It doesn't matter what percentage of the population would agree with much of the ideas in the article. It's still an incorrect logic.
I never said it was correct logic.
It doesn't matter what percentage of the population would agree with much of the ideas in the article. It's still an incorrect logic.
The science is faulty. There are contradicting studies that link alcohol to all kinds of factors regardless of gun ownership. And as for people who are apt to believe what they report, I think we're winning that battle. It's all about information. If you put the word out and expose their failed logic or agenda, you give people a chance for themselves to see who's telling the truth. When the Lautenburg amendment passed, people still believed in "cop killer bullets". With the easy access to the info via the web, I think certain anti-gun policies would never have been enacted. I could be wrong, though. I think your concerns are valid about these doctors, but all we can do is educate people by exposing the doctors' falsehoods. That's all I'm trying to say.
I get what you're saying. I just can't hit on the education thing enough, though. That's our best defense in my opinion.With all due respect the Laughtonberg Amd. had nothing to do with science or cop killer bullets, it was based on the emotional concept of not wanting wife beaters having guns. I just see a good possibility of the same type of arguments, (not wanting people on psych meds or with drinking issues having guns) to be the type of thing much of the public,(even some gun owners) might agree with.
I get what you're saying. I just can't hit on the education thing enough, though. That's our best defense in my opinion.
Why?
these are POLITICAL people and organizations that push an agenda named in a way to look like legitimate medical and health research like cancer or M.S. research.
Enter your email address to join: