Something to Ponder

Doctors vs Gunowners

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 and Human Services.



Now think about this:


Guns:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
(Yes, that's 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 .000188.


Statistics courtesy of FBI


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


Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Therefore, we must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers.
For fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical help. :p

Get real! You conveniently left out the statistic on how many people die while being treated by a doctor for a gunshot wound. Some jerk running around with a gun is far more dangerous than a doctor...the jerk with the gun has no regard for human life and safety. Doctors do. You can twist statistics to say anything you want as you have just proven. Don't you dare even start on lawyers. Get off your damn computer and get your facts straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momcat

Get real! You conveniently left out the statistic on how many people die while being treated by a doctor for a gunshot wound. Some jerk running around with a gun is far more dangerous than a doctor...the jerk with the gun has no regard for human life and safety. Doctors do. You can twist statistics to say anything you want as you have just proven. Don't you dare even start on lawyers. Get off your damn computer and get your facts straight.

---

:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happylabs

:eek:

---

:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momcat

Get off your damn computer and get your facts straight.

---

No.

Doctors also like to charge $$$$$$ big time for removing bullets.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momcat

Get real! You conveniently left out the statistic on how many people die while being treated by a doctor for a gunshot wound. Some jerk running around with a gun is far more dangerous than a doctor...the jerk with the gun has no regard for human life and safety. Doctors do. You can twist statistics to say anything you want as you have just proven. Don't you dare even start on lawyers. Get off your damn computer and get your facts straight.

---

Well, educate us then. What ARE the facts, as you see them? See, I am one of those "jerks with a gun". Yet I have a VERY high regard for human life and safety, especially that of my family. Such a high regard that I am not going to rely on somebody else to keep them safe. I pray every day that I never have to.

How many people do die as a result of gunshot wounds? Of those, how many were inflicted by LEGAL gun owners?

Also, Wom, FWIW, did not twist the statistics. If anybody did, its the FBI. What motivation does the FBI have to lower crime statistics? Last I checked, government agencies try to justify their existence, not give reason for funding cuts.


Hoplophobes are interesting.


---

Wom - I do find it interesting that on one hand you have said our Bill of Rights should be burned up... Then you post this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

Wom - I do find it interesting that on one hand you have said our Bill of Rights should be burned up... Then you post this.

---

True. I don't support your Bill of Rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

Well, educate us then. What ARE the facts, as you see them? See, I am one of those "jerks with a gun". Yet I have a VERY high regard for human life and safety, especially that of my family. Such a high regard that I am not going to rely on somebody else to keep them safe. I pray every day that I never have to.

How many people do die as a result of gunshot wounds? Of those, how many were inflicted by LEGAL gun owners?

Also, Wom, FWIW, did not twist the statistics. If anybody did, its the FBI. What motivation does the FBI have to lower crime statistics? Last I checked, government agencies try to justify their existence, not give reason for funding cuts.


Hoplophobes are interesting.


---

Wom - I do find it interesting that on one hand you have said our Bill of Rights should be burned up... Then you post this.

---

Let it be Puck......the post was intended as a joke anyway. But I guess some people are just crabby. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momcat

Get real! You conveniently left out the statistic on how many people die while being treated by a doctor for a gunshot wound. Some jerk running around with a gun is far more dangerous than a doctor...the jerk with the gun has no regard for human life and safety. Doctors do. You can twist statistics to say anything you want as you have just proven. Don't you dare even start on lawyers. Get off your damn computer and get your facts straight.

---

I am real.
I conveniently did nothing of the sort.
I twisted nothing
I have proven nothing of the sort
And I will start on lawyers if I choose
I won't get off my computer.
And I will get my facts straight if I choose to.

Now some advice for you........
You don't like what I write ??? You have a choice.......don't read my posts, or put me on ignore....either way, I will not lose a second of sleep.
Now run along and get a life !!!!

Wombat, What is wrong with our bill of rights? Just because we have lost a good part of our freedoms & our phony elected officials are busy taking more of them away from us? :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonny

Wombat, What is wrong with our bill of rights? Just because we have lost a good part of our freedoms & our phony elected officials are busy taking more of them away from us? :mad:

---

Your freedoms are too open to abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wombat2u2004

Your freedoms are too open to abuse.

---

I agree... In a sense. That is the reality of the world.

But a vast, vast majority of people are law abiding and exercise our God given and Bill of Rights confirmed rights. Our Bill of Rights does not GRANT any rights. It simply confirms Natural Law. You can torch the paper all you want. You can have European/Australian 'limits' on self defence, speech, press etc... That does not change my fundamental right to free speech, self defence, etc...


See, who gets to define "abuse"? You? The government? Society?

Also, are you saying you would rather be 'safe' than free?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

I agree... In a sense. That is the reality of the world.

But a vast, vast majority of people are law abiding and exercise our God given and Bill of Rights confirmed rights. Our Bill of Rights does not GRANT any rights. It simply confirms Natural Law. You can torch the paper all you want. You can have European/Australian 'limits' on self defence, speech, press etc... That does not change my fundamental right to free speech, self defence, etc...


See, who gets to define "abuse"? You? The government? Society?

Also, are you saying you would rather be 'safe' than free?

---

There has to be a limit to "freedoms". Duties of people are just as important as their rights.
I'm very happy to live under a system which doesn't have a Bill of Rights. I can't speak for Europeans, but I can certainly speak on behalf of Australians.
I believe that the majority of Aussies would prefer that to. Freedoms here are assumed, they have no need to be stated in some document, and we don't have the problems that such a document brings. There have been a number of times here that proponents of a Bill of Rights have tried to introduce that document, but it has failed every time.

Also, are you saying you would rather be 'safe' than free? No, I'm not saying that, in my opinion I'd rather have both, and I already do.....again without the problems of a Bill of Rights.

In Australia, where parliamentary democracy usually works reasonably well, we can trust the legislators. If they do not act justly, particularly if they act oppressively, they will be dismissed from office at the next election. This is how our democracy works.

A Bill of Rights here would, as in the United States, politicize the Courts. It would amount to, or produce, a form of judicial imperialism. It would transfer great power from the elected representatives of the people in all their variety, to the judges. But the judges are unelected.

A Bill of Rights entrenches attitudes to rights which become out of date with changing times. I have stated that in all threads on this subject that I have posted on. Any Bill of Rights drawn today would soon be out of date.

"See, who gets to define "abuse"? You? The government? Society?"
We all do.
Isn't that exactly where your Madison was coming from ??? He was reluctant to draft a Bill of rights in the first place.........who defines the rights of the people ??? Him ???

The bill of rights doesn't empower individuals, rather it limits the power of government.

Key difference? You trust your legislature.

We don't.