ForumGarden

You're probably thinking...."Here she goes again..." but I just can't help myself.

Yes, this is partially tongue-in-cheek, but the stats are real.



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



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.

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, I have withheld statistics on

lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek

medical attention.

OH BUGGER!

Abbey, where DID you find that smiley?!! It's hysterical!!!

Hmmm..note to self: I need to shoot my doctor.

Jives wrote: Hmmm..note to self: I need to shoot my doctor.:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

I think you should count accidental and deliberate deaths from both sources.

Presumably, deliberate deaths by doctors nationally, zero.

Accidental and deliberate deaths by firearms, USA, 1998 (the first year to hand, if that's OK) 30,780.

Total deaths, all causes, per physician is 17.14%

Total firearms discharges at people or criminal threat with firearms (still 1998), 197,100

Total deaths, all causes, per firearms incident is 15.6%

So, that year the physicians won, but only by a margin of 9%. Close run thing.

hey guess what you all have our canadian doctors so go on go shoot a canadian today ahahaha hohohoh hehehehehe

The problem with that is when you include deliberate deaths, you have to include all the criminals who murder. My point is to show how responsible gun owners are portrayed as nut cases, when that is just not true.

Angel Chocobo runs to shoot her doctor :sneaky:

I just did include all the criminals who murder, at least those who did it with guns.

I had no idea anyone portrayed responsible gun owners as nut cases, I thought it was just the irresponsible ones who were pointed out in those terms. You didn't mention it, and I didn't guess.

Yeah, I got that spot. That's why I'm saying your stats are for a different purpose than mine.

My point is that there are people out there who would ban guns altogether, if they could. If that were to happen, what would be next? Banning doctors? Because they are responsible for more ACCIDENTAL (didn't I specify that? Oh yeah...I did!) deaths than guns are. Good lord, I've never been compelled to explain in such minute, excruciating detail.

BabyRider wrote: My point is that there are people out there who would ban guns altogether, if they could.I've been back and re-read your initial post, BR. Danged if I could find the least hint of that in it. I don't look to you to explain in minute, excruciating detail, just to think a bit.

jives wrote: Hmmm..note to self:i need to shoot my doctorBabyRider wrote: :yh_rotfl :yh_rotflI'll second that :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Well, if you aren't aware that there are people out there who'd like to ban guns, you must have been a hermit on some mountain top somewhere. Do you glean some perverse pleasure nit-picking on tiny details like this?

Please, a vote here: Who is not aware that there are people in existence, in this country (That's the U.S., just to be clear) or anywhere else, (the entire rest of the world, to be clear) who would ban guns if they could??

A minor additional detail, since you're so proud of how low your figure of 1,500 accidental deaths per year by firearms in the USA is - the total number of deaths per year in England and Wales by firearms, accidental and deliberate combined, is under 100.

The only reason I posted was that your initial set of statistics deliberately left out the 30,000+ annual firearms deaths by suicide and non-accidental deaths. Just putting the 1,500 in there was shoddy.

It is noteworthy that all of the the accidental deaths by physician are already damaged before the physician gets to work on them, while all of the accidental deaths by firearms victims are perfectly well before the gun intervenes.

spot wrote: It is noteworthy that all of the the accidental deaths by physician are already damaged before the physician gets to work on them,How do you know this? There has never been a case of misdiagnosis? An incorrect medication given, that led to death? Come on, Spot, think a little.

BabyRider wrote: How do you know this? There has never been a case of misdiagnosis? An incorrect medication given, that led to death? Come on, Spot, think a little.BR, why are these people in the hands of the physicians in order for the physicians to mess the up more? Because they're already damaged before the physicians get to work on them, of course. That's all I said - nothing about whether the physician improves them or kills them. I assume they'd still count as "accidental deaths" even if the physician did misdiagnose or give an incorrect medication?

Either way, they were all damaged before the physician intervened, which is all I said. No sane man goes to see a physician if he's well to begin with. Come on, BabyRider, think a little.

Far Rider wrote: The last one I saw recorded an incident in an Oklahoma bar when a man entered and pulled out a shotgun, pointed it at the bartender and demanded cash. Eight responsible gun owners drew their hand guns and pointed it at the shotgun totin would be bandit... apparently he lowered his shotgun and quietly backed out of the bar, a wise move.Far Rider, I am begging you on my knees, please please find the reference to this. I would rather see the citation for that than anything else on earth.

I bet the stats would be a lot different if America had doctors like HAROLD SHIPMAN who killed between 216 and 260 people.

pina wrote: I bet the stats would be a lot different if America had doctors like HAROLD SHIPMAN who killed between 216 and 260 people.Lordy me yes, Pina. Isn't it amazing that we have a police system capable of catching all of the physicians in our country that behave that way, but the USA seems not to? If you caught all yours, like we catch all ours, the stats would have to include deliberate deaths per physician higher than the zero I put down.

Perhaps if your forces sent a few agents to our police schools, they might find out how?

spot wrote: A minor additional detail, since you're so proud of how low your figure of 1,500 accidental deaths per year by firearms in the USA is - the total number of deaths per year in England and Wales by firearms, accidental and deliberate combined, is under 100.

Wow....how mind-boggling...a country where guns are banned that has almost no gun deaths. How ever do they do it? :yh_battin

Think of all the guns in the US....millions of them, owned by people like me. Hell, I have 6 guns in my house, (for now) and have managed to own them without accidentally, (or otherwise) killing or injuring anyone, including myself. Geez, even including any short-sighted people.

BabyRider wrote: You're probably thinking...."Here she goes again..." but I just can't help myself.

Yes, this is partially tongue-in-cheek, but the stats are real.



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



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.

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, I have withheld statistics on

lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek

medical attention.


HEY you guys didn't you see the tongue in cheek clause ??????

And as for the vote, welcome to Canada, we have gun control, we want to see guns banned, we don't want to carry them for any reason. This thread relates to other threads around FG and the fact that there are people who are opposed to guns. And I do not think BR had to explain it all over again, she was making a funny about something she believes strongly in.

So Minks...you DID catch the "funny" inference and you also understood that people want guns banned? You're a bloody GENIUS!!!! :yh_wink :yh_hugs

minks wrote: HEY you guys didn't you see the tongue in cheek clause ??????Of course we did. We also saw "partially" and "the stats are real", while carefully omitting the 30,000+ additional annual US gun deaths - I consequently took the whole piece as partisan propaganda. All I've done is added a few extra equally accurate stats to balance it. Nowhere have I said I favor restricting gun ownership more tightly in the USA. Should anyone ask me, I'll tell them my honest position on that question.

If anyone else has any other appropriate (or inappropriate) statistics, throw them in.

A google search for "lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic" hits 425 pages. Partisan propaganda or what?

spot wrote: Lordy me yes, Pina. Isn't it amazing that we have a police system capable of catching all of the physicians in our country that behave that way, but the USA seems not to? If you caught all yours, like we catch all ours, the stats would have to include deliberate deaths per physician higher than the zero I put down.



Perhaps if your forces sent a few agents to our police schools, they might find out how?


I agree with you coz it only took the police 23 years to catch him:yh_giggle

pina wrote: I agree with you coz it only took the police 23 years to catch him:yh_giggleThe man just plain ran out of road. What we British find is that criminals may be a sophisticated breed but, like the Canadian Mounties, our Inspector Plodder always gets his man. Crime never pays.

Hey spot, here's a quarter. Go buy yourself a sense of humor....my treat.

spot wrote: The man just plain ran out of road. What we British find is that criminals may be a sophisticated breed but, like the Canadian Mounties, our Inspector Plodder always gets his man. Crime never pays.






Will they still catch the man who stole my garden gate 10 years ago?:D Ha Ha Ha.

Me, ME!! (Val frantically waves hand in air!!) Me, BR, I'm aware there

are people who want to ban guns!!



(Val sits back, patiently waits for gold star to be... attached to forehead!)

:yh_bigsmi



Hey, somebody, look up the word "iatrogenic". Good word.



Okay, Spot, I'll bite if nobody else will: What's your honest position

on restricting gun ownership?



(wishing I lived in that small hamlet... egads, 38 miles from the Far

Rider?!?!?)



:yh_youkid

BabyRider wrote: Hey spot, here's a quarter. Go buy yourself a sense of humor....my treat.Jokes about deaths are deeply, deeply unfunny. It's why I can't stand television.

I downloaded a program today, because it was being talked about and I needed to know more about it. It's called Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Programs like that almost persuade me that civilization is past its best. If I'm missing a sense of humor, and that's all that saves me from sliding down the razorblade of Aqua Teen Hunger Force, then I'm content to give you back your quarter.

Civilization most likely IS past it's best...why do you think I own guns? :yh_eyebro

valerie wrote: Hey, somebody, look up the word "iatrogenic". Good word.Induced unintentionally by a physician through his diagnosis, manner, or treatment; of or pertaining to the induction of (mental or bodily) disorders, symptoms, etc., in this way.Neat. I like that.

valerie wrote: Okay, Spot, I'll bite if nobody else will: What's your honest position

on restricting gun ownership?I'll restrict myself to the USA, if that's alright. No point overcomplicating matters.

Any move to restrict the current range of people permitted to own, carry or use firearms, or the current varieties of firearms or ammunition, or the places where they can be carried or used, would be a major regression of the rights, liberties and safety of the citizens of the United States of America. Beware of any politician attempting to implement any such measure. If it's legal to recommend that households should own a shotgun and a hunting rifle as well as a handgun, then I'd do that too.

valerie wrote: Me, ME!! (Val frantically waves hand in air!!) Me, BR, I'm aware there

are people who want to ban guns!!Val, you bimbo, did you not see the trick of BR's question? She asked for votes by anyone "who is not aware that there are people in existence, in this country... who would ban guns if they could". You can't vote "yes I knew". You can only vote "no I didn't". Since 9 out of 10 people who can vote won't bother to reply on a snap thread poll, she can keep the stats she generates biased in her favor. It was a low trick.

Far Rider wrote: Spot, here's a sight that I found on a quick search. I'm sorry I don't have time to find the one I was talking about.

http://www.wagc.com/GunsSaveLives.htmlThanks Far Rider, but truly the site I need a URL to is the citation for the incident you referred to initially. Similar stories are different animals.

Far Rider wrote: Any one or all of them should make my point.I don't doubt the point, I just need the citation to the initial incident. I've been trying to find it for months.

spot wrote: Val, you bimbo, did you not see the trick of BR's question? She asked for votes by anyone "who is not aware that there are people in existence, in this country... who would ban guns if they could". You can't vote "yes I knew". You can only vote "no I didn't". Since 9 out of 10 people who can vote won't bother to reply on a snap thread poll, she can keep the stats she generates biased in her favor. It was a low trick.did you just call Val a bimbo?

spot wrote: Val, you bimbo, did you not see the trick of BR's question? She asked for votes by anyone "who is not aware that there are people in existence, in this country... who would ban guns if they could". You can't vote "yes I knew". You can only vote "no I didn't". Since 9 out of 10 people who can vote won't bother to reply on a snap thread poll, she can keep the stats she generates biased in her favor. It was a low trick.Um, er, Spot, I was going for the "lighten things up" angle. Teasing, as it

were.



I am in fact, blonde, but I can vote anyway I feel like, neener neener

neener!!



(Val sadly peels gold star from forehead and walks away, head down...)



:-1

lady cop wrote: did you just call Val a bimbo?wince... Oh - that valerie. Mistaken identity? Actually, I think someone else in the house edited my post while I was making a coffee.

spot wrote: wince... Oh - that valerie. Mistaken identity? Actually, I think someone else in the house edited my post while I was making a coffee.oh, so who did you INTEND to call a bimbo? and nobody edited your post. that was extremely offensive.

lady cop wrote: oh, so who did you INTEND to call a bimbo? and nobody edited your post. that was extremely offensive.No, no - not in England. Bimbo is a term of affectionate endearment. I'm surprised nobody's - no, I'm just making things worse, if I say that.

Extremely, you say?

lady cop wrote: oh, so who did you INTEND to call a bimbo? and nobody edited your post. that was extremely offensive.


Pst LC I think blame is being put on the family cat for sneaking in and editing posts whilst some one makes coffee.

(or so we are being led to believe)

it was only mildly offensive, within the context of the topic. i call her a bimbo all the time.

spot, not only are you a nitpicking troll who hijacks threads, but now you are insulting a beloved poster here. i will follow Paul's lead and put you on ignore also. you will never again receive even a civil reply from me because i won't be able to read anything you say. you just lost the privilege of any respect whatsoever.