Re: An NRA spokespersons said...
"You are locked in a room with ten people, at least one of whom potentially has a particulalry nasty venereal disease, and you have a kit that is the only way of detecting that disease before it reaches the final stages of infection. The final stages of the diseases is irreversible brain damage, causing violent paranoia and aggression, and there is a chance the diseased will stab someone with the cutlery you have in the room. In essence, you are suggesting not using the kit so as not to cause offence, but instead throwing the cutlery away. And - no - I am not advocating stabbing (or shooting) everyone else in the room first, or that giving everyone their own cutlery to defend themselves would remove the chances of someone eventually being stabbed, I am advocating identifying the diseased and keeping them away from the cutlery so as to reduce the chances someone gets stabbed, without leaving everyone else to eat with their fingers."
This is such a poor analogy. To make it more accurate:
* The cutlery should be, say swords: not essential, designed to cause damage
* The "kit" should have a high chance of false-positive and false-negatives: psychiatry is not infallible and requires the practitioner to use their subjective experiences to diagnose many cases
* Not everyone with the disease need reach the "final stage": far more people with mental illness do not react violently
So, in this analogy, why would you say that also locking the cutlery/sword away and only lending enough out as needed is more preferable to only relying on an unreliable test but letting everyone do what they want with the cutlery/sword?