# "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:** 19
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2018, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/363 "2018-11-22T11:40:35Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Do you feel that convicted felons in many cases being unable to legally own guns is a gross violation of their Constitutional rights? > [@DrDeth](#): > > Nope. I feel that convicted felons should not have the right to own guns. > > However, that being said, if the felony was long ago, non violent, and no further offenses, maybe there should be a way to get that right back. It’s called “restoration of civil rights” or something like that. What can or can’t be restored and under what conditions varies from state to state. So it already exists. The problem with allowing felons - violent or not - to own weapons is that they have already demonstrated they have problems following the rules. Personally, if after a sufficient period of time (let’s say 20 years) they’ve stayed out of trouble and followed the law I’m open to full restoration of rights but, let’s say, six months out of prison? Nope. You have to show you can behave long term. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2018, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/364 "2018-11-22T14:36:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > There arent, really. Even so, “assault weapons” are used in less than 4% of the murders in this nation. I don’t want to tear up the Bill of Right for a possible, doubtful, insignificant decrease in murders. > > Hey, I just defend the \*\*Constitution of the United States. \*\* I am not a “gun nut”. I have never owned a “assault weapon”. Oh, bullshit. (Yes, I know I’ve said that before. True again.) You’re defending _a particular interpretation_ of the Constitution. Was the assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional? No, it wasn’t. At that time, there was no reason to think it would have been. Now, things have changed a bit, but that’s due to the _composition of the Supreme Court_, not due to the clear and unambiguous wording of the Constitution. That composition will change again. > [@](#): > > Yes, our Rights under the Constitution a_re_ more important. So bunches of random people should die because of your favored interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, I think that’s immoral as all get out. Evil, actually. How many deaths are less important than your interpretation of the Constitution? How many deaths will it take 'til you know that too many people have died? (We’re way past forty-two, fwiw. :() Also, whatever happened to “the Constitution is not a suicide pact”? You’ve turned it into one. > [@](#): > > Look, there have been articles that hypothesis that the media, by publicizing and glorifying the mass shooters have actually caused the increase. But yes, I defend their rights under the Constitution also. So many shootings these days that that’s some other year’s debate. :mad: ☹ > [@](#): > > Benjamin Franklin once said: “\*Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” \* Those who would sacrifice the lives of hundreds of others, to purchase a bit of extra freedom for themselves…yeah, I’m sure old Ben would have been on board with that. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2018, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/365 "2018-11-22T20:57:43Z")
> [@nicky](#): > > I’m always staggered by interpretations of the second amendment. > Clearly the meaning is to establish a militia , and clearly all the reasons for said militia have been spectacularly overtaken by events . The Supreme Court disagrees. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2018, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/366 "2018-11-22T21:10:14Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > … except where that has actually been tried. > > But you consider guns are about essential liberty and naught about safety becasue you know the most probable gun victim will be it’s owner or their family (which is a misfortune because that’s not what they are designed to do) but it’s necessary the civilian population continues buy these cool fashion items (despite being the primary supply arm of the illegal gun market) so as the gun manufacturers can stay in business. > … Like Australia? Australia more or less banned All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds, and for most purposes- all handguns. They went way further than a "assault weapons " ban. And there is much disagreement and conflicting studies on whether or not it worked: > **[Gun laws of Australia | Research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Research)** > > In 1981, Richard Harding, after reviewing Australian and other data at that time, said that "whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them. " He quoted a 1968 international analysis of 20 developed countries "cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less a In ... _Multiple studies have been conducted by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH). In 2006 they reported a lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, they found little evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide, but did for suicide.[74] Subsequently, they compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand.[nb 1] The authors conclude that “if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia then New Zealand would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[4] In 2012, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia’s firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide…A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of University of Melbourne and La Trobe University studied the data and concluded “the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.”[3]_ Take a look at the picture here: you dont see any AR15s or anything like that. Mostly .22 rifles and hunting weapons. > **[Opinion | Australia’s Gun Laws Are Not a Model for America (Published 2018)](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/australias-gun-laws-america.html)** > > Australians are scared of guns. Americans love them. > **[Why Australia's famed gun control laws probably wouldn't reduce shooting...](https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-australia-gun-law-deaths-20180926-story.html)** > > On a spring day in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur, a lone gunman shot an elderly couple at the inn they owned, 22 diners lunching at a nearby tourist spot, two tour bus drivers and several of their passengers, four occupants of a BMW, and two... \*Neither of those kinds of deaths actually fell in Australia as a result of the National Firearms Agreement, researchers reported Tuesday in the American Journal of Public Health. “Many claims have been made about the NFA’s far-reaching effects and its potential benefits if implemented in the United States,” wrote Stuart Gilmour, a statistician at St. Luke’s International University in Tokyo, and his coauthors from the University of Tokyo. “However, more detailed analysis of the law shows that it likely had a negligible effect on firearm suicides and homicides in Australia and may not have as large an effect in the United States as some gun control advocates expect.”\* To be fair, other studies disagree. But that fact is- whether or not Australians wide ranging gun ban had any significant effect is debatable. And they banned far more than just AR15s. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2018, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/367 "2018-11-22T21:11:31Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > It’s called “restoration of civil rights” or something like that. What can or can’t be restored and under what conditions varies from state to state. So it already exists. > > The problem with allowing felons - violent or not - to own weapons is that they have already demonstrated they have problems following the rules. Personally, if after a sufficient period of time (let’s say 20 years) they’ve stayed out of trouble and followed the law I’m open to full restoration of rights but, let’s say, six months out of prison? Nope. You have to show you can behave long term. Sure. In general, I am going to say _NO, felons can’t own guns_, but I agree that on a case by case basis, some exceptions might be made. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2018, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/368 "2018-11-22T21:14:19Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > …So bunches of random people should die because of your favored interpretation of the Constitution. > … Except that there is absolutely no evidence of that. Simply your opinion. You think we should wipe our asses with the Bill of Rights so that _you_, personally can feel more safe. There is no evidence at all that any gun control laws in the USA ever reduced violent crime by any significant amount. None. Zip. Zero. You are just _hoping_ they might. ---
**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 23, 2018, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/369 "2018-11-23T15:23:38Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Benjamin Franklin once said: "_Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."_ This quote gets trotted out a lot by people who want to justify preserving what they perceive to be entitled freedoms at the sacrifice of the safety and well-being of society at large. First, there is no particular reason to hold sacred every word that was uttered by Ben Franklin. Great guy, but let’s not get religious about it. Second, the [context of the quote](https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said) is not about individual freedoms (and certainly not about the second amendment). He was advocating to the governor as a member of the Assembly to tax the Penn family to raise funds for the French and Indian War. The governor was trying to do a roundabout deal where the Penn family would provide funds but not give the Assembly the authority to levy taxes. Essentially Franklin did not want the Assembly’s liberty as a taxing authority to be sold even though those funds would be used for security. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/370 "2018-11-23T15:41:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I somehow doubt that, as your posts have shown a aversion to gun rights I’m sure if you actually cared, a search of my posting history would show numerous times where I agree that people now should be allowed to own guns due to the 2nd Amendment. I mostly mock those people. > [@](#): > > However, no right is without qualifications- you have the right to a free press and speech, but not for kiddie porn, libel, copyright infringement, plagiarism, etc. Those indeed are abrigments Saying this gives you little leeway to yell 2nd Amendment! when someone wants to qualify the right to bear arms to exclude various types of guns from that right. Also, your views on limiting the Constitutional rights of convicted felons is repugnant to me. Which other rights should they lose? Illegal search and seizure? Freedom of religion? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/371 "2018-11-23T19:58:11Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Saying this gives you little leeway to yell 2nd Amendment! when someone wants to qualify the right to bear arms to exclude various types of guns from that right. SCOTUS made it clear in Heller that 2nd Ad rights are not absolute. Indeed the right to own Machine Guns is not covered under the 2nd. I would suspect that a well crafted anti-assault weapon law is legit under the 2nd also- several states have such, and those laws have been challenged in the courts but I believe SCOTUS has refused certiorari. That hasn’t stopped me from saying assault weapon bans are stupid and useless. So, no, I dont \*yell 2nd Amendment! \*when some guns are excluded. But when the exclusion is broad, I, _just like the Supreme Court_, do say it is a enfingement . ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/372 "2018-11-23T20:36:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except that there is absolutely no evidence of that. Simply your opinion. _What’s_ my opinion? That the people killed at Las Vegas or Parlkland or at Thousand Oaks or at the synagogue in Squirrel Hill are _ **dead?** _ The assorted coroners seemed pretty sure about it. “You think we should wipe our asses with **your particular interpetation of** the Bill of Rights” - FTFY. > [@](#): > > so that _you_, personally can feel more safe. _Feel?_ I want to wipe my ass with your particular interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is beyond what even this court has committed itself to, so that other people may _continue_ to feel. Those who are already six feet under, can’t. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence at all that any gun control laws in the USA ever reduced violent crime by any significant amount. None. Zip. Zero. You are just _hoping_ they might. Actually, there’s a great deal of evidence that tough gun laws in Massachusetts and California have reduced gun deaths there. And since I’m the guy who finally lives up to your accusation that we’re all “gun grabbers,” (what are you going to call me _now_, bucko? You’ve used it up! :D) then yes, I believe that if all the semi-autos were scooped up, it would make quite a dent in these mass killings. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/373 "2018-11-23T20:47:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > SCOTUS made it clear in Heller that 2nd Ad rights are not absolute. Indeed the right to own Machine Guns is not covered under the 2nd. I would suspect that a well crafted anti-assault weapon law is legit under the 2nd also- several states have such, and those laws have been challenged in the courts but I believe SCOTUS has refused certiorari. That hasn’t stopped me from saying assault weapon bans are stupid and useless. > > So, no, I dont \*yell 2nd Amendment! \*when some guns are excluded. But when the exclusion is broad, I, _just like the Supreme Court_, do say it is a enfingement . Well, great! But I’m not asking about the Supreme Court. I already know what they said. I am asking you what YOUR opinion is. Unless your opinion is “Whatever the Supreme Court says.” Besides, according to [this](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170928121641.htm) site, there are 19 million people with a felony record. 19 million people that you think it is okay that they be denied their 2nd Amendment rights. And you don’t think that is a “broad” exclusion? Strange. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/374 "2018-11-23T20:50:12Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > _What’s_ my opinion? That the people killed at Las Vegas or Parlkland or at Thousand Oaks or at the synagogue in Squirrel Hill are _ **dead?** _ > > … > > Actually, there’s a great deal of evidence that tough gun laws in Massachusetts and California have reduced gun deaths there. > > And since I’m the guy who finally lives up to your accusation that we’re all “gun grabbers,” (what are you going to call me _now_, bucko? You’ve used it up! :D) then yes, I believe that if all the semi-autos were scooped up, it would make quite a dent in these mass killings. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: California ranks right in the middle of the states by Homicide rate, so no. Mass is not in the top ten lowest, so again no. The state with the Lowest homicide rate is NH, rated “F” by Giffords Gun law scorecard. ND ranks 2nd lowest , also a F. Maine is third- also a F. Idaho is 4th- also F. Maryland has the 4th highest murder rate and rates a A. So, no, no, no, and no. > **[GIFFORDS Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/scorecard/)** > > Every year, we rank and grade state gun laws. And every year, we come to the same conclusion: states with strong gun laws have fewer gun deaths. Sure, a small dent- and you’d have to scoop up \*half the guns in the USA. \* 150 Million guns. I have already shown how absolutely ridiculous that idea is. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/375 "2018-11-23T20:51:26Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > … > > Besides, according to [this](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170928121641.htm) site, there are 19 million people with a felony record. 19 million people that you think it is okay that they be denied their 2nd Amendment rights. And you don’t think that is a “broad” exclusion? Strange. What is your point with this hijack?😕 ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/376 "2018-11-23T21:01:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What is your point with this hijack?😕 Well, my point is I find it strange that you are against “broad” exclusions to the 2nd Amendment but yet find nothing wrong with excluding 19 million Americans from their 2nd Amendment rights. Like I said - strange. I would find it just as strange if you said “I don’t think the 19 million people with a felony conviction should be able to exercise their 5th Amendment rights” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/377 "2018-11-23T21:02:11Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Well, my point is I find it strange that you are against “broad” exclusions to the 2nd Amendment but yet find nothing wrong with excluding 19 million Americans from their 2nd Amendment rights. > > Like I said - strange. I would find it just as strange if you said “I don’t think the 19 million people with a felony conviction should be able to exercise their 5th Amendment rights” Do\* you\* support allowing felons to own guns and vote? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/378 "2018-11-23T21:04:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: > > California ranks right in the middle of the states by Homicide rate, so no. Mass is not in the top ten lowest, so again no. So, you’re claiming that most homicides are done by the guns you’re saying aren’t responsible for that much of the killing? Well, how can one rebut such a claim? I yield to your awesomeness. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/379 "2018-11-23T21:05:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Do\* you\* support allowing felons to own guns and vote? LOL, of course. Why wouldn’t I? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/380 "2018-11-23T21:47:59Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So, you’re claiming that most homicides are done by the guns you’re saying aren’t responsible for that much of the killing? > > Well, how can one rebut such a claim? I yield to your awesomeness. No. Look, there is a big difference (gun ignorances show through again here) between “assault weapons” (AR15, etc) and 'all semi-autos." The AR15 is a rifle and rifles are hardly ever used in crimes. About half the guns in America are semi-autos, thus semi-autos are quite often used in crimes. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/381 "2018-11-23T21:59:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No. > > Look, there is a big difference (gun ignorances show through again here) between “assault weapons” (AR15, etc) and 'all semi-autos." > > The AR15 is a rifle and rifles are hardly ever used in crimes. > > About half the guns in America are semi-autos, thus semi-autos are quite often used in crimes. So you’re saying California has scooped up all the semi-automatic weapons, and they’re still middle of the pack? You’re getting more incoherent, the further down this path you go. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/382 "2018-11-23T22:09:01Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So, you’re claiming that most homicides are done by the guns you’re saying aren’t responsible for that much of the killing? > > Well, how can one rebut such a claim? I yield to your awesomeness. Well, apparently I didnt understand what you are saying here. What’s your point? 😕 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268.md?page=20)