Some food for thought...

[Guest]

Doctors:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services.



Guns:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.



Conclusion:

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.



What To Do:

(A) Remember: "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

(B) Worry: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.

(C) Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand.

(Out of concern for the public at large, the statistics on lawyers are withheld for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.)

 

[rikaaim]

That really cheered me up. Thanks.

 

[DrFreud]

Interesting post. However you forgot to factor in the number of lives saved after the not so incidental gun incidents....

 

[doormouse]

I want a gun.

 

[matriarch]

I want a gun.

I'm not even going to ask why, but I personally am very relieved that gun ownership is as strictly controlled over here as it is. Even our police don't carry them, unless authorised.

 

[cantdog]

I want a nice willing girl in her thirties or so and an interrupted few hours in a warm place.

 

[cantdog]

They regulate that, too.

 

[scheherazade_79]

And then every once in a while you get this huge outcry in the US - why are our children getting gunned down at school? why are our friends and relatives getting picked off by snipers in the streets?

I wonder....


Regardless of the statistics, wouldn't the US be a better place if there were tighter restrictions on fire arms?

 

[cloudy]

I want a gun.

Why?

Because you think it would be "cool" to own one?

Are you prepared to take the training classes? Learn how to take one apart and put it together? Spend the hours and hours at the range that you'll need in order to learn to use one effectively? Spend hours and hours after the time on the range with every muscle in your arm aching?

People that own guns because it's "cool" are the very ones that cause the accidents that, in turn, cause the outcry against them. I think that current people who have done the things I've listed above (like me) would thank you not to get one.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And then every once in a while you get this huge outcry in the US - why are our children getting gunned down at school? why are our friends and relatives getting picked off by snipers in the streets?

I wonder....


Regardless of the statistics, wouldn't the US be a better place if there were tighter restrictions on fire arms?

The short answer is no. Restrictions simply limit the ability of law abiding citizens to own firearms, criminals are going to get thiers one way or another. I do not see it as making the U.S. a better place by making sure the only people with guns are the criminals.

Our police forces work under very harsh terms, terms that make thembasically, a reactive force. That is, they cannot intervene until a crime has been commited. Strictly speaking, they don't prtect the victims of crime, they protect the rest of society by getting the perp. Of course that is not a great help to the original victim in a violent crime.

I'm five foot six. Most any male who broke into my house would be capable of overpowering me. When I lived down south, I kept a .38 chief's special on the night stand. I felt pretty safe with it, as no matter what the physical prowess of an intruder, semi-wad cutters are an impartial equalizer.

I now live in NY. Having that weapon would make me a criminal. Please explain how I am safer now, weaponless, than I was when I had the means to defend myself. If you can't, then it would seem self evident that restricting firearms here only helps the criminals who possess them.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The short answer is no. Restrictions simply limit the ability of law abiding citizens to own firearms, criminals are going to get thiers one way or another. I do not see it as making the U.S. a better place by making sure the only people with guns are the criminals.

Our police forces work under very harsh terms, terms that make thembasically, a reactive force. That is, they cannot intervene until a crime has been commited. Strictly speaking, they don't prtect the victims of crime, they protect the rest of society by getting the perp. Of course that is not a great help to the original victim in a violent crime.

I'm five foot six. Most any male who broke into my house would be capable of overpowering me. When I lived down south, I kept a .38 chief's special on the night stand. I felt pretty safe with it, as no matter what the physical prowess of an intruder, semi-wad cutters are an impartial equalizer.

I now live in NY. Having that weapon would make me a criminal. Please explain how I am safer now, weaponless, than I was when I had the means to defend myself. If you can't, then it would seem self evident that restricting firearms here only helps the criminals who possess them.

Ren Faire route. Have a sword leaned against the bedside table. Makes the switchblade carrying thief think twice for sure.

 

[tolyk]

Ren Faire route. Have a sword leaned against the bedside table. Makes the switchblade carrying thief think twice for sure.

I have three swords in my room

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Ren Faire route. Have a sword leaned against the bedside table. Makes the switchblade carrying thief think twice for sure.

LOL, the claymore is taller than I am and kind of unwieldly. the basket hilt is beautifully balanced and razor sharpe, but as clumsy as i am, I'm so afraid of cutting myself with it, I hung it on the wall

 

[Liar]

I want a gun.

No you don't. You want a gnu.

http://www.uakron.edu/ogc/images/gnu.jpg





Anyway, seriously. Physicians kill more people beause they are supposed to, on a daily basis, deal with sick and injured who from the onset are in a high risk situation.

At everygiven time, most doctors are active, while most guns are not. If every of the 80 mil gun owers fired their babys in public every day, they too woud accidentally kill more people. Statistics can make pigs fly. The really sad thing is that people put faith in number correlations that doesn't mean shit.

Someone might have replied something similar in this thread already. I have to admit I didn't read it all. I was busy finding a good gnu pic.

#L

 

[Liar]

The short answer is no. Restrictions simply limit the ability of law abiding citizens to own firearms, criminals are going to get thiers one way or another. I do not see it as making the U.S. a better place by making sure the only people with guns are the criminals.

I think we should make it illegal only for bad people to own guns. Who is bad? Ask Santa.

Hey, it would solve the problems, if it was possible. Right?

 

[china-doll]

At everygiven time, most doctors are active, while most guns are not. If every of the 80 mil gun owers fired their babys in public every day, they too woud accidentally kill more people. Statistics can make pigs fly. The really sad thing is that people put faith in number correlations that doesn't mean shit.

"Figures don't lie... but liars can figure." ~ One of my favorite lines.

 

[Guest]

I want a nice willing girl in her thirties or so and an interrupted few hours in a warm place.

I resemble that remark. Well, my life does, anyway.

 

[angelicminx]

What To Do:

(A) Remember: "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

(B) Worry: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.

(C) Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand.

(Out of concern for the public at large, the statistics on lawyers are withheld for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.)

Maybe I'm naive, but I got the idea this was just suppose to be funny. In that case, ROFLMFAO.

If it's suppose to be a discussion of firearm safety... PLEASE don't shoot me

 

[Guest]

In the words of Goldie Looking Chain: "Guns don't kill people, rappers do."

Or, in the immortal words of Mouldy Looking Stain:

"Dogs don't kill people, wabbits do. Da-ba-da-ba-de-dah, woo-woo-wooo."

 

[Liar]

(B) Worry: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.

I don't have niether a gun or a doctor. I have a stapler and a dentist. Do I count?

 

[Guest]

Maybe I'm naive, but I got the idea this was just suppose to be funny. In that case, ROFLMFAO.

If it's suppose to be a discussion of firearm safety... PLEASE don't shoot me

Actually it WAS intended to be humorous. However some people just take things WAY too seriously sometimes.

 

[Guest]

Actually it WAS intended to be humorous. However some people just take things WAY too seriously sometimes.

*BANG*

 

[Op_Cit]

Colly had the correct fundamental: the right of self defense. (BTW no longer supported in Britain: you can't take a baseball bat to an intruder in your home there).

It's a simple extension of the right to breathe: the right to continue breathing.

The silly thing is that 99% of gun advocates do not support this (right to self defense) as a natural right. How many of you pro-gunners think that is a natural right?

Colly claims (correctly) that a gun is an equalizer, and it would be more so if someone was wheelchair bound. Still, most pro-gun people think that an ex-con should not be "allowed" to own a gun. What of all the female ex-cons of Colly's strength & stature living in neighborhoods much worse than her?

By accepting restrictions on guns, the pro-gun advocates betray the fundamental of self defense being a natural right, and accept it as a "priviledge" awarded by the state. They will only have themselves to blame when the right to keep and bare arms finally goes away.

 

[Guest]

I don't have niether a gun or a doctor. I have a stapler and a dentist. Do I count?

Some serious and interestin information...

In a recent court case in Calgary, Karim Hami was convicted of the murder of John Randahl, who was knifed to death. Crown prosecutor Gary Belecki told the court "the use of knives in this community is close to epidemic proportions". In another case a man was charged with murdering a friend by firing about a hundred staples into his head with a carpenters staple gun.

I also remember a case from several years ago where a man killed his wife by reatedly stabbing her in the chest with a straightened paper clip.

But people still seem to be stuck on this "Guns kill people" thing.

So let's try an experiment.

Take a gun, your choice of what type, brand, model, etc., load it and lay it on a table. Now how long will it be before that gun kills someone of it's own volition?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think we should make it illegal only for bad people to own guns. Who is bad? Ask Santa.

Hey, it would solve the problems, if it was possible. Right?

There is a real problem in this country, when it comes to firearms. the problem isn't that we have more violent criminals per se. The problem, if you wish to see it as one, is that private ownership of firearms has been with us from the begining. It's written into our history, folk lore and even our constitution. My chief's special is over 100 years old. I own a colt navy cap & ball that was manufactured in the late 1890's.

This leads to a simple equation of thre being a huge number of weapons in private hands. When you start looking at regulation, you run up against the fact that anything you try to write, is making a criminal out of otherwise law abiding citizens. This is coupled with the simple thruth that regulation isn't going to stop criminals from getting guns.

In a nation where you don't have a history of ownership, nor a supply that is already dispersed among the citizenry, you can simply make regulations so tight that no new ones get out and by attrition, the supply already there will dry up. In this country, it's imparctical, as the supply already in proivate hand is by no means small.

The main foe of any reform is that too many people want to ban guns. They aren't interested in prudent regulation, except as a begining point to ending private ownership. This stacne forces those who own them to fight all regulation, even when many if not most would favor prudent regulation if the goal were to simply gain prudent regulation. I don't think anyone in this country has a need to own a fully automatic assault rifle. Nor do I see any glaring need for super high penetration rounds, so called cop kliller bullets. But I have to view the lapsing of the assualt weapons ban as a good thing. It will force the anti-gun lobby to go back and refight that battle, and thus forestalls them from persuing their objectives vis a vis my own ownership of a fire arm.

A huge number of people saw gay issues as being the prime mover in the last election, but it isn't just one issue, it's a catloge of them. Considering the Dem's continued assault on my right to own a firearm, I would hazard a guess that few of those 80 million gun owners voted for Kerry. I pretty much can fortell the future, they won't vote for a dem in 08 either, unless the GOP screws up something that is more important to them. It isn't a huge number of people, but it is a significant numer who the Dem's will never reach, as long as they are pushing to abolish an individuals rights.

Obviouly, you can't determine good people from bad people, when it comes to access to guns. In the event bad people will get them, through hook or crook, it only seems logical that good people should be free to get them too.