 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/26/2009 8:12 PM, somebody wrote:
> I mean after all, a mistake with a gun results in a miss or a
> non-fatal wound by definition, while the only doctor who kills intentionally
> that I can name is Dr Kevorkian.
?
A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly
killed.
A mistake by a doctor results in someone getting hurt and possibly killed.
Compare the deaths from the two groups, and deaths from doctors are
higher than deaths by gun owners. The only mitigating factor I could
possibly think of is that people see doctors more often than gun owners,
so there are more opportunities to make mistakes overall. I don't know
the ratio of accidental deaths to visits, so that could make a difference.
The latest figures I saw (from a website trying to debunk the "myth," in
fact!) were something like 16,000 killed in the US from guns, and 96,000
by doctors. Again, these are cases directly resulting in death due to
medical error.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Compare the deaths from the two groups, and deaths from doctors are higher
> than deaths by gun owners.
Whilst true, a bit of a silly statistic only looking at half the story. A
better measure would be "lives saved as a direct result of actions minus
lives lost as a direct result of actions". I suspect doctors would be
firmly ahead by a long way then...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> Whilst true, a bit of a silly statistic only looking at half the story. A
> better measure would be "lives saved as a direct result of actions minus
> lives lost as a direct result of actions". I suspect doctors would be
> firmly ahead by a long way then...
OTOH it's basically impossible to measure how many lives are saved thanks
to guns.
For example, how many lives were saved thanks to the Normandy landings
and subsequent fall of Germany? Completely impossible to say.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I suspect doctors
> would be firmly ahead by a long way then...
If you're counting professional doctors, wouldn't it be wise to count
professional soldiers and policemen too?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly
> killed.
I believe *his* point is: Guns are made for shooting and killing. If someone
gets shot or gets killed, is it a mistake? The gun did what it was made
for.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49f5c8c1@news.povray.org...
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Whilst true, a bit of a silly statistic only looking at half the story.
A
> > better measure would be "lives saved as a direct result of actions minus
> > lives lost as a direct result of actions". I suspect doctors would be
> > firmly ahead by a long way then...
> OTOH it's basically impossible to measure how many lives are saved
thanks
> to guns.
>
> For example, how many lives were saved thanks to the Normandy landings
> and subsequent fall of Germany? Completely impossible to say.
Germans were not exactly fighting with forks and spoons.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49f5e1e4@news.povray.org...
> Chambers wrote:
> > A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly
> > killed.
> I believe *his* point is: Guns are made for shooting and killing. If
someone
> gets shot or gets killed, is it a mistake? The gun did what it was made
> for.
Indeed. None of the three that are killed by that Georgia professor will
not, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column, for
instance. It's a disingenuous and meaningless comparison. Atom bombs, by the
same criteria, are the best thing that happened to humanity. Not a single
human has died from an accidental detonation. Thus, every household should
have one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49f5bbf4@news.povray.org...
> On 4/26/2009 8:12 PM, somebody wrote:
> The latest figures I saw (from a website trying to debunk the "myth," in
Well, it must be true then.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:49f5ee59$1@news.povray.org...
> Indeed. None of the three that are killed by that Georgia professor will
> not, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column, for
, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column, for
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:49f5e1e4@news.povray.org...
> > Chambers wrote:
> > > A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly
> > > killed.
> > I believe *his* point is: Guns are made for shooting and killing. If
> someone
> > gets shot or gets killed, is it a mistake? The gun did what it was made
> > for.
> Indeed. None of the three that are killed by that Georgia professor will
> not, by definition, enter into the "accidental deaths by gun" column, for
> instance. It's a disingenuous and meaningless comparison. Atom bombs, by the
> same criteria, are the best thing that happened to humanity. Not a single
> human has died from an accidental detonation. Thus, every household should
> have one.
A gun is simply a more advanced version of a crossbow, which is an
advanced version of a bow. Nobody seems to oppose people who own and use
bows as a sport.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
