Guns vs. Doctors

[Steroid_Virgin]

Statistics: Guns v. Physicians

Number of physicians in the US:
700,000.

Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year:
120,000.

Accidental deaths per physician:
0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the US:
80,000,000.

Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups):
1,500.

Accidental deaths per gun owner:
0.0000188

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

 

[danielson]

doesnt work out like this

120,000 deaths caused by physicians? as in they went out and killed someone? no.....they were presented with a dying patients and tried to save them.

a defibrilator saves 10% of people when their heart is fucked. that mean it kills 90% of people? no it just means it couldnt stop 90% of people from sying (unlike on TV where everyone makes it)


guns never save their target they kill it or maim it. they do however protect its owner.

 

[the nature boy]

kill all doctors!!!!


wait, you forgot to put in statistics regarding intentional deaths and woundings caused by doctors and firearms.


where did you get these stats from anyway? and what constitutes an accidental death by a doctor?

 

[bigguns7]

Please don't tell me that you think these statistics have any credibility or that they prove any point whatsoever.

 

[the nature boy]

maybe it's supposed to be satire.

 

[danielson]

maybe it's supposed to be satire.

nope i remember it was posted before

i think the NRA released it. maybe im wrong. but to try to highlight that those who try to save lives kill more people than guns. in terms of arguements, it was sunk as soon at it was released




doesnt negate from the fact that given the no. of guns in the US i would be EXTREMELY pissed if they were taken away from legal owners but allowed to flourish unregulated criminally

a simple ban on unsupervised child gun use, and a manditory sentence for those that offend, plus a TV campaign with lots of tearful imagery asking people to report those that let heir kids use guns would be a start?

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Daniel son, you are WRONG!! do you know how many MALPRACTICE suits were filed last year???

MALPRACTICE = DOCTOR FUCKED UP, not patient was doomed.. face it, guns less people on accident than doctors do..

 

[the nature boy]

Daniel son, you are WRONG!! do you know how many MALPRACTICE suits were filed last year???

MALPRACTICE = DOCTOR FUCKED UP, not patient was doomed.. face it, guns less people on accident than doctors do..

where did you get that info from? I'd like to see the sources.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Malpractice occurs daily in America. For example, in one state, New York, it was estimated that a whopping 23,736 to 31,104 people suffered negligent injuries while hospitalized, and of those, 7,000 people died from the injuries they sustained in 1984. Imagine what is happening nationwide if 7,000 people died in only one state!

http://www.civiljustice.org/medical.html

keep talking shit...

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Only about 2% of those injured by physicians' negligence ever seek compensation through a lawsuit.


Localio, et. al., "Relation Between Malpractice Claims and Adverse Events Due to Negligence," 325 New England Journal of Medicine 245-51 (1991).

 

[danielson]

Daniel son, you are WRONG!! do you know how many MALPRACTICE suits were filed last year???

MALPRACTICE = DOCTOR FUCKED UP, not patient was doomed.. face it, guns less people on accident than doctors do..

however the doctor was TRYING to save a life

no matter how hard a doctor works he WILL make mistakes. if he sees 10,000 patients a month, he may make a 1000 mistakes. it happens, and nothing can change that. while people like to see doctors as infallible they aren;t. as such people think if doctors make 1 mistake they should be struck off for life....that doesnt always happen, it depends on what was done

finally those are malpractise SUITS. how many resulted in a conviction. how many people sued opportunistically, recognisng financial gain in a lawsuit?


thats the difference. doctors have to save lives. guns are meant to take them. which is why you cant compare the two. a comparson of knives to guns would be useful, as wood houshold poisons etc or other legal 'killing' devices



i personally wouldnt wanna give my gun up if i lived in the US. because if i owned one, i probably would need it

 

[bigguns7]

"There's liars, there's damn liars, and there's statistics."

-Mark Twain

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Medical malpractice errors are responsible for 98,000 wrongful deaths each year. More people die from medical mistakes each year than from all U.S. highway deaths! Our Nationwide referral service can locate an experienced attorney near you who concentrates in Medical Malpractice Litigation. You can have your serious injury case reviewed confidentially and without obligation.

http://www.medical-malpractice-lawyers-attorneys.com/

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

doctors kill more people "accidentally" then guns do.... that is a fact.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Guns save more lives than doctors do....

How many lives do the think the ATOM bomb saved??

 

[bigguns7]

doctors kill more people "accidentally" then guns do.... that is a fact.

Yes that is a fact. But that fact can't be used to back up the point you're making. If you could either save someone's life or kill them accidentally with a gun, then these statistics would be fair, but I think the doctors would come out on top.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

The number of deaths caused by bad medicine each year roughly equals a jumbo jet crash every 24 hours for an entire year. More than 95,000 Americans are killed annually due in part to medical malpractice, according to extrapolations from the Harvard Medical Practice Study. Hundreds of thousands more are injured. Nevertheless, only a few doctors and hospitals are ever disciplined, and even then most of the sanctions are for substance abuse or fraud rather than negligence.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

The mortality resulting from medical errors each year in the United States is estimated to be between 44,000 and 98,000accounting for more deaths than from motor vehicle crashes, breast cancer, or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.1-3 Medically induced injuries and deaths not only represent a major public health problem, but also incur economic costs and loss of trust in the medical profession. The Institute of Medicine has initiated a project on Quality of Health Care in America to redesign the health care delivery system, align incentives, and transform information technology to dramatically improve patient safety.1 In response, President Clinton proposed a national error prevention system that includes mandatory reporting of all medical errors that result in death or serious injury.4 As Mohr5 explains in this issue of THE JOURNAL, these reforms will take place within a deep historical and contemporary backdrop of medical malpractice litigation. A key issue is whether and to what extent medical malpractice creates barriers to quality improvement and, if so, what kinds of tort reforms could be helpful.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v283n13/ffull/jed00013.html

 

[the nature boy]

what a stupid point you're trying to make. Let's get rid of doctors because they accidently kill people. Well how many fucking lives have guns saved? and how many doctors saved lives of gunshot victims.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Quit trying to ban guns... guns kill A LOT people accidentally than liberals would have you think...

Danielson????

hangun control inc can suck my dick

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

what a stupid point you're trying to make. Let's get rid of doctors because they accidently kill people. Well how many fucking lives have guns saved? and how many doctors saved lives of gunshot victims.

Thats not my point einstien... my point is guns are not as bad as liberals want you to think they are.

 

[bigguns7]

Let's say hypothetically you have a three year old daughter. You lock her in a room by herself, and you have the choice to send one of two things into the room, a gun or a doctor. Which one is more dangerous to her?

 

[danielson]

how many lives did the atom bomb kill?
not every democrat wants to ban guns i suspect.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Yes that is a fact. But that fact can't be used to back up the point you're making. If you could either save someone's life or kill them accidentally with a gun, then these statistics would be fair, but I think the doctors would come out on top.

Guns save a lot of lives... talk to a cop sometime... jesus you are ignorant... ask him how many times his gun saved his life.

how many lives did the ATOM bomb in japan save?? Literally millions.. so dont give me that lame argument

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

how many lives did the atom bomb kill?
not every democrat wants to ban guns i suspect.

not more than it saved... go read your history books son....

 

[danielson]

not more than it saved... go read your history books son....

it saved the US invasion force many thousands of lives

not millions. the japs were trying to develop a long range bomber but failed when germany was taken out ofthe war. the only thing they had that could reach america was their submarine carries, but they only carried limited payload




on the other hand the fallou from hiroshima and nagasaki caused many deaths and birth defects, and can be attributed to many many more


its too hard to say it did one more than the other. but its like saying a doctor saves lives by killing all the sick people so he can save the healthy.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Let's say hypothetically you have a three year old daughter. You lock her in a room by herself, and you have the choice to send one of two things into the room, a gun or a doctor. Which one is more dangerous to her?

depends...

 

[Frackal]

Using this logic:


If an anti-matter bomb was placed in the center of the earth somehow and detonated, and the world was destroyed, it would save more lives in the future. Humanity would cease to exist, therefore the 6 billion that died that day would pale to the trillions that would die over the eons of whatever cause.

I'm against gun control, but this argument is fucking sad.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

it saved the US invasion force many thousands of lives

not millions. the japs were trying to develop a long range bomber but failed when germany was taken out ofthe war. the only thing they had that could reach america was their submarine carries, but they only carried limited payload




on the other hand the fallou from hiroshima and nagasaki caused many deaths and birth defects, and can be attributed to many many more


its too hard to say it did one more than the other. but its like saying a doctor saves lives by killing all the sick people so he can save the healthy.

Wrong again:

"What would have happened without those weapons? There were plans to
invade Japan. The estimates were that it would take 1 million American
lives. It was certain it would have taken far more Japanese casualties,"
the Nobel laureate said. "So . . . the atom bomb saved lives, mostly
Japanese lives. And the Soviets were eager to participate in an invasion.
That occupation would have been far more oppressive on Japan."

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Using this logic:


If an anti-matter bomb was placed in the center of the earth somehow and detonated, and the world was destroyed, it would save more lives in the future. Humanity would cease to exist, therefore the 6 billion that died that day would pale to the trillions that would die over the eons of whatever cause.

I'm against gun control, but this argument is fucking sad.

What you just said is completely non sequitor to the arugument frack.. Im not talking about future lives... if you want to talk about future lives, then you would have to consider all the unborn children of the people who could have been born if people were not killed by malpractice...

Go get your shine box frack...

 

[danielson]

Wrong again:

"What would have happened without those weapons? There were plans to
invade Japan. The estimates were that it would take 1 million American
lives. It was certain it would have taken far more Japanese casualties,"
the Nobel laureate said. "So . . . the atom bomb saved lives, mostly
Japanese lives. And the Soviets were eager to participate in an invasion.
That occupation would have been far more oppressive on Japan."

my bad...i do remember hearing this now about the 1 million lives


but

it doesnt detract from the fact you cant compare accidental gun deaths to doctors.

the NRA should try a study against other legal killing agents, it may get less apathy. alcohol might be a good choice.

 

[Warik]

what a stupid point you're trying to make. Let's get rid of doctors because they accidently kill people.

Actually, the point that is trying to be made is something along the lines of:

"If accidental loss of life is so bad, and it is one of the primary reasons that Handgun Control organizations are pushing for handgun control, then why are doctors who are guilty of more accidental deaths than handgun owners not being attacked if accidental deaths are such a big problem?"

The point that is trying to be made here is that there is no valid reason for handgun control other than the violation of a Constitutional right perpetrated by the left.

-Warik

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Daniel..

I will agree with you, if you agree with me:

Doctors are not bad for society...
Guns are not bad for society...

they both save lives, they can both take lives.

 

[the nature boy]

Thats not my point einstien... my point is guns are not as bad as liberals want you to think they are.

ok genius, then what the hell is the multiple atom bomb refereneces you've made have to do with GUN CONTROL IN THE USA!?!? The atom bomb has nothing to do with your arguement. lol.

 

[Warik]

Let's say hypothetically you have a three year old daughter. You lock her in a room by herself, and you have the choice to send one of two things into the room, a gun or a doctor. Which one is more dangerous to her?

The doctor for several reasons.

1) My hypothetical three year-old daughter would hypothetically know not to touch a gun.
2) My hypothetical three year-old daughter would not be even remotely strong enough to lift the gun, point it at herself, and discharge it.
3) The gun is an inanimate object that cannot inflict harm on its own.

The doctor? He's alive, has a mind of his own, and I don't know who the fuck he is or what he's capable of. I'll take the gun any day.

-Warik

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Things that are apparently ment to end life, can most often spare just as many lives...

Guns are not bad, people are.

 

[danielson]

Daniel..

I will agree with you, if you agree with me:

Doctors are not bad for society...
Guns are not bad for society...

they both save lives, they can both take lives.

id easily agree with that. i was up until a while ago a fgun enthusiast. i shot in national competitions. shooting has become so hard with all the laws in place i cant do it as easily as before. consequently a bunch of idiots who could hit the broad side of a barn shoot now in my place

a gun isnt bad for society. its an inanimate object. a person who has not been brought up properly, has little family or social values, recieves poor training in the use of firearms and doesn not respect life is what is bad for society. and MTV of course

both should be allowed

 

[the nature boy]

Actually, the point that is trying to be made is something along the lines of:

"If accidental loss of life is so bad, and it is one of the primary reasons that Handgun Control organizations are pushing for handgun control, then why are doctors who are guilty of more accidental deaths than handgun owners not being attacked if accidental deaths are such a big problem?"

The point that is trying to be made here is that there is no valid reason for handgun control other than the violation of a Constitutional right perpetrated by the left.

-Warik

well mabye he could have said something like that in the first place.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

well mabye he could have said something like that in the first place.

Im just playing the same game the liberal left plays...

 

[Frackal]

What you just said is completely non sequitor to the arugument frack.. Im not talking about future lives... if you want to talk about future lives, then you would have to consider all the unborn children of the people who could have been born if people were not killed by malpractice...

Go get your shine box frack...

It made no sense but served to amuse me which was the point.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

It made no sense but served to amuse me which was the point.

Ahh we have something in comon then, Im amused when you are humbled too!!!

 

[Frackal]

You remind me of a pickled vagina.

 

[danielson]

Im just playing the same game the liberal left plays...

as opposed to the rights game

'you;re opposed to anti terrorism laws? and US foreign policy? well you must oppose wanting to apprehend terrorists and bring them to justice. so you would rather have terrorists kill people than be apprehended. i think that is an insult to all the victims of terrorism.'

this principle of arguement is used by almost every right wing politician on one of our political debate shows. one wonders if the speaker went unchecked if he would accuse the question maker of being OBL himself








but yes.....the left does get tangled in its own PC sometimes. this is why centre politics kicks ass

 

[the nature boy]

Im just playing the same game the liberal left plays...

so the right plays no games? come on, you can't really believe that. IT'S CALLED POLITICS!!!

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

You remind me of a pickled vagina.

LOL... I used to call people names like that when I was a kid too... LOL..

just go get your shine box boy...

 

[the nature boy]

BTW Steriod Virgin, you never really answered my question. What does bombing japan have to do with Gun Control?

 

[Warik]

Oh, and if for some completely ridiculous, illogical reason you think that the murder the 920582305923432423 innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perpetrated by our saintly government "saved lives," you, quite frankly, are a dumb shit.

-Warik

 

[the nature boy]

Oh, and if for some completely ridiculous, illogical reason you think that the murder the 920582305923432423 innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perpetrated by our saintly government "saved lives," you, quite frankly, are a dumb shit.

-Warik

who are you talking to?

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Oh, and if for some completely ridiculous, illogical reason you think that the murder the 920582305923432423 innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perpetrated by our saintly government "saved lives," you, quite frankly, are a dumb shit.

-Warik

Warick,

It has been estimated that if the United States had
not dropped the bomb and had invaded Japan instead, the
United States would have lost about a million soldiers. The
Japanese suicidal fighting strategies greatly effected this
number. The Japanese would rather die than surrender. This
is demonstrated by the battle of Saipan. At that battle, over
half of the population of Saipan walked off a cliff instead
of surrendering to the United States.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Only roughly 200,000 we killed by atom bombs at hiroshima and nagasaki...

The fucking japs were ruthless... unfortunately, innocent people had to pay the price... it was the only thing the fucking japs would surrender too... blame them.

 

[Warik]

I'm not going to argue World War strategy or "would course A lose more lives than course B?" I'm simply stating the fact that it's completely illogical to label the murder of innocent civilians in time of war as "the right thing to do" and it "saved lives."

Tell me, if it was the Japanese who nuked the US and used "if we'd have invaded you instead, more people would have died" as an excuse, would you agree that they did the "right thing?"

Doubtful.

-Warik

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Japan was the agressor... it's japan's fault for not surrenduring... many of us would not be alive today if we didnt drop the bomb on japan...

 

[bigguns7]

Steroid Virgin-

This is some stupid shit. You say guns save lives. How so, how do they save lives? They protect people from other people with guns, who are using those guns to take lives. Your atom bomb theory is foiled by its own logic. We saved American lives using a weapon, but what did we save them from? Getting killed with the same weapon.

So in essence, guns save us from other guns. Good point my man, you're a genius.

I'm against gun control just as much as you, but its people like you that make the world think that conservatives are morons.

 

[the nature boy]

I still think using the arugement with atomic bombs has absoulutely NOTHING to do with the point he was trying to make.