medalguy
Member
I just found something that could easily be used as a rebuttal to the anti's arguments that firearms deaths could be reduced by banning firearms. They repeatedly quote the 30,000 annual deaths figure, but it's interesting to note that today the CDC released through JAMA the story that 75,000 patients in US hospitals die from hospital acquired infections. Quote from a story appearing on MSM page this afternoon: "People who are hospitalized in the United States risk acquiring healthcare-associated infections, which kill 75,000 patients per year, US health authorities said Wednesday."
Suppose we started using this figure to show that the firearms deaths aren't really that many in the USA since more people are killed in traffic accidents and hospitalizations, and there's no outcry to reduce those deaths, so where's the basis for eliminating a constitutional guarantee to try to make any difference in firearms fatalities? Further, when you eliminate the suicide and gang related deaths, the actual number is pretty low.
Suppose we started using this figure to show that the firearms deaths aren't really that many in the USA since more people are killed in traffic accidents and hospitalizations, and there's no outcry to reduce those deaths, so where's the basis for eliminating a constitutional guarantee to try to make any difference in firearms fatalities? Further, when you eliminate the suicide and gang related deaths, the actual number is pretty low.