Let’s play a little game, just between us physicians, shall we?
Are you offended by the implication that you, as a lawful prescriber, are to blame for the opioid epidemic? Are you tired of the government telling you how you should practice medicine–all because of the actions of the criminal and the irresponsible? Are you tired of being asked to jump through hoop after hoop in order to “prove” that you are a responsible and competent physician?
Are you guilty of nothing, but absorb the blame for everything that goes wrong in your profession, including the hundreds of thousands of deaths by medical misadventure every year? Are you annoyed by every essential oil peddler and idiot who went to Google University acting like they know how to practice medicine?
Welcome to the world of the responsible firearms owner!
- We have submitted to background checks–every single time.
- We have been fingerprinted for our concealed carry permits and submitted to additional background checks for that.
- We have studied the Byzantine firearms laws which vary from state-to-state and even building-to-building, trying to be responsible and lawful citizens.
- We have undergone mandatory classes and training for concealed permits. And many of us CONTINUE to train.
- Some of us even get trauma response training, because we understand that bad things happen that aren’t our fault, and we want to be prepared.
Yet we have to listen to idiots every day expounding about firearms who know jack about how any of it actually works–including YOU.
We promote education and responsibility, but we also recognize that with a constitutional right, there are limits to how “mandatory” that education should be.
The NRA is the largest firearms education organization in the world. It also works to protect my civil rights from the actions of the emotional, and the well-meaning, but misinformed…meaning YOU. Yet you demonize the NRA as if it were a billionaire exerting his will on the people (oh wait, that’s Bloomberg), rather than an organization of several million citizens working to preserve our civil rights.
While I respect the work that you do in the trauma bays and ORs of the country, you CHOSE that life. You chose to place yourself between human beings and death. It is an admirable path, but it also means that you only see a tiny slice of reality.
You don’t see the mother who kept her stalker ex-husband from killing her and her children because she shot him at the door he just broke down.
You don’t see the child who hid cowering in a closet clutching a shotgun against household intruders.
You don’t see the million DEFENSIVE gun uses every year–because either you only saw the criminal perpetrator who was killed or wounded in lawful self-defense, or because the perpetrator fled when confronted with a firearm, resulting in zero deaths or injury to anyone.
You also chose the area of the country you work in. The fact that you chose to work in a large city with many social ills and a large amounts of criminal activity, rather than quiet middle America does not give you special input into my or anyone else’s constitutional rights.
It is natural to become emotional when dealing with trauma as you do, but physicians, as scientists, are supposed to be driven by data, not emotion. Emotions can inform your response to individual families, but it should NEVER override logic and data leading to advocating for the removal of the civil rights of peaceful citizens. Lawful citizens did not cause the destruction in front of you, but seek to preserve the right to protect themselves from such a fate in self-defense.
Firearms are NOT a “public health issue.” Firearm violence is a criminal justice issue. Firearm rights are a constitutional issue. A medical degree does not qualify you to speak in either realm.
’Dr. LateBloomer’ is the pen name of a female general pediatrician (MD, MPH, FAAP) who enjoys competitive shooting sports, including IDPA, USPSA and 3-Gun. Evil semi-automatic firearms are her favorites.
This article was originally published at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission.
Thank you. Your description and unarguably solid facts should be well received by those in the medical arena that have no business commenting o such a controversial subject. The analogy was spot on. If they don’t see it, I will try to join a doubtful surgeon in their next brain surgery and give my opinion of their options and procedures. .
[slow clap]
Are you offended by the implication that you, as a lawful prescriber, are to blame for the opioid epidemic?
That is hitting the nail on the head with a 24 ounce framing hammer!
More like a 5 pound sledge hammer!
As s pharmacist I have to place the opioid blame on 2 parties. The criminals that sell and uses them illegally and the Obamacare program! What did you think was gonna happen when low income people and families who got free healthcare and medicine and could supply the streets with these drugs while filling their pockets with cash
I worked as a pharmacy tech with my dad (who’s a licensed pharmacist), and after seeing all the stuff my dad and his boss have to do with the narcotics, I certainly agree with you.
How come nobody slapped these doctors with the little known fact that according to a recent study by Johns Hopkins, more than 250,000 people in the United States die every year because of medical mistakes, making it the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer?
Oh, and what about tobacco? Deaths related to tobacco is around 480,000 a year. Where is the outrage? Why don’t we have those stupid twats in orange shirts holding signs and marching around over that??
Gun deaths a year, 30,000 or so. Tobacco related deaths, 480,000
Second had smoke kills more than guns for crying out loud!!!!!
Why as gun owners are we not slapping people silly with these verifiable facts?
Very few people are interested in talking about the annual number of alcohol related deaths when discussing what ails our society.
Because, we actually learned something from prohibition….oh, wait….no we didn’t.
We don’t hear about any of the other causes of death as it will not help the MSM to sell air time or ad space. It’s all about money and the people who want to promote the narrative that elimination of guns will produce a utopian society.
Forget that medical malpractice is the “third leading cause of death” behind heart disease and cancer. The real, relevant, and comparable statistic is that Medical Malpractice is – by far – the leading definable “at fault” homicide in the United States. Note that all persons using firearms to commit murder total about 9,000 to 11,000 homicides per year. Accidental homicides involving firearms are an insignificantly tiny number.
Doctors, hospitals, and other medical professionals, kill 95% MORE people every year than people using firearms. Even among the list of self inflicted and related deaths, medical malpractice is way out there. Fewer than 35,000 people commit suicide (over half use firearms). I think about 30,000 people die in auto accidents (not just the drivers counted in that number). Those evil, dangerous, scary, black semi-auto rifles (plus all other rifles – combined) are used in the deaths of almost 300 people every year in the US (rifles kill ONE TENTH of a percent of the number of people that doctors kill!
When will people cry out to ban doctors and confiscate stethoscopes?
I get pawed by non gun owners quite a bit. They don’t own guns or have the slightest idea what it means to own one. Yet I’m the reason for the problem with gun violence.again and again.
Obummercare is the greatest fraud to be done to this country.
As much of a fraud as it is, it’s is Far, far from the greatest fraud perpetrated.
That would go to social security.
No, THAT would go to the creation and the continuation of the Federal Reserve (not federal), and the elimination of the gold/silver standards, which have unleashed the drunken-sailor-style spending of the Federal government. Were it not for that, the creation of the IRS, and the election of the US Senate taken away from state legislatures, government would never have balooned to such liberty-threatening proportions!
Patriots will never peacefully shoehorn the government at all levels back into its proper place now, as a result of the the creation of the FED. THAT is the GREATEST FRAUD ever!
I do care how many die. But I will say this. Y’all could have many many more. And it won’t change the fact. Y’all can’t have my firearms. How many more have to die. Before y’all give up your transportation. ( Motor Vehicle Weapons) my rights an self defense is more important than y’all transportation.
I believe the proper term is “Assault Vehicle”. And they can be easily identified by aggressive looking wheels, any kind of spoiler, dark tinted windows, and the letters RS, GT, GTS, GTR, SPORT, or TURBO. These features make an assault vehicle far more deadly than other vehicles, and they should be kept out of the hands of everyone except military and law enforcement.
This would be and is the policy of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, most insurance companies, Consumers’ Union, the “displacement tax” in Europe and to a lesser extent the US, and absolutely the position of the SF/NYC axis of the Democratic Party, if they were honest about it. Proles get in that “mass transit” bus, stand next to that hoodlum or druggie who is most likely carrying a knife, or that creepy perv that is carrying who knows what kind of disease, but don’t you dare drive your own car or carry a handgun. Meanwhile, we elite go around in limousines with armed chauffeurs. And you proles keep voting us into office.
There is NO SUCH THING as ‘Gun Violence’. There is only criminal violence.
Guns are inanimate tools. Nothing more.
With physicians, should we start using terms like scalpel violence? Opioid violence? Vaccine injury violence?
Along a similar line, there is no such thing as an assault weapon/rifle. Anything can be used to assault someone, Assault bat? Assault foot? Assault spit? Assault rock? Assault stick?
Assault rifle has long standing definition as a intermediate caliber, select-fire rifle since the German Sturmgewehr – literally translated as assault rifle. Assault weapon is BS made up by the Violence Policy Center to confuse scary looking semi-autos with machine guns. That’s why all the definitions are for cosmetic features, except WA, where any semiauto is now an assault weapon.
The fact that gun control advocates focus on the tool used, and ignore the fact that the behavior is the problem, just shows that they are only interested in banning guns and not so interested in stopping violent behavior, no matter what tool is used. Far more people are killed by being beaten to death with blunt objects each year than are killed by all rifles. Why don’t they label them assault bats and pipes and try to ban them. Or require background checks in order to buy plumbing supplies or baseball bats? Or have all blunt objects in you home seized by police if a family member says you might be dangerous?
I never really understood how this whole “Guns is a public health issue” logic worked. I’ve never heard anyone really rationalize it. It seems like it almost thinks of guns as an autonomous organism infecting people of its own accord. I’m certain doctors understand that guns aren’t bacteria and don’t kill people of their own accord. They’re also not a chemical or material that has unknown affects on the body… The effects of firearm usage are well known. Usually resulting in a good time at the range and improved mood, occasionally able to be used as an emergency treatment for robbery, rape, kidnapping, murder and other nasties. How…. How does this rationale work?! What is the medical aspect of this?!
It’s not that guns themselves are a public health issue, it’s that deaths from guns are a public health issue. That’s the pushback that is happening. The CDC studies not only deaths from disease, but deaths from things like falls, car crashes etc. We have things like seatbelt laws and smoking warnings and tobacco bans because of this kind of research. Anything that makes people die is fair game for public health research, that’s the position that’s being taken here.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/
Okay, well if you expand the definition of “public health risk” to non medical causes, then a doctor’s opinion becomes worthless. So why are they using doctors to speak on it?
Also, I have a problem with all the “public health” laws we do have. The government’s job should be to protect you from other people, not protect you from yourself. It should not be the government’s business whether someone over the age of 18 wants to wear a seatbelt while driving as they’re supposed to be considered grown-ass adults and capable of making their own life choices, such as a decision to do something hazardous to their health or not. A good portion of the public health laws just shouldn’t exist.
@Reggie
I don’t see where there is a “they” “using” doctors. These doctors chose to speak for themselves. Between the group of pediatricians who issued their own statement, and the ones responding to the “stay in your lane” thing, that’s nearing 200,000 physicians who are saying roughly the same thing.
And sure. There are people who say that you shouldn’t have seatbelt laws, or smoking bans, or motorcycle or bike helmet laws, etc. etc. In theory the idea of not needing to protect people from themselves sounds great. In practice, it doesn’t really work out that well a lot of the time.
Elaine, comparing Dr’s opinions on firearms to seat belt laws is 100% false analogy. Are you intentionally trolling this forum? You are using some of the most basic propaganda argument tools. And you refuse to answer anything requiring data or fact.
Elaine, the CDC is terminally corrupt. It has become the government owned branch of the pharmaceutical industry.
“It’s not that guns themselves are a public health issue, it’s that deaths from guns are a public health issue.”
Elaine, it’s simple –
They claim the deaths from guns are the problem, when motor vehicle crashes kill in roughly the same numbers.
30,000 deaths annually from each is not an insignificant number. OK, then – We demand a mandatory national speed limit of 35 MPH, *strictly* enforced.
MV deaths will *plummet* to at least one-half of what they are today, and the only ‘inconvenience’ will be that it will take you a bit longer to get to where you are going.
Isn’t that a reasonable thing to ask for when 10,000 people annually will be saved? Is taking a little bit more time worth the lives saved?
Of course, they will say “cars aren’t designed to kill people!”. And they would be correct. *Billions* have been spent improving vehicle safety, and yet they continue to kill tens of thousands annually.
Right *there* is the logical argument for lower speed limits.
Twist the ‘logic’ of “lives saved” right back onto them. Get them to admit what the *real* agenda is. The facts are on our side…
I’ve had pretty much this exact argument before. They usually pivot to “Well, for cars we have licensing and registration anyway, so we at least need that for guns.”
My proposed response to that would be to simply point out that you don’t need a license to buy a car, nor do you need to register it. You can go out and buy as many cars as you want and let them sit in your garage, and you neither need to register nor get a license to do so. You can even drive it on your private property, no license, no registration required. Now if you want to take it out on the road, you need all that stuff, but to simply own a car, you don’t need to do anything. At least I think you don’t…. I guess there would be a title transfer, Okay just ignore the part about registration, I haven’t bought a car in a long time.
Though with people being increasingly unwilling to engage online these days, especially in comments sections where I do most of my debating, my newer tactics are largely untested due to the other person suddenly not replying anymore. I’m usually left with the argument abandoned, or even nobody engaging in the first place even in heavily left leaning areas of the internet. It’s actually really disappointing.
@Geoff
I’ve heard the cars analogy a lot of times. I am on the fence about whether this is actually a good analogy, for the following reasons.
As was pointed out, you do not need a license to buy and store a car or have it at home. Fair enough. You DO need licensure, training, insurance, and an exam to DRIVE a car where your driving may impact other people. This, I guess, is the auto “equivalent” of CCW, only a lot of gun owners don’t think you should even have to do that, though I imagine those same people would be quite offended at being hit by an untrained, unlicensed driver carrying no insurance.
So I’m just not sure that it’s a great analogy to start with. If we were really going to go there, what you’d be saying is, “So people who are going to carry out in public where there are other people should be licensed, trained, and have insurance but people will still be killed by guns.”
And somehow I don’t think that’s what people really want in this situation. I’m not personally against any of those things as you know, but if you’re going to play an analogy out, I kinda think it needs to be played out all the way, ya know? And if you do that then everyone starts hollering that you are trying to penalize poor people and take away their rights. Etc.
A lot of the doctors who want the research are actually gun owners. They are not advocating disarmament or the abolition of Second Amendment rights. They just want real research on gun violence to look at. And I think that if the stuff is as favorable to us as many believe, that research will back that up. But it does bring up the question of why the NRA didn’t want it to happen. At least it does for me.
Elaine, there is conflict of interest built into your statement about doctors researching “gun violence”…will these same doctors overlook or omit data that implicates their profession and livelihood? Psychotropic drugs for just one example? And why limit a violence study to guns? If there is real interest in reducing violence, where guns are sometimes used, why not study overall violence instead of one its many variables? Your statement screams agenda, gun control.
Elaine D.:
That’s not quite all they want. They also want someone else to pay for it. They likely want it to come from a government agency (i.e. CDC) so that it will have some “credibility”.
Presuming for the moment that the Dickey Amendment actually prohibits “real research on gun violence” (a debatable premise)…
There’s nothing stopping even slightly motivated physicians from forming their own organization and paying for such research themselves. If there are 200,000 concerned docs, a mere $100 annual contribution gets them an annual budget of $20M. Heck, they could probably get Bloomberg to fork over matching funds – though he might expect a predetermined outcome in exchange for his cash.
(If only there was already a dues-collecting organization of doctor-types with 200,000+ members, one that claims to know about guns. Hmmmm….)
It’s not like they’d be incurring the costs of developing a new drug. They’d be collecting and examining existing data, possibly asking various entities (state and local governments and agencies, hospitals, etc.) to gather and make available new types of data. I’d bet they could do an awful lot of such collecting, examining, and asking with $20+ million per year.
The site wouldn’t let me reply to Elaine D’s reply just above this but I wanted to reply to this section: “They just want real research on gun violence to look at. And I think that if the stuff is as favorable to us as many believe, that research will back that up. But it does bring up the question of why the NRA didn’t want it to happen. At least it does for me.”
This sounds like you haven’t been here very long. If you look back through the history on this site, you will find a lot of articles from earlier this year about how the CDC did indeed do their studies and because the studies showed that 800,000 people saved lives with guns, they hid the results. So my question to you and the CDC (rather than questioning the NRA) is why did the CDC hide these results and why are you still on this topic? The CDC has already been proven to lie about this stuff. This is just like the Harvard study that said flat out that gun control (any laws that had been suggested to that time) was proven to be entirely ineffective. I’ve read roughly 48 studies on gun control since 2012 and I mean the studies themselves, not articles on the studies that lie and say the opposite of what the study says. There are no studies that say gun control can work in any way at all that weren’t later proven to be seriously corrupted. I requested data from many of the researchers. John Lott was quite forthcoming with data. Others (gun control promoters) were not. Most of the gun control promoters refuse to give out data and some have been censured. I’d recommend more study. It takes awhile (took me years) but it will be very illuminating. The overall results are that gun control never improves anything. It is also not proven to hurt anything other than people’s civil rights but there are a few situations where gun control (even background checks) very slightly increase the category of overall violent crime. It’s statistically significant but just barely. However, there are many anecdotal situations like Carol Bowne that show that in specific cases, gun control indeed killed. I’d like to coin a new term: “gun control violence.”
@bluesMike-The CDC is terminally corrupt. A senior CDC researcher, Dr. William Thompson, has stated the CDC has altered and destroyed data on their vaccine-autism studies which showed clear correlation of MMR and autism.. Same Dr. has gone largely quiet after this admission, you can only wonder what carrot, or stick, was used to keep him quiet as he remains an employee at the CDC.
The difference is,
None of those other causes of death all but require violent criminal behavior.
Is it that much of a shocker that violent criminals commit violence?
Do we really need doctors to tell us how to fix that? What part of their education or experience produces solutions to violent crime?
To a doctor the only part of this equation that should matter, the only thing their schooling and training and experience can deal with is the damage caused to the human body by an intruding high velocity projectile. Everything else is outside of their lane.
Dafook does “deaths from guns” mean? Never even heard the terminology, are you making new antigun words up? Where can I look up how many deaths are in each of my guns, just waiting to get out?
“Firearms are NOT a “public health issue.” Firearm violence is a criminal justice issue. Firearm rights are a constitutional issue. A medical degree does not qualify you to speak in either realm.”
I’ll respectfully make an observation here. I don’t need a degree to speak about anything. I can say whatever the fuck I want in regards to anything. You need to quantify this statment.
“A medical degree does not qualify someone to speak as a professional in regards to either realm.”
This is an important thing to note. We all have the right to speak on a subject as a layman. I doubt many people here have a criminal justice degree, or a degree in constitutional law.
If we’re gonna pillory people, let’s do it better than the ones attacking us, yes?
” I doubt many people here have a criminal justice degree, or a degree in constitutional law.”
You’d be wrong on that. I’d estimate at least 5 here have degrees in law and post here regularly. Not all of them currently practice it, but they have been educated in it…
@Silphy
I support your statement.
What a lot of people don’t seem to realize is that this new push for reform in gun policy is being driven by young people who have grown up under the shadow of active shooting scenarios. These young people are sick of it and they want us all to know that they are sick of it and that in another year or two they will be voting.
I am willing to listen to all sides. I regularly look at stories and documentation by young people who have been victimized by gun violence. A lot of them are really heartwrenching and deeply sad. As a gun owner I think I need to understand this side of things. For me that’s what keeps it real and keeps me from skewing to extremes on either side. I don’t know any other gun owners who do this, though maybe they do. But to me it’s part of owning firearms – taking in the stories of people who have been negatively affected, as part of my understanding of the responsibility of owning one.
There are many things that have negatively affected many people and of course they would have heart-rending stories as well. But we can’t have society run on the basis of whose tale of woe is most distressing.
The gun debate is a classic example of Bastiat’s idea of the seen vs. the unseen. The shooting victims in the trauma wards, the poster children on CNN, the headline grabbing black swan events – seen. The young mother holding off a home invasion by herself, the elderly man scaring off a burglar, all the self defense incidents where no one is hurt – unseen. Just going by how emotionally affecting someone’s story is will just further exacerbate the problem.
“…this new push for reform in gun policy is being driven by young people who have grown up under the shadow of active shooting scenarios.”
And this is the *lie* they use.
There is no ‘epidemic’ of ‘gun violence’. Death by guns is one-half what it was 20-odd years ago, and there was no public outrage then, like there is now.
So, why now? Simple – Marketing. With a 24-hour news cycle and the instantaneous nature of the internet it is shoved in their faces *constantly*.
Here in Florida 25 years ago, shall-issue concealed carry was being enacted into law. You should have seen the newspaper editorials and ‘letters to the editors’ in the papers.
“RIVERS of blood in the streets! America has too many guns already!”
In those 25 years, death by guns has *dropped* 50 percent, while an estimated 80 million more guns were added to the over 200 million in existence at the time.
Huh. What do you know? About 30 percent more guns on the streets, lawful people carrying them in over 40 of the 50 states, and gun deaths are under HALF of what they were. Why is that not front-page news?
Why?
Because it doesn’t fit their (and YOURS Elaine!) ‘Progressive’ political narrative.
They are PLAYING on your emotions, Elaine. Why can’t you see that? Why doesn’t that anger you?
Don’t expect Elaine to answer direct questions.
Oh, she answers plenty of direct questions – just not the hard questions that she (and gun-controllers in general) knows there is no logical answer for.
If the progressive talking points won’t adequately address the tough questions posed, we hear nothing but crickets from Elaine…
He did not say “allow you to speak”, you can run off at the mouth just as much as I can. But being an MD, or being you, does not *QUALIFY* you to speak on matters outside your recognized area of expertise. Which is what the CDC question is all about, certifying that a medical degree qualifies you to analyze and collate data on subjects which you have never studied at all, as if by magic. Bullshit flag! Try rewriting your rant addressing the term “qualified”.
Excellent, well reasoned and written article. Keep up the good work, it may not change attitudes or beliefs but it did make me feel better to read something intelligent about firearms on the internet and I’m sure it was cathartic to write. Thank you for the time and the effort you put into it. It is very much appreciated. -30-
Logic rarely penetrates the minds of those unable to think, who are trained only to feel — i.e., liberals / communists / useful idiots. ‘Feelings’ are the be all, end all, for the useful idiots. It’s perhaps the most powerful appeal of the left: feeling is all that is required. You don’t need to think, analyze, research, read, discuss, critically look at anything. You act only on feelings. Be it guns, immigration, health care — it doesn’t matter. Whatever ‘feels’ right … and facts and logic be damned.
From Facebook to the educational system, it’s all about ‘feelings.’ As the song goes, ‘Nothing more than feelings.’ And these ‘feeling’ not thinking creatures, are the greatest danger to freedom.
It actually seems like they read, research and discuss quite a lot. A lot of them are college educated. The problem is they read propaganda and accept it as fact, they read research papers that are manipulated to support their biases, and they discuss their opinions with like minded people who share their opinion and call everyone who disagrees either a paranoid, small minded violent extremist, apathetic to the deaths of innocent people, or a shill paid off by the NRA.
The problem seems to not necessarily be that they aren’t educated. The problem seems to be the massive ego they get from their education. They think that because they are educated, they are automatically more right than anyone they argue against. That is the ultimate appeal of the left.
Good points. I agree. And we do have massive numbers of very ignorant, uneducated people who vote, who have no interest in this country other than ‘what can I get for free?’ And the left panders to that. Forget the millions of illegals who now apparently get to vote in a country in which they do not have citizenship. Their interests lie squarely on the left.
You’re right that certainly some of the left are college-educated — in and of itself, not necessarily a good thing. If you haven’t learned to look outside of mainstream media — and many never do — then you march in lockstep with the left’s agenda. And you argue — seemingly intelligently, passionately, persuasively — for the left’s agenda.
I have a liberal friend, well educated, who tunes into mainstream, and that is about it. He was so turned off by Trump, he said he was going to vote straight Democrat. I said, ‘You support the party that has sanctuary cities for criminals? And the party that wants open immigration? So we just let millions and millions come in because … they’re poor?’ He had nothing to say. He hadn’t thought of those things, only how distasteful he found Trump.
I don’t know that he changed his vote; I doubt it. But facts still have a place in discussions with intelligent people. The caveat is ‘intelligent.’ There are fewer of them on the left.
We have to be careful throwing around terms like “college educated”. To me, at least, a PhD. in medieval African art is the equivalent of a grade school education.
The big difference in “educated” people these days seems to be that now they are taught what to think and not how to think. Logic and critical thinking seem to be a lost art. Civics is also no longer taught, so many people have no clue how our government is supposed to work.
You summed it up pretty well: they are taught what to think, not how to think. So we have highly educated (some folks anyway) people who are, in the end, very poorly educated, and they’re too ‘educated’ to see it. And no civics hasn’t been taught in schools for — I don’t know for how many years. For more and more people, the Constitution means nothing.
Education was co-opted by communists back in the 50s, and their control is firm.
Let’s start a survey, real quick. I graduated high school in 1964, and had several years of civics, more if you include social studies.
Dr Latebloomer, as a pediatrician you are responsible for the adverse outcomes that result from your care or recommendations. If you are vaccinating children in your practice according to the 100% untested CDC schedule, then yes, you are responsible for causing autism, auto immune disorders, and SIDS. Own your faults before looking for sympathy.
You e heard of Godwin’s law? I propose a PG2’s law… any conversation, no matter what subject, will ultimately tie back to vaccines.
Sir, I applaud you! There are two types of people that will find nobody wants to argue with them, the brilliant orator, and the bumbling idiot. I’ll leave it to you to decide which one you think you are, and I won’t argue with you on your conclusion.
Oh, and vaccines save lives.
‘liljoe, well said sir, well said.
As to the decision you refer to, yes I have made mine.
And yes it is based on science, data and logic.
Thank you
NukemJim
Jim, if you’re referrring to Bill Nye cartoon science, data, and logic, you got me. But if your post was actually serious, I’d love for you to cite some of the science and data that leads you to form any opinion on this subject. The issue is as serious as gun control as special interest, through our government, Are looking to remove people’s right in refusing these products. When the government has the ability to inject you, your family, or anyone with anything they want against a person will, what purpose does the 2A serve?
Jim, still looking up that science and data you imagined existed before you made that post? Not so easy to find something that doesn’t exist, is it?
Coming from a guy who misinterprets the Constitution to the point where he thinks the document sets limits on the people, and not the government, I’ll take that as a compliment joe. And no surprise you try defend one of the bread and butter staples of your profession, even as it neurologically destroys the health of younger generations. But hey, making a living comes first joe, right?
Yep. I was surprised to read several non-anti-vax comments from him, but just had to give it enough time.
Come to think of it. Physicians are to blame for putting a lot of felons back on the street after they were rightfully shot. Imagine how much less crime and prison crowding there would be if physicians didn’t keep patching up repeat offenders.
I love the sign “How many have to die before you give up your guns”. I also like the one that says “How many rapes have to happen before you cut off your dick”. Samesies
We need common sense legislation to stop penis violence.
#endpenisviolencenow, #momsagainstpenisviolence, #banallpenises, #everytownforpenissafety, #bradycampaignagainstpenisviolence, #peniscontrolnow, #penisfreeschools
…classic
This post is clearly advocating violence against transgenders. “Sir, I’ll have you know I PAID for that dick!”
PREACH
Statist power-mongers: We want to take away your guns.
Me: I won’t let you, and other gun owners won’t let you.
Your move.
You can impugn my ethics, and my reading abilities, but I still don’t want to argue with you and waste my time…. that must make you brilliant!
Congratulations!
Oh and I checked again this morning, vaccines still do save lives
Pull the string, watch the dummy repeat bumper sticker slogans. Sorry Joe, bumper sticker slogans no longer work, people are demanding real science.
how about non-white, democrat, muslim , and illegal violence you f**king a**holes?
I personally think because death by firearms are by and large intentional acts of killing another person or oneself with a very efficient tool to do that, that it scare the ever loving shit out of people and they either don’t understand that on a conscious level or cannot articulate it at that level.
That is why a blank face will stare right back at you when you bring up any other death be it medical misadventure, tobacco, alcohol, cars, etc. None of those means are primary means of intentional acts of killing someone else or oneself, they are accidents. They are not generally the tools used to kill, maim, or intimidate purposefully.
An accident can be written off and forgotten as well that’s the cost of doing business and it could happen to anyone with roughly equal chances.
Murder, suicide, and violence is entirely different and scary because it is personal, intentional, and directed and made all the easier by the tool.
This distinction is why we see so much energy misapplied to the tool rather than the cause.
Owners of firearms do not “practice” on live subjects, unlike doctors.
Comments are closed.