to us. Americans often do see guns that way (not other weaponry, just the ones which have a tube and go BOOM). ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/290 "2018-11-19T10:39:35Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > And in a lot of other countries people have the right to bear arms but never put it in a Constitution or equivalent document(s) because we see it as absurd as putting our right to breathe air in there. What next, “people shall have the right to have sex”? We regulate both the right to bear arms and the right to have sex, but we don’t feel the need to list either one as being something which exists. As for the right to breathe air, it’s not even regulated. > > And, we don’t see the exercise of any of those rights as being something particularly patriotic, nor peculiar to us. Americans often do see guns that way (not other weaponry, just the ones which have a tube and go BOOM). That’s the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate. Either rights are self-evident, or we must enumerate them to resist perceived challenges to them. And whether one feels they are important actual rights or not is a different argument than recognizing that the BoR is intended to not grant rights but provide recognition of natural rights. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/291 "2018-11-19T11:17:36Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > You’re right in some of those senses re: attitudes, but the right to use firearms to defend oneself is recognized in (at least) Northern Ireland “Personal protection” is recognised as a valid reason for asking for a firearms certificate, which it is not in the rest of the UK. That’s not to say it’s an absolute right,nor that you would get a firearms certificate for that purpose just for the asking. [The latest statistics I’ve seen](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/aug/23/arms-licence-northern-ireland) is that there are about 3000 people in NI who have a certificate allowing a weapon for personal protection. And the usual rules on the law of self-defence (proportionality to the specific threat at the time of use) would still apply. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/292 "2018-11-19T12:30:47Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > That’s the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate. Either rights are self-evident, or we must enumerate them to resist perceived challenges to them. And whether one feels they are important actual rights or not is a different argument than recognizing that the BoR is intended to not grant rights but provide recognition of natural rights. We reckon that rights only need to be enumerated if they’ve ever been under heavy-enough attack (succesfully or not) or if the different legal traditions which formed Spain viewed them differently. For example: the right to vote used to be handled differently in different areas, including women’s right to vote, which was succesfully supressed in the 19th century, recognized again in 1931 and supressed again by Franco. So, the right to vote and that it’s not affected by gender is something that’s listed. Another difference which often makes speaking about legal matters with Americans difficult, we never consider any list as self-limiting unless it explicitly says so: there is a part of the current Consti which once got challenged as being self-limiting and it specifically got touched-up to indicate that it’s not. This is part of our normal legal process: if any law (yes, including the Consti) is at some point found to be ambiguous in any way, it gets re-edited for clarification. Whenever you’re looking at a Spanish law, you need to make sure you have the latest version. We also tend to write our laws to be more sweeping than yours. This has led to things such as being given a “bad grade” on account of “not having a law requiring internet service providers, forum moderators, etc. to report possibly-illegal behavior”: we already had a law requiring anybody who sees possibly-illegal behavior to report it! The whole country is mandatory reporters :smack: (so, call us Big Brother if you want :p) The same law details possible penalties or that you don’t have to report if doing so would put you at risk. But, because there wasn’t a law called “ISP as Mandatory Reporters” or suchlike, these people compiling a list about how countries view internet crime didn’t find the applicable legislation. That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, same as “the right to bear arms” exists in dozens of countries which don’t bother put it in their Constitutions. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/293 "2018-11-19T13:31:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, sorta. Many of them are buy by unlicensed gun dealers in a straw man transaction. In theory that is illegal but the ATF has made enforcing it a vary low priority. There’s no ‘sorta’ about it. Legal gun ownership provides a never ending supply of guns to criminals. Whether it’s through strawman transactions, legal sales to people who aren’t yet known criminals, private sales, or theft. The 2nd Amendment ensures a vast supply of weapons readily available to the enterprising criminal. The only way to prevent criminals from getting guns is to enact laws that the NRA (and their toadies) would vomit all over. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/294 "2018-11-19T13:33:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Not the last 20 years, the last ten years. > > DC, Chicago, and SF had all passed or were moving towards a total ban. Heller stopped that nonsense. > > Heller has rolled back some of the more restrictive laws. > > California, at least, continues it’s “nibbling”. No, the last 20+. Expansion of carry rights gathered momentum in a big way back in the 1990s with ‘shall issue’ for concealed-carry permits. This was followed up in the 2000s and since by an increasing number of jurisdictions allowing open carry, jurisdictions reducing or abandoning training requirements to have a carry permit, jurisdictions abandoning the requirement of needing a permit at all to carry. Then there was the expiration of the assault weapons ban (2004), and of course the spreading of the stand-your-ground laws. And as you mention, _Heller_. So what I see is the assault weapons ban of 1994 being the high-water mark of gun control, and practically everything since then moving in the direction of expanded gun rights. So yeah, if things keep going in the direction they’re going, I figure in another two or three decades, anyone will be able to carry any weapon anywhere that can physically be carried. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/295 "2018-11-19T13:45:15Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > And in a lot of other countries people have the right to bear arms but never put it in a Constitution or equivalent document(s) because we see it as absurd as putting our right to breathe air in there. Wait. Are you comparing the right to breathe air with the right to own deadly weapons? ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/296 "2018-11-19T14:40:53Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Legal gun ownership provides a never ending supply of guns to criminals… > > … > > The 2nd Amendment ensures a vast supply of weapons readily available to the enterprising criminal. > > … > > The only way to prevent criminals from getting guns is to enact laws that the NRA (and their toadies) would vomit all over. Do you really believe that the only people in America who support _legal gun ownership_ are “the NRA and its toadies?” You’re operating under a false premise. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/297 "2018-11-19T15:10:18Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > Do you really believe that the only people in America who support _legal gun ownership_ are “the NRA and its toadies?” You’re operating under a false premise. No, I don’t really believe that. What I believe is exactly what I wrote: The only way to prevent criminals from getting guns is to enact laws that the NRA (and their toadies) would vomit all over. What supporters of gun ownership who are NOT the NRA or NRA toadies, believe or don’t is a matter I have not ventured an opinion on. Theoretically, a decent law abiding human being could support the concept of legal gun ownership and also support laws that actually prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals. One could also think that a person could be conceptually in favor of legal gun ownership, but after considering the massive social cost of actual widespread gun ownership, come to the conclusion that legal gun ownership comes with too high a cost to support. BTW, feel free to comment on my claim that legal gun ownership provides an endless supply of guns to criminals. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/298 "2018-11-19T20:22:46Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > There’s no ‘sorta’ about it. Legal gun ownership provides a never ending supply of guns to criminals. Whether it’s through strawman transactions, legal sales to people who aren’t yet known criminals, private sales, or theft. The 2nd Amendment ensures a vast supply of weapons readily available to the enterprising criminal. > > The only way to prevent criminals from getting guns is to enact laws that the NRA (and their toadies) would vomit all over. Strawman sales are not thru legal gun ownership. The many who buys the guns, intending to resell them is a criminal. _The only way to prevent criminals from getting guns is to enact laws that_ \*\*violate the Constitution. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/299 "2018-11-19T20:25:19Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > No, the last 20+. > > Then there was the expiration of the assault weapons ban (2004), and of course the spreading of the stand-your-ground laws. > > And as you mention, _Heller_. > > So what I see is the assault weapons ban of 1994 being the high-water mark of gun control, and practically everything since then moving in the direction of expanded gun rights. > . The assault weapon ban did nothing and as has been shown, even if every legally defined assault weapon was banned, violent crime would not decrease significantly. The “high water mark” was DC, Chicago and SF banning handguns, for all normal intents and purposes. Which caused Heller. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2018, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/300 "2018-11-20T11:47:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Strawman sales are not thru legal gun ownership. The many who buys the guns, intending to resell them is a criminal. By what process was this criminal afforded the opportunity to buy stock for his illegal gun sale business? The answer, shocking exactly nobody, is the legal gun ownership market. If you didn’t have the right to buy a dozen guns for “personal protection” these assholes wouldn’t be able to buy a dozen guns to sell to gang members. The fact that you and I have the right to buy guns means there will always be people with guns who are willing to sell them to criminals. > [@](#): > > _The only way to prevent criminals from getting guns is to enact laws that_ \*\*violate the Constitution. \*\* We already violate the Constitution! The NFA was passed over 80 years ago, abridging our right to buy fully automatic weapons. Nobody is jumping up and down about that -crystal clear- violation of our right to keep and bear arms. The question isn’t whether or not it is acceptable to ban guns in “violation of the Constitution”, it is, and we have a very long history of doing so, the question is where to draw the line. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/301 "2018-11-20T18:32:13Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > We already violate the Constitution! The NFA was passed over 80 years ago, abridging our right to buy fully automatic weapons. Nobody is jumping up and down about that -crystal clear- violation of our right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court disagrees, and I think they know more about the Constitution than some ransom poster on a MB. Unless you are, in secret, a noted Constitutional scholar? :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268.md?page=16)