# "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:** 8
**Author:** ![steatopygia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steatopygia/32/3132_2.png) [@steatopygia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steatopygia)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/141 "2018-11-14T05:27:41Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I think that you are being more than a bit unfair to the ones who are looking for some level of gun control here. We are not looking to take the guns out of their hands, we are trying to make sure that they are in responsible hands. IF they say that that means that they will be taken from them, then that means that they do not consider themselves to be responsible. > > We do _get_ it, and I think it is perfectly fine that if you are in a situation where you fear for your safety, then you should be able to become a responsible gun owner. > > The problem is, is that the gun advocates do not want to have any sort of interference whatsoever in their owning of any and every gun they could possibly want, and that ability to carry it anywhere they want. This means that irresponsible gun owners also get to buy any and every gun they want, and to take those guns anywhere they want. > > I am sure that all the gun owner in this thread are responsible, that they keep their guns in a safe and away from the curious hands of children, as well as the hands of criminals. I am sure that when they carry in public, they maintain 100% situational awareness at all times. I am positive that when they practice their marksmanship, they make sure that the place that they are practicing is safe and that they are aware of what they are using as a backstop. > > Unfortunately, not everyone is as diligent and responsible as the people in these threads, and as such, tragedies occur. Sometimes it is that an irresponsible gun owner has left their gun where a kid can get it, and in playing with it, they can hurt themselves or sometimes even another kid. Sometimes an irresponsible gun owner leaves their gun in a position to be easily stolen, and then it is in the hands of a criminal who may hurt someone with it. Sometimes, the irresponsible gun owner sells their gun to someone without the purchaser providing any sort of identification, which means that the seller very well could have sold the gun to someone who was prohibited form having a gun, while maintaining plausible deniability that they didn’t know that they sold the gun to someone who was not eligible to buy it. And sometimes, people are unaware of what it behind the target that they are shooting at, and so, instead, they kill someone who just happened to be unlucky enough to be used as your backstop. > > I don’t want to take the guns from responsible gun owners, and I don’t even really want to _take_ the guns from irresponsible gun owners. I just want guns to be in the hands of responsible gun owners, and out of the hands of the irresponsible or the criminal. > > I’d love to work _with_ the gun advocates on this, but they tend to find ready access to their toys more important to them than the fact that _everyone_ has ready access to their toys. > > I do not feel that the vast majority of gun owners own and buy guns out of spite of the gun control crowd, but I do have to express more than a bit of :dubious: when the best selling gun or accessory is the one that was used in the latest mass shooting. > > More than even that. As they tend to also dismiss people who do know the difference between the two. You even have a pro-gun poster here who insists that a .223 and a .22 are basically the same round, and dismisses those who claim otherwise. > > I get the same argument with pro vs anti seatbelt users. The anti seatbelt users are absolutely correct that there are a few circumstances where not being buckled in will be better than being buckled in. When you show them the statistics that show that those circumstances are far far rarer than people being saved by wearing a seatbelt, they respond with anecdotes of “some guy that was thrown clear”. They too, will claim that you are being petty and disingenuous when you try to override the gut feelings that they truly believe with solid facts. > > Same as DGU’s. It’s all anecdotal. I’ve been involved in a few violent altercations in my life that were resolved without blood shed, and no gun was involved. fF I had had a gun, then I would call it a DGU. What is common to the two scenarios is not the gun, but a person who is able and willing to de-escalate a situation, rather than increase the threat. > > I’ve read some of these self reported DGU’s and many of them are people describing how they broke the law and intimidated someone by brandishing their gun at someone that they only perceived as a threat. There was a poster on here a while back who described how he encountered a couple of people in broad daylight in a Home Depot parking lot, and how he felt that he show off his gun (by pointing it not at them, but at the entrance to the building), in order to stay safe. That’s a DGU? > > There was the story a while back of the kid who got lost on the way to school and stopped at a house to ask directions. The owner of the house came at him with a shotgun, and had the owner not failed to disengage the safety, most likely would have killed him. (He did shoot, but was delayed long enough that the kid had a head start enough to be missed.) Were it not for the fact that his Nest video recorder picked it up, he could have called that a DGU as well. > > If you start and argument that gets heated, and the other person starts looking like he may become violent over this argument, flashing your gun will intimidate them into not becoming violent, so would be considered a DGU. > > Personally, the only DGUs that I consider to be valid is when someone of a weaker stature protects themselves against a person who does not have a gun themself. (A DGU against a gun is a wash, IMHO.) > I agree with that. Usually, the gun advocates insist that gun control advocates are arguing in bad faith, that we really just want to get rid of all guns (Why? why would we care about guns except for the effect that they have on society?), that because one person on a blog said that we should ban all guns, that all gun control advocates want to ban all guns. > > And, it is the gun advocates, not the gun control advocates, who insist that the only way to make any decrease in gun violence is to ban all guns and make gun owners into criminals. They are very persuasive on this, and one day, thay may convince me to join in the “ban them all” crowd. > > Or scared away the kid asking for directions, or the girl with a broken down car, or girl scouts trying to sell you cookies. Excellent post. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/142 "2018-11-14T05:29:46Z")
> [@The\_Librarian](#): > > All those violent incidents, none recorded or reported. Wow! Who knew? Aren’t we lucky you brought these solid facts into the conversation. No duh! Defensive uses generally don’t get any attention. Apparently they fail the ‘sell newspapers’/ ‘viewer eyeballs’ tests. ---
**Author:** ![steatopygia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steatopygia/32/3132_2.png) [@steatopygia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steatopygia)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/143 "2018-11-14T06:11:04Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > No duh! Defensive uses generally don’t get any attention. Apparently they fail the ‘sell newspapers’/ ‘viewer eyeballs’ tests. First of all, I am mightily impressed with your join date/post count ratio. I mean it, not snarking. DGU does get attention, but only in two narrow categories. One category is the completely justified DGU (IMO), such as a store owner shooting an armed robber, or a home owner defending themselves against intruders. The other category that gets a lot of publicity is the ambiguous “Stand your ground” type. The “I shot him in self defense” cases. Similar to Zimmerman. Like several people have pointed out, the use of a gun for defense in situations that fall in between these extremes is problematic. Did you “need” a gun to affect that outcome? Because if you didn’t you put everyone around you in danger. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/144 "2018-11-14T07:57:25Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > No duh! Defensive uses generally don’t get any attention. Apparently they fail the ‘sell newspapers’/ ‘viewer eyeballs’ tests. If you think it is a good idea to “use your gun” but you think nothing significant enough to warrant a police report happened… “How do you know you’re in Mogadishu?” for 200 please ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/145 "2018-11-14T08:08:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What good would registering guns do? Holding you responsible for crimes committed with your gun. Motivating you to use a safe. Preventing you to sell it to just anyone. Why do we register cars? ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/146 "2018-11-14T11:53:35Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > It appears to me that the political capital for enacting stricter gun control measures just isn’t there right now. With a Republican pro-gun president who is an NRA supporter, and who I will believe will serve two terms (though that’s another discussion entirely), a Supreme Court that he’s stacking in his favor and may yet continue to do so; and with gun control being politically very difficult to achieve, it’s so unlikely that we’re actually going to see any restrictions passed, that calling for more gun control at this point is almost becoming as much an exercise in futility as the “thoughts and prayers” which are so widely mocked. > > If the death toll of these shootings is to be reduced _in the here and now_, it seems to me that the best strategy is doubling down on addressing the root causes of the violence. That includes mental health support, and making it harder for people known to be dangerous to slip through the cracks, as happened with the Parkland shooter over and over again. Also some kind of concerted effort to reach out to troubled kids in high school and pre-emptively deal with the anger and hatred that motivates them to lash out violently. There need to be more qualified counselors to help these guys (and they’re almost always guys) work through there issues and get them to channel their energy and frustration into doing something productive. If these guys were screaming their heads off in punk rock bands instead of blowing peoples’ heads off with guns, we’d all be better off. > > I’m not saying that stricter gun control _wouldn’t_ reduce these shootings, but since that’s such an uphill battle, the will to address these shootings - which _is_ collectively there - should be directed where it’s most likely to actually make an impact rather than just make a point. Most democrats are afraid about going anti-gun also. Problem comes back to most people, even democrats, want a way to protect themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/147 "2018-11-14T12:26:45Z")
Interesting video: [Anti Gun Liberals Shoot Guns for the First Time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Ex2rVOUWs) [Similar video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l4s901oOUY) where Steven Crowder has 2 young women who are anti gun, takes them to a gun range where they shoot handguns, shotguns, and an AR-15 then they go thru the process of trying to buy a gun. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/148 "2018-11-14T13:28:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What good would registering guns do? Reducing gun deaths. > [@](#): > > In particular, experts honed in on Massachusetts’s gun licensing system, which treats the ability to own and use guns much like the ability to own and use a car: with license and registration required. > > The system, experts said, is one of the major reasons Massachusetts consistently reports the lowest gun death rates in the US. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, Massachusetts had 3.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2016. In comparison, the top three worst states for gun deaths in the country — Alaska, Alabama, and Louisiana, all of which have loose gun laws — each had more than 21 gun deaths per 100,000 people. > **[I looked for a state that’s taking gun violence seriously. I found...](https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses)** > > Massachusetts offers a model for dealing with gun violence that the rest of the country could follow. BTW, I’m still waiting on some cites on your claims on Dr. Melinek, I know she lives in SF, but it’s not clear to me what jurisdictions she works in and in what capacity. You were very sure that she lied about the number of gunshot victims she sees, but I’m going to need some cites. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/149 "2018-11-14T14:08:36Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Interesting video: [Anti Gun Liberals Shoot Guns for the First Time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Ex2rVOUWs) > [Similar video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l4s901oOUY) where Steven Crowder has 2 young women who are anti gun, takes them to a gun range where they shoot handguns, shotguns, and an AR-15 then they go thru the process of trying to buy a gun. For a follow-up take them to an ER to see a gunshot victim dying. ---
**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 14, 2018, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/150 "2018-11-14T14:31:59Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Most democrats are afraid about going anti-gun also. Problem comes back to most people, even democrats, want a way to protect themselves. You do realize that 70% of the people in this country don’t own any guns at all. The ability to own a gun doesn’t protect you. In fact, the ability to own a gun makes you far less safe because it means that other people have that ability too. One way to (theoretically) balance out that increased risk is to actually own a gun, but only 30% of Americans choose to do so. 70% of our population isn’t afraid to be anti-gun, because that’s exactly how they live. Frankly, I think the only reason that 70% isn’t more forcefully anti-gun is the ridiculous hysterics that the remaining 30% employ when even the most timid regulations are proposed. Developed countries across the globe have fully functional societies without being awash in guns, and without tens of thousands of gun-related deaths. ---
**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 14, 2018, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/151 "2018-11-14T14:42:11Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Exactly. Most are not reported but just about every murder is. There is no reason to report a non-violent use of a handgun for defense. Not even required by law. Murders are reported and tabulated, but gunshot injuries, while reported, do not seem to be well tabulated anywhere. It does seem as though most in this thread are concentrating only on the murders and fatalities from guns, and completely ignoring the life changing injuries that these toys inflict. Concentrating only on the murder rate compared to the self reported DGU rate is disingenuous. If you want to make any comparison, then comparing to the total number of injuries is much more valid. The thread is about pulling bullets out of patients, not just corpses. Also, I do disagree with your assertion that a non-violent DGU should not be reported. Why did you feel the need to defend yourself? Was there someone threatening you or others? Is there a reason that you do not report this person to the police, this person that can only be warded off by an armed individual? It seems to me, that if you are afraid enough for your life that you feel the need to show deadly force to feel safe, then by not reporting the situation to law enforcement, you are just setting up the next victim to be in the same situation where you needed a gun to get out of. Why would you do this? ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/152 "2018-11-14T15:13:08Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > For a follow-up take them to an ER to see a gunshot victim dying. and don’t just stage it like in those gun videos. ---
**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 14, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/153 "2018-11-14T15:26:48Z")
You could take people who are pro-gun to an ER and show them gunshot victims and their thought process would be, “that’s what would happen to me if I didn’t have a gun to protect myself.” You show people who are pro-gun-control the same thing and their thought process would be, “this is why guns need to be controlled.” It just depends on the individual, and their existing biases. I know two EMTs, both avid shooters and both very outspoken on FB _against_ gun control. I know combat veterans who are very pro-gun, but I also know combat veterans who say they never want to hold a gun again after the shit they went through and who are in favor of gun control. It just depends on the individual. One problem with the “argument from authority” approach is that for every [authority on x] advocating [opinion x], you can also find an [authority on x] advocating [opinion y.] (This doesn’t apply in all cases, some things are simply scientific fact, but gun violence and the best methods for preventing it are more subjective and more colored by emotion.) ---
**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 14, 2018, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/154 "2018-11-14T15:35:42Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > You could take people who are pro-gun to an ER and show them gunshot victims and their thought process would be, “that’s what would happen to me if I didn’t have a gun to protect myself.” Except then you show them the gun that the victim had on them that somehow did not manage to deflect even a single bullet. > [@](#): > > You show people who are pro-gun-control the same thing and their thought process would be, “this is why guns need to be controlled.” It just depends on the individual, and their existing biases. Agreed, it does depend on how they are biased. > [@](#): > > I know two EMTs, both avid shooters and both very outspoken on FB _against_ gun control. I know combat veterans who are very pro-gun, but I also know combat veterans who say they never want to hold a gun again after the shit they went through and who are in favor of gun control. It just depends on the individual. One problem with the “argument from authority” approach is that for every [authority on x] advocating [opinion x], you can also find an [authority on x] advocating [opinion y.] But sometimes, just because you can always find an authority on x advocating opinion y, doesn’t mean that, as you claimed, you can find one to advocate for y for everyone that you advocates for x. Just like climate change or even flat earth, I can find “an expert” who has opinions, but when you have say, 97 experts with opinion x for every expert with opinion y, those with opinion y have an uphill battle to convince rational people that their minority held opinion is the correct one. How many doctors recommend taking two guns, and calling them in the morning? > [@](#): > > (This doesn’t apply in all cases, some things are simply scientific fact, but gun violence and the best methods for preventing it are more subjective and more colored by emotion.) It is a scientific fact that if fewer people are shooting guns at people, then fewer people will get bullets in them. ---
**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 14, 2018, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/155 "2018-11-14T15:38:35Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > (This doesn’t apply in all cases, some things are simply scientific fact, but gun violence and the best methods for preventing it are more subjective and more colored by emotion.) This is a gigantic pile of steaming bullshit. Only one side of this issue wants to study gun violence scientifically. The other side is virulently against it, for the simple reason that they fucking well know exactly what a scientific study would show. All a person with a functioning brain has to do is look at the results of dozens of real life experiments in gun control methods, and see which ones worked and which ones didn’t. I don’t mean look at Chicago and Los Angeles, I mean look at the USA and the UK, Australia, France, Japan, and all the other countries of the world who have enacted gun control legislation (or not) and see what their gun violence results are. Subjective my ass. ---
**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 14, 2018, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/156 "2018-11-14T15:53:09Z")
Regardless of whether a scientific study is performed, the issue here is going to be determined by voters and a lot of them are not going to be swayed by any studies. The NRA may be against the CDC studying gun violence, but say the study was funded and performed anyway, and the reports issued. Then what? How are those findings going to make it any easier for gun control to be enacted? The examples of the UK, Australia, and Japan, are ones I see very often. It is not politically possible in this country. When people advocate it, as they often do in discussions online and on FB posts which are shared and seen by thousands of people, they are advocating what amounts to a total gun ban. Then people who are pro-gun hear people who are in favor of gun control say “nobody wants to take away your guns” - I see that very line, over and over again - “we just want reasonable gun control.” The pro-gun people _do_ have functioning brains (well some of them), at least enough that they can think “wait a minute, you said nobody wants to take away your guns, but I’m always seeing people calling for America to follow the example of Australia and Japan.” And they just dig in deeper. I don’t want this situation with the NRA obstructing _any_ possible progress into limiting gun violence, as they are currently doing, any more than you do. But gun owners see those words “Australia and Japan” and they donate more money to the NRA. Do we want to make progress, or do we want to make a point? ---
**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 14, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/157 "2018-11-14T16:12:23Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > Regardless of whether a scientific study is performed, The fact that these words can be spoken about a subject that concerns tens of thousands of deaths every hear, disgusts me. The very idea that not studying the subject is an option, disgusts me. The fact that doctors and the CDC have to beg for such a study, disgusts me. Whether or not it makes it easier to enact gun control is not the issue. If I want to be non-partisan about it, a logical scientific person with no particular ax to grind, what I want is to understand the issue. I want actual facts to talk about. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/158 "2018-11-14T16:35:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But are you opposed to car licensing, hospital oversight, or laws requiring fences around pools to discourage drowning? If not, are you opposed to registering guns? I’d like to see less red tape in owning a car, more hospital oversight if it is helpful in lowering costs and/or improving patient outcomes, and no I don’t think we need pool fence laws. ---
**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 14, 2018, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/159 "2018-11-14T16:49:35Z")
Just out of curiosity, why don’t the people in favour of gun control join the NRA en masse and take it over? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268/160 "2018-11-14T17:02:12Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > Regardless of whether a scientific study is performed, the issue here is going to be determined by voters and a lot of them are not going to be swayed by any studies. What a bizarre argument - “Better evidence won’t convince people anyways, therefore we shouldn’t bother to search for better evidence”. This is sort of the opposite of how things usually work. Are you saying that gun proponents are basically immune to rationality? I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but it is the logical conclusion of your argument. How _would_ you make a point to people for whom scientific evidence is unconvincing? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-not-anti-guns-i-am-anti-bullet-holes-in-my-patients/824268.md?page=9)