The happy conclusions of the present gun debate.

[Aldebaran]

What you're suggesting is that when someone has a heart attack, and is put on medication for it, if they then have another heart attack we should blame the medication either because it must have caused the heart attack, or because it didn't prevent one. We should ignore the fact that the patient had a heart condition.

If the medication was intended to prevent another heart attack, then yes, it failed. It's the same when gun control laws are enacted that are said to be intended to prevent "another Sandy Hook" or "James Holmes" or "Columbine High School" incident, and then one of those types of incidents happens anyway. It's evidence that the anti-gun law didn't do what the lawmakers said it would do.

 

[JGG]

If the medication was intended to prevent another heart attack, then yes, it failed.

Yeah, a doctor or pharmaceutical company who says "this drug will prevent heart attacks" is destined to fail. But medications are not designed to do all the work. You can't take a pill to prevent heart attacks. But, you can take a pill that will help, while making certain lifestyle changes, and even then nothing is guaranteed. Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and patients who are listening should all know this. The same goes for medications for depression, mania, or schizophrenia. It's not enough to simply take a pill. Recovery requires therapy. Anyone who tells you that this drug will definitively do anything is someone that will likely get sued.

 

[rambot]

I know. And when a witch says she's not one, that's further proof, because it's exactly what you would expect a witch to say!

I don't see the connection.

 

[bhsmte]

If the medication was intended to prevent another heart attack, then yes, it failed. It's the same when gun control laws are enacted that are said to be intended to prevent "another Sandy Hook" or "James Holmes" or "Columbine High School" incident, and then one of those types of incidents happens anyway. It's evidence that the anti-gun law didn't do what the lawmakers said it would do.

Would you expect medications to produce 100% results in their efficacy?

 

[Aldebaran]

Would you expect medications to produce 100% results in their efficacy?

No, I wouldn't. BUT, the politicians and anti-gunners like to use every mass shooting in that way. If a shooting happens, they'll say, "Our current laws aren't working. We need more". If heart attack patients took medications the way politicians feed us gun laws, then heart attack patients would currently be taking 20,000 medications--and it still wouldn't be good enough.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, I wouldn't. BUT, the politicians and anti-gunners like to use every mass shooting in that way. If a shooting happens, they'll say, "Our current laws aren't working. We need more". If heart attack patients took medications the way politicians feed us gun laws, then heart attack patients would currently be taking 20,000 medications--and it still wouldn't be good enough.

In all fairness, medications protect us from more than just problems caused by... medications.

 

[Aldebaran]

In all fairness, medications protect us from more than just problems caused by... medications.

That doesn't address the idea that continuing to pile on with gun regulations will make every gun problem go away, especially without infringing upon the rights of every American in the country.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That doesn't address the idea that continuing to pile on with gun regulations will make every gun problem go away,

I would address the idea if someone was actually espousing it. I try not to swat at strawmen if at all possible.

especially without infringing upon the rights of every American in the country.

And I don't want to infringe on those rights at all.