NationStates Jolt Archive

Doctors:

(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000.

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

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%.

Statistics: courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health & Human Services
_________________________________________________________

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 0.001875%.

Statistics: courtesy of the FBI

Eureka, you're right! We should ban all doctors. Doctors ARE more inherently dangerous than guns......

I always suspected such.....

Heh. Old, but good.

Of course you'll get the argument that we NEED doctors but somehow do not NEED guns. Similarly with cigarettes... some folks thing we, as in humans overall, do not NEED cigarettes so they should also be banned. Frankly, I think we do not NEED self-righteous pro-censorship/anti-freedom assholes either...

Interestingly, almost everyone has a doctor. Not everyone has a gun.

Doctors:

(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000.

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

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%.

Statistics: courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health & Human Services
_________________________________________________________

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 0.001875%.

Statistics: courtesy of the FBI


I swear to god it was you that posted this before
bout a year ago or so?

I guess we should keep the guns away from the doctors then...

and with the number that alcohol kills every year why hasnt it been banned yet?

Screw it, just ban people.

So how many intentional deaths per year are caused by doctors?

Doctors are still human and humans are not infallible. They are prone to error. And equipment that is used isn't necessarily perfect. It has come along way, but it is still only a diagnostic tool and even those can be wrong at times.

Why arn't we including intentional deaths?

Ahhh, guns are such a beautiful thing. :)

Why arn't we including intentional deaths?
Because then guns would look bad. Duh! Isn't the answer obvious? :rolleyes:

So how many intentional deaths per year are caused by doctors?

Ah, now that is the question, isn't it?

Another might be, "How many of the "accidental deaths caused by physicians," were, "You are dying. I am going to try and save you. I made a mistake, so you still died."

And, "How much overlap is there between deaths "caused" by doctors and deaths caused by guns? - ie. How many people wouldn't even be around the doctor if they hadn't been shot?"

Why arn't we including intentional deaths?

Because all too many of the anti-gun folks like to point out that guns are inherently dangerous instruments that, for no reason other than pure accident, like to go off and kill people all on their own. So that would be an "unintentional" death.

Because all too many of the anti-gun folks like to point out that guns are inherently dangerous instruments that, for no reason other than pure accident, like to go off and kill people all on their own. So that would be an "unintentional" death.

No, we maintain that a gun's intention is to kill in te same way it is a pen's to write. A pen may leak and a gun may have a fault but it's original purpose remains either to kill or to write.

No, we maintain that a gun's intention is to kill in te same way it is a pen's to write. A pen may leak and a gun may have a fault but it's original purpose remains either to kill or to write.

No, I've seen many of you maintain exactly what I said. Maybe not you specifically, but whatever.

As for original purpose, who cares? Guns exist, you better deal with it; kinda like nuclear technology. Nuclear technology's original purpose? To defeat Imperial Japan and/or the Axis Powers.

Now it's used for generating electricity. (Well, except when knee-jerk liberals complain about it loudly enough.)

Apparently things are not restricted to whatever their original purpose was. For example, a gun can be used to defend a person from assault. Killing the assaulter is secondary to that purpose. Do you agree that self-defense is a worthy goal?

Actually Einstein originally intended Nuclear Power for energy rather than bombs but that's by the by.

Self-defence is a worthy goal, however, I believe that killing someone to do it is not a worthy act. To quote Cicero

What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.

And then to quote Moses

Thou shalt not kill

Granted my attitude is coloured by my religion and it's pretty much immutable there.

I recognise that guns are useful in some regards (hunting and certain sports, I like air-gun shooting for example). I do not recognise them as an implement of personal defence.

Self-defence is a worthy goal, however, I believe that killing someone to do it is not a worthy act.

Ownership of a gun =/= killing someone.

Many times mere possession of a gun is enough to deter would-be attackers.

Many more times, a gunshot wound is not fatal.

And many would-be victims would beg to differ that a gun cannot be an 'implement of self defense.'

Ownership of a gun =/= killing someone.

Many times mere possession of a gun is enough to deter would-be attackers.

Many more times, a gunshot wound is not fatal.

And many would-be victims would beg to differ that a gun cannot be an 'implement of self defense.'

Ownership of a gun is to state your intent of killing someone. That's a subtle difference to actually killing someone (and, under the law of mens rea/actus reus very important). If I take a knife in my pocket in public then I state my intent to use it if I feel it necessary. And I trust no-one with that intent and that ability.

The statistics say I'm wrong I know, I'm debating from a moral point. In other words, I accept that I am wrong but I am making a statement of my feelings here. Kinda fucked myself really :eek:

I find the doctors numbers very suspect. A quick search reveals that the same thing has been quoted over and over referring to the same deparment but not to an originating document. A search on the US Department of Health and Human Services doesn't bring any information forward.

I'm going to put this on the urban legend drawer meanwhile.

On the other hand, it's true that accidental deaths caused by guns when compared to preventable deaths caused by, say, cars, smoking, pools, and riding a bike, are quite low. I imagine because there's a lot more awareness of the dangers a gun represents than those of the other activities.

Ownership of a gun is to state your intent of killing someone. That's a subtle difference to actually killing someone (and, under the law of mens rea/actus reus very important). If I take a knife in my pocket in public then I state my intent to use it if I feel it necessary. And I trust no-one with that intent and that ability.

The statistics say I'm wrong I know, I'm debating from a moral point. In other words, I accept that I am wrong but I am making a statement of my feelings here. Kinda fucked myself really :eek:

I appreciate your second paragraph but your first sentance is incorrect.

The first firearm I ever owned was for the express purpose of WWII reenacting. I didn't even have any live ammo for it. I soon discovered that the one I had was in too good condition for "field use" so bought a second one. The next two were a .22 rilfle and pistol (given to me by my father) so I could take a shooting class at my Univ. It wasn't until an extreme anti-gun measure during this time by my Governor that would have made all of my guns illegal and not grandfathered turned me into an advocate.

The next gun I bought was a SAR-1 because it looked cool and I liked shooting it. I then bought a pistol for my mother (my father had by then passed away) so she could defend herself JIC. I also trained her in its use and what to do incase of emergency. I traded my .22 pistol for a dbl barrelled shotgun for home defense and loaded it w/ less than lethals. It's in my bedroom closet. I also bought my wife a .22 rifle so she could have her own when we go plinking.

Therefore, no firearm I own expresses my "intent" or even "desire" to kill anyone. I do, however, have the capability if I am forced to.

Why arn't we including intentional deaths?
Because you can't use those as the standard. If I really wanted to kill someone, I could just stab them in the kidneys, beat them with a baseball, chop them with a sword, poison food, poison pins, etc, etc. Guns don't have a monopoly on purposeful lethality, and the point of the statistical comparison is to point out that guns don't even have a great deal of share in accidental lethalities.

Still, I think I see the solution to this problem! We must invent a hybrid Doctor/Gun! It would be less likely to kill you, and it could have machine gun arms, or something, that would allow ito to fight bad guys! We call it the Dogun, and everyone would think that it was some Japanese word and then Anime kids would love it!

I have an idea. Why not ban people? It'll limit the number of deaths from both doctors and guns tremendously! :D

Doctors:

(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000.

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

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%.

Statistics: courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health & Human Services
_________________________________________________________

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 0.001875%.

Statistics: courtesy of the FBI
It would have been nicer if you had provided a linkable source. However, tit for tat, here are some interesting stats:

There are 200 million privately owned guns in the US, including 65 million handguns. Firearms are now the second biggest cause of injury-related death in the country, killing 28,663 people in 2000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. For African-American teenagers aged 15 to 19, gun-related homicide is the leading cause of death, and for all American teenagers of similar age gun-related homicide and suicide come second only to motor vehicle accidents.
Gun-related homicide

Douglas Wiebe of the Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia agrees. Last month, Wiebe and colleagues found that people who keep guns at home have a 72 per cent greater chance of being killed by firearms compared with those who do not, and are 3.44 times as likely to commit suicide (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 771). A 1997 survey by the CDC that compared the US with 25 other industrialised countries, including the UK and Australia, showed that the number of gun-related homicides in the US per 100,00 children below the age of 15 was 16 times that of all the other countries combined. The proportion of children below 15 who use guns to kill themselves was 11 times higher.

-snip-
Darn, you just had to spoil our fun by posting something serious, didn't you? :(

Canuck, it looks like it's more of a problem for urban blacks than the typical suburban white.

Oh, and in most urban areas, it's not legal to own so much as a slingshot.

From the Department of Justice Crime Statistics, 1993-2001

* Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4
per 1,000 blacks) were
40% higher than rates for Hispanics (6.0)
200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per1,000).

* Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
murdered with a firearm.

* On average black victims of firearm violence were 3
years younger than white victims -- 29 versus 32.

* From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of
homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but
12% of the U.S. population.

94 percent of victims of black violence are black


Looks like I cut my statistical chance of not being a victim of firearm violence by a substantial amount merely by not being black.

So, it looks like just owning a gun doesn't make you a crazy criminal running through the street causing havoc.

Ownership of a gun is to state your intent of killing someone. That's a subtle difference to actually killing someone (and, under the law of mens rea/actus reus very important). If I take a knife in my pocket in public then I state my intent to use it if I feel it necessary. And I trust no-one with that intent and that ability.

Incorrect, as someone already pointed out. Ownership of a gun is just that, ownership of a gun. It's not murderous intent, otherwise we could throw murder charges at anyone who happens to own a gun and they'd stick since they all, apparently, have a motive of killing someone.

I accept that I am wrong but I am making a statement of my feelings here. Kinda fucked myself really :eek:

Alright. Moral it is then. I appreciate honesty. :)

So, shouldn't we- to make it fair to the poor doctors- take the number of lives saved each year by both guns and doctors and subtract that from that percentage of just deaths?

Incorrect, as someone already pointed out. Ownership of a gun is just that, ownership of a gun. It's not murderous intent, otherwise we could throw murder charges at anyone who happens to own a gun and they'd stick since they all, apparently, have a motive of killing someone.

Don't go around giving the gun banners more ideas.

lets shoot those dang docters! :sniper:

Oh, and in most urban areas, it's not legal to own so much as a slingshot.

I don't know where you live, but all the urban areas I have seen it has been legal to own a firearm - even to carry it, with the right licenses.

Of course, I've never visited Europe. Is that where you live? And, if so, why are you quoting US statistics?

So, it looks like just owning a gun doesn't make you a crazy criminal running through the street causing havoc.

No one has claimed it does. All of those statistics are not necessarily due to the person going out looking for violence. Often, a person will get shot specifically because they resist being mugged/etc. If the mugger has a gun, and you pull yours, they are much, much more likely to actually shoot you than they were just using it as a threat. Not that this means you shouldn't carry one - just that you should be aware that pulling could either have the effect of making you safer, or of putting you in more danger.


Incorrect, as someone already pointed out. Ownership of a gun is just that, ownership of a gun. It's not murderous intent, otherwise we could throw murder charges at anyone who happens to own a gun and they'd stick since they all, apparently, have a motive of killing someone.

What a silly statement.

Motive is not enough to bring charges against someone. Action is required. We don't prosecute anyone for thinking that they could get money if their spouse died - we prosecute them for actually killing their spouse.

Moronic topic really.

I know,lets ban statistics.if there are no big numbers telling us scary things about doctors and guns and toasters then nobody will have anything to worry about,they won't get stressed and have to go to the doctors,where they may die accidently.Also the won't crack under the strees,try to shoot themselves and accidently kill someone else due to their shaky hands.

See my idea solves everything.

As usual.

I don't know where you live, but all the urban areas I have seen it has been legal to own a firearm - even to carry it, with the right licenses.

Of course, I've never visited Europe. Is that where you live? And, if so, why are you quoting US statistics?

No one has claimed it does. All of those statistics are not necessarily due to the person going out looking for violence. Often, a person will get shot specifically because they resist being mugged/etc. If the mugger has a gun, and you pull yours, they are much, much more likely to actually shoot you than they were just using it as a threat. Not that this means you shouldn't carry one - just that you should be aware that pulling could either have the effect of making you safer, or of putting you in more danger.

What a silly statement.

Motive is not enough to bring charges against someone. Action is required. We don't prosecute anyone for thinking that they could get money if their spouse died - we prosecute them for actually killing their spouse.

Department of Justice Statistices indicate that the majority of violent crime is committed WITHOUT a firearm - that is, Part 1 felonies (murder, armed robbery, rape, aggravated assault). 93 percent with no firearm.

Additionally, there is no increase in risk if you resist. In fact, most police self-defense instruction to women includes the admonition that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by resisting. And they tell children at my kids' school to resist and scream every step of the way, because you have nothing to lost. Even the Department of Justice Crime Statistics reflects this.

In the period pre-1990, they told you not to resist. To cooperate. Not any longer.

And the number of times an armed citizen confronts an unarmed would-be felon outnumbers the times an armed citizen confronts an armed felon.

What a silly statement.


Yes it was, as is the statement that owning a gun means intent to kill. Ownership of a gun is not motive.

When people died in accidental deaths it's usually during surgeries. It's not the doctors fault, it's the patients fault for needing surgery. The doctors do everything they can. So dont ban doctors, and dont ban guns.

The licenses to carry firearms in a place like Los Angeles and New York, while theoretically available, are not available on a "shall issue" basis.

This means, essentially, that no one except the personal friend of the police chief (read: Sean Penn) gets a carry permit.

35 states have "shall issue" permits - that is, it is based solely on the applicant's criminal record (and lack thereof), rather than the personal whim of the police officer in charge.

You can't even get a permit in Washington, D.C.

Police in most major urban areas know that when they see a civilian with a firearm (especially in California or on the Northeast Corridor), it's illegal. Rarely are they mistaken.

That's how the New York Transit Police ended up shooting two NYPD detectives to death in a subway station (this happens with astonishing regularity). The Transit Police thought the detectives (out of uniform) were holding illegal guns.

Not that they had to ask - they shot first and looked at their IDs later.

Department of Justice Statistices indicate that the majority of violent crime is committed WITHOUT a firearm - that is, Part 1 felonies (murder, armed robbery, rape, aggravated assault). 93 percent with no firearm.

I never said that most were committed with.

Additionally, there is no increase in risk if you resist.

That all depends on the exact situation. If there truly is a loaded gun to your head or a knife pressed against your throat, there is a pretty huge increase in risk if you don't comply - as the danger is right there where it can do instant damage.

If we are talking about all possible situations on a statistical average, any increase in risk due to resistance may be negligible or even non-existent. I don't think it's really possible to know that sort of thing for sure.

In fact, most police self-defense instruction to women includes the admonition that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by resisting. And they tell children at my kids' school to resist and scream every step of the way, because you have nothing to lost.

In most cases, that is probably true - which is why they teach it. One does have to realize, however, that there may be cases like those described above, where it might not be.

And the number of times an armed citizen confronts an unarmed would-be felon outnumbers the times an armed citizen confronts an armed felon.

Which is probably a good thing, so long as that citizen knows what he is doing and has the self-control required to use force only if necessary.

It's illegal in Washington D.C.

No slingshots. No bows and arrows. Nothing.

The licenses to carry firearms in a place like Los Angeles and New York, while theoretically available, are not available on a "shall issue" basis.

Licenses to carry should be harder to get than those to own, although I would say that there should be some sort of standard metric, as I think there should be a standard metric for gun ownership.

I find it rather disturbing, actually, that I could go out and buy a gun tomorrow. They would check my record, sure, but how would they know if I had any idea how to properly use the thing (I don't, by the way - a big part of the reason I don't own a gun in the first place)? All I ask is that guns be regulated in much the same way as any other dangerous instrument. If you are going to buy a gun, I ask that you demonstrate knowledge of gun use and safety. If you wish to carry concealed, I ask that you have no violent criminal record - no history of bar fights, domestic violence, or anything like that, that might indicate you as one who flies off the handle and uses violence (in addition to the use and safety requirements.)

Police in most major urban areas know that when they see a civilian with a firearm (especially in California or on the Northeast Corridor), it's illegal. Rarely are they mistaken.

The firearm itself, or carrying it in public?

Licenses to carry should be harder to get than those to own, although I would say that there should be some sort of standard metric, as I think there should be a standard metric for gun ownership.

I find it rather disturbing, actually, that I could go out and buy a gun tomorrow. They would check my record, sure, but how would they know if I had any idea how to properly use the thing (I don't, by the way - a big part of the reason I don't own a gun in the first place)? All I ask is that guns be regulated in much the same way as any other dangerous instrument. If you are going to buy a gun, I ask that you demonstrate knowledge of gun use and safety. If you wish to carry concealed, I ask that you have no violent criminal record - no history of bar fights, domestic violence, or anything like that, that might indicate you as one who flies off the handle and uses violence (in addition to the use and safety requirements.)

The firearm itself, or carrying it in public?

In 35 states, you can go into the store and buy a firearm.

HOWEVER.

Before you buy it, there is a computerized background check called NICS. If you don't pass, you don't get to buy it.

If you've ever been in a mental institution - you're in NICS.
If you've ever been convicted of a violent felony - you're in NICS.
If you've ever been convicted of domestic abuse (verbal, mental, physical, or otherwise - even a misdemeanor) - you're in NICS.

If you're in NICS, you won't be buying the gun.

The concealed carry permit is separate - and they run the same check again, and the local law enforcement also checks to see if they have any recent problems with you. But if there's nothing on paper, they have to give you the permit.

Most gun stores have instruction available. Also, the manual that comes with your gun is filled with ass-covering instructions, as well as ass-covering safety instructions and admonitions to get instruction.

Doctors:

(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000.

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

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%.

Statistics: courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health & Human Services
_________________________________________________________

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 0.001875%.

Statistics: courtesy of the FBI



Wow, that means 99.998125% of gun related deaths were intentional. Thats some accurate shooting.

Wow, that means 99.998125% of gun related deaths were intentional. Thats some accurate shooting.

So you're saying that there are 80 million gun related deaths in the US / year?

Doctors:

(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000.

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

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%.

Statistics: courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health & Human Services
_________________________________________________________

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 0.001875%.

Statistics: courtesy of the FBI
You left out the deliberate gun homicides. :rolleyes:

Doctors:

(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000.

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

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%.

Statistics: courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health & Human Services
_________________________________________________________

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 0.001875%.

Statistics: courtesy of the FBI

And once again, welcome to the world of flawed statistics...I´m surprised that in your current situation you intend a (hopefully) pun at the cost of physicians...hope your urologist/oncologist doesn´t own a gun...is the risk then multiplied or subtracted, added...oh great gor of statistics

lets shoot those dang docters! :sniper:

Does this count as flaming? If not I hope you snip your finger at the trigger while shooting the last doctor and die a slow, painful death of a festering wound...tetanus perhaps, not pretty, too :mad:

Eureka, you're right! We should ban all doctors. Doctors ARE more inherently dangerous than guns......

I always suspected such.....

Very well, we'd leave your childern bleeding on the ground when they become involved in a car crash, since you dislike medical professionals so much. Or let them die is horrible yet easily preventable infections.

And it has now become apparent that the concept known as "humour" is completely lost on the above posters.