Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So what's your point? It's a fair comparison, IMO because of what I said above.
|
I would submit that there are a number of differences.
Firstly, it's their lane. If you wanted to put an expert witness on the stand to testify on the pros and cons of getting a vaccine, it's probably going to be a doctor or statistician. If you want to put an expert witness on the stand to testify on the pros and cons of keeping a firearm in the house, it's more likely that you'd replace 'doctor' with 'sociologist' or 'public official.'
Secondly, the primary person being affected by the decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate is the patient, the person the doctor is being paid to attend to and who he or she has agreed to work for. Benefits to people other than the patient, though they certainly exist, are incidental. The reverse is the case when it comes to firearms in the home, they predominantly affect people other than kid, the instances of kids being shot tend to be more incidental to the other uses of the firearm.
Finally, the only viable conscious decision which can be made which can affect whether or not a kid gets an ailment is the vaccination. There is a definite and distinct correlation between the two, and it's an act which can be done or not done, and pretty much the doctor is going to know which. Insofar as a safety brief from a doctor on the best practises on firearms safety with a kid in the house has any effect at all (and according to the report I linked to
earlier, that seems not to be a given*, it's not as if the doctors are going to houses and inspecting compliance), the issuance of those guidelines is not dependant on the asking of various verbal or written questions.
NTM
*"This study was unable to demonstrate a statistically significant decline in gun ownership or improvement in gun storage after a practice based intervention designed to encourage these behaviors"