Right Wing Rambling #3: Guns or Doctors

[Todd]

DON'T BAN GUNS...BAN DOCTORS
Last week we heard from the new head of the American Medical Association saying that he would fight gun violence the same way the organization fights disease. But you and I both know the AMA is just going to use skewed so-called "scientific" statistical methods to advance their campaign to disarm the American public.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd will tell you that gunfire kills 10 kids every day in the United States. (The media doesn’t tell you they are counting 24-year-old gang bangers as “kids”) They say responsible parents should put trigger locks on all of their guns, lock up the ammunition--or, better yet, get rid of all those nasty guns because they could hurt your children.

Well, what’s more dangerous. Taking your kid to a doctor, or keeping a gun in the home? I know, the question sounds absurd … but hold on a minute.

Over the past three months I’ve received no less than 200 e-mails with some statistics involving doctors and guns. I’ve finally had the time to go to the information sources to confirm the numbers for myself. Here you go ---- absorb this for a few moments. Some numbers on doctors and guns:

->Number of physicians in the U.S.: 700,000.
->Accidental deaths caused by physicians: 120,000 per year.
->Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171.

(Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)

->Number of gun owners in the U.S.: 80,000,000.
->Accidental gun deaths per year: 1,500 for all age groups.
->Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188.

What does this mean? Gun owners aren't the danger. Statistically, doctors are about 9,000 times more dangerous to your life than are gun owners.

Ask one your liberal friends about this sometime. Tell them you've learned about another product that's NINE THOUSAND TIMES more dangerous than guns! Tell them this product is incredibly widespread among Americans--every single American uses this product at least once in their lifetime! Children are especially vulnerable because they use this product more often than the average adult!

Then tell them the "product" is health care administered by a physician ... and watch your leftist friends hem and haw and sputter.

Liberals--especially gun-grabbing liberals--don't do well when faced with cold, hard logic.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/6/21/201704

 

[Willing and Unsure]

i didnt read the article... just what you said...

now, if we are to not trust our physicians to help protect us, and not trust ourselves to protect ourselves, who are we supposed to trust for protection?

in a way, you're comparing apples and oranges with this. a member of the healthcare profession doesnt just protect our health, they help protect our sanity (if we let them), not the choices we make about whether or not to have a gun. the choice to have a gun or not is made by the individual, based on the morals and values that they grew up with. a "24 year old gang banger" kid that decides to have a gun probably has it and is in the gang becuase that was how (s)he grew up and was raised and was taught to behave.

and how can you go after the medical profession and say that because they're killing more, we should ban the doctors? i'd say the parents are killing more by not caring enough to know what their children are doing. so, why not ban parents?

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Willing and Unsure
...and how can you go after the medical profession and say that because they're killing more, we should ban the doctors? i'd say the parents are killing more by not caring enough to know what their children are doing. so, why not ban parents?

A good point to consider is that those who are so adamant about disarming the citizen keep using the red herring that they are concerned with public safety. Todd is merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those who advocate repeal of the Second Amendment.

Obviously no one with a rational intellect would advocate elimination of the medical profession as it provides a great benefit to society. It also perpetrates some bad things as well by failing to adequately purge the incompetent or careless doctors who produce the stats Todd cited.

It seems to me that Todd is merely pointing out the hypocrisy that many people either do not have the awareness to recognize or are intent to ignore.

Why then, are the Liberals so set on eliminating the right of gun ownership when the evidence is that guns do less harm in society than many other things.

For example, should we eliminate automobiles because they kill more people annually than do guns? Should we introduce tobacco prohibition because more people die of tobacco related causes than from guns? And let's revisit alcohol prohibition, perhaps? Doesn't alcohol result in more deaths annually than do all the illegal drugs yet it remains legal and acceptable? The hypocrisy is rife.

And your point of banning parents, however tongue-in-cheek it may have been intended, merely bolsters my point.

The point is, those advocating the revocation of gun ownership rights are lying about their motives (otherwise they would advocate banning things that cause more deaths annually than guns and their priority in these bans would be based on the numbers of deaths caused by the various elements) yet there are people who flock to them supporting their hypocrisy. Whether its the result of thinking or not, I don't know but I seriously question that it is the result of any reasoned process. I genuinely suspect it's nothing more than the typical Liberal feel-good ideology that believes that good intentions justify any chosen course of action and any pursuit engaged to achieve it. It may also be one of the tools necessary to establish their form of totalitarian government because the armed citizen is certainly a major obstacle to tyranny.

I also suggest you familiarize yourself with the motivations expressed by the framers of the Constitution regarding the enumeration of the right of the private citizen to keep and bear arms.

The same fundamental idea used by Adolf to justify his pursuit of the "Master Race". The fact that it was necessary to "purge" (murder) a few million "inferior people" (the Jews, wasn't it?) was merely the price of attainment of his good intentions.