Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
guns dont kill people, DOCTORS DOOOOOO!
US Gun Statistics
(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 Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 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 0.000188.
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 the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
(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 Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 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 0.000188.
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 the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
For more information:
http://rense.com/general62/gns.htm
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
a forced injection almost killed me.i am lucky to be alive.this is state sponsored TERRORISM !!! please load this info worldwide!
why can't these gun nuts think before they go repeating things they've seen online? this one is just too silly
funny how this was set up as accidents vs. accidents, and it should have been doctors vs. gun dealers or just patients vs. gun owners to be anywhere close to fair
how about deliberate deaths vs. deliberate deaths? you'd see the numbers reversed and exponentially separated. you think there were 30,000 doctor-sponsored euthanasias in the US in 1998? probably no where close
of course, guns don't kill people, gun nuts do
===========================================
just the facts, ma'am:
------------------------------------
In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S.
----------------------------------------------
The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a 1994 government study found.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
funny how this was set up as accidents vs. accidents, and it should have been doctors vs. gun dealers or just patients vs. gun owners to be anywhere close to fair
how about deliberate deaths vs. deliberate deaths? you'd see the numbers reversed and exponentially separated. you think there were 30,000 doctor-sponsored euthanasias in the US in 1998? probably no where close
of course, guns don't kill people, gun nuts do
===========================================
just the facts, ma'am:
------------------------------------
In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S.
----------------------------------------------
The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a 1994 government study found.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
http://www.zpub.com/un/guns.html
Why progressives should stop pushing for more gun control laws
(snip)
-- Progressives should stop treating average Americans as though they were alien creatures. Progressives haven't just lost elections because of their issues but because of their attitudes as well.
(snip)
Why progressives should stop pushing for more gun control laws
(snip)
-- Progressives should stop treating average Americans as though they were alien creatures. Progressives haven't just lost elections because of their issues but because of their attitudes as well.
(snip)
http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000147.html
I’ve actually gotten a fair number of emails asking me this; they presuppose that the only valid position for a liberal is to be disarmed, and the only valid position for a gun owner is to be a conservative. I’m neither. I own guns, and have spent a fair amount of time, energy and money becoming at least moderately competent with them. And let me state bluntly that while the politic thing for shooters to say in public is "I just shoot [trap and skeet] [a few targets] [to hunt birds].", that I do all those things, and in addition have trained hard to become competent in defending myself by, if necessary, shooting people.
I’m also a liberal, who believes that the government has the obligation, not just the right, to work to make our society, nation and world a better place. Which better place ought to be one in which fewer people are physically threatened seriously enough to need to resort to shooting people.
The intersection of those two beliefs – which on their face seem to be incompatible, but which I believe are not – defines a lot of what I believe about politics and the nature of good government.
Let’s talk a little bit about the armed side of it. Why be armed in today’s society?
Well, I’ll suggest four reasons:
1) It’s fun. Shooting is a pleasurable sport, things go “bang!!” loudly; well-hit clay pigeons gratifyingly disintegrate into a cloud of dust.
2) It is moral. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that people who eat meat and have never killed anything are morally suspect. Some creature gave its life for the chicken Andouille sausages in the pasta sauce I made tonight. Pork chops and salmon don’t start out wrapped in plastic on the grocery shelf. I have hunted deer, wild pigs, and birds, and I can say with certainty (and I imagine anyone else who hunts can say) that it fundamentally changed the way I look both at my food and at animals in the world. I respect the death that made my dinner possible in a way I never would have had an animal not died at my own hand.
When I have a gun in my possession, I am suddenly both more aware of my environment, and more careful and responsible for my actions in it. People who I know who carry guns daily talk about how well-behaved they are how polite they suddenly become. Heinlein wrote that “an armed society is a polite society”, and while in truth I cannot make a causal connection, when you look at societies where the codes of manners were complex and strong, from medieval Europe or Japan to Edwardian England, there was a wide distribution of weapons.
I know several people who are either highly skilled martial artists or highly skilled firearms trainers, and in both groups there is an interesting correlation between competence (hence dangerousness) and a kind of calm civility – the opposite of the “armed brute” image that some would attempt to use to portray a dangerous man or woman.
3) It is useful. The sad reality is that we live in an imperfect world, one in which some people prey on others. They may do it because it is a kind of crude redistribution (you have a BMW, he would like one); because they are desperate, or because they are deranged. They may have been damaged in some way by their genetic makeup or their upbringing. Or they may just be evil.
Bluntly, at the moment I am under threat, I don’t care why they do it. My response is not very different from my response to my friends who said that “America had it coming” on 9/11. “Maybe. So what?” People who attack me or mine need to be stopped. If the only way I have to effectively stop them is to kill them, so be it. Once I am out of danger, I am happy to consider what it will take to improve education and job opportunities in the central cities, or to talk thoughtfully about helping the Palestinians figure out how to become a nation and a state.
There are bad people out there, folks. Some of them are tormented by what they do, some don’t care, some may revel in it. Someday, you may be confronted by one. What will you do?
4) It is the politically correct thing to do. I say this with all appropriate irony, but I am also a believer that an armed citizenry does two important things to the American polity:
a) it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between the individual and the State. I am pretty dubious about the apocalyptic fantasies of those who believe that a cadre of deer hunters could stand up against the armed forces of the U.S. or some invading army. In reality, I think that the arms possessed by the citizens of the U.S. are primarily symbolic in value, much like the daggers carried by Sikhs. But, having lived in Europe, I think that the symbolic value carries a political and social weight;
b) it makes it clear that we as citizens have some measure of responsibility for ourselves. The tension I talk about above is one between self-reliance and mutual reliance. In England today, a subject (I am careful not to say citizen) faces increasing limitations on the right of self-defense; the State is moving toward an absolute monopoly on the use of force. It should not be hard to imagine that the character of both the relationship of the individual to the state and of the individual’s relationship to society is vastly different under those circumstances. By being armed, I am taking responsibility – literally, the responsibility of life and death – on myself. When the state cannot entrust individuals to act with some significant responsibility, except as an adjunct of the state, we will have truly lost something that is a key part of what makes our politics work (note that I think that the same thing is happening in the EU today, with the same effect).
There’s more, which can be put simply that people will sometimes do stupid or evil things with their freedom. But without their freedom, they will seldom do great things. So by protecting society against one, you also deprive it of the other.
Sometime soon: how to be a liberal in a society that values freedom, and why freedom is critical to building an effective and durable liberal society.
(snip)
I’ve actually gotten a fair number of emails asking me this; they presuppose that the only valid position for a liberal is to be disarmed, and the only valid position for a gun owner is to be a conservative. I’m neither. I own guns, and have spent a fair amount of time, energy and money becoming at least moderately competent with them. And let me state bluntly that while the politic thing for shooters to say in public is "I just shoot [trap and skeet] [a few targets] [to hunt birds].", that I do all those things, and in addition have trained hard to become competent in defending myself by, if necessary, shooting people.
I’m also a liberal, who believes that the government has the obligation, not just the right, to work to make our society, nation and world a better place. Which better place ought to be one in which fewer people are physically threatened seriously enough to need to resort to shooting people.
The intersection of those two beliefs – which on their face seem to be incompatible, but which I believe are not – defines a lot of what I believe about politics and the nature of good government.
Let’s talk a little bit about the armed side of it. Why be armed in today’s society?
Well, I’ll suggest four reasons:
1) It’s fun. Shooting is a pleasurable sport, things go “bang!!” loudly; well-hit clay pigeons gratifyingly disintegrate into a cloud of dust.
2) It is moral. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that people who eat meat and have never killed anything are morally suspect. Some creature gave its life for the chicken Andouille sausages in the pasta sauce I made tonight. Pork chops and salmon don’t start out wrapped in plastic on the grocery shelf. I have hunted deer, wild pigs, and birds, and I can say with certainty (and I imagine anyone else who hunts can say) that it fundamentally changed the way I look both at my food and at animals in the world. I respect the death that made my dinner possible in a way I never would have had an animal not died at my own hand.
When I have a gun in my possession, I am suddenly both more aware of my environment, and more careful and responsible for my actions in it. People who I know who carry guns daily talk about how well-behaved they are how polite they suddenly become. Heinlein wrote that “an armed society is a polite society”, and while in truth I cannot make a causal connection, when you look at societies where the codes of manners were complex and strong, from medieval Europe or Japan to Edwardian England, there was a wide distribution of weapons.
I know several people who are either highly skilled martial artists or highly skilled firearms trainers, and in both groups there is an interesting correlation between competence (hence dangerousness) and a kind of calm civility – the opposite of the “armed brute” image that some would attempt to use to portray a dangerous man or woman.
3) It is useful. The sad reality is that we live in an imperfect world, one in which some people prey on others. They may do it because it is a kind of crude redistribution (you have a BMW, he would like one); because they are desperate, or because they are deranged. They may have been damaged in some way by their genetic makeup or their upbringing. Or they may just be evil.
Bluntly, at the moment I am under threat, I don’t care why they do it. My response is not very different from my response to my friends who said that “America had it coming” on 9/11. “Maybe. So what?” People who attack me or mine need to be stopped. If the only way I have to effectively stop them is to kill them, so be it. Once I am out of danger, I am happy to consider what it will take to improve education and job opportunities in the central cities, or to talk thoughtfully about helping the Palestinians figure out how to become a nation and a state.
There are bad people out there, folks. Some of them are tormented by what they do, some don’t care, some may revel in it. Someday, you may be confronted by one. What will you do?
4) It is the politically correct thing to do. I say this with all appropriate irony, but I am also a believer that an armed citizenry does two important things to the American polity:
a) it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between the individual and the State. I am pretty dubious about the apocalyptic fantasies of those who believe that a cadre of deer hunters could stand up against the armed forces of the U.S. or some invading army. In reality, I think that the arms possessed by the citizens of the U.S. are primarily symbolic in value, much like the daggers carried by Sikhs. But, having lived in Europe, I think that the symbolic value carries a political and social weight;
b) it makes it clear that we as citizens have some measure of responsibility for ourselves. The tension I talk about above is one between self-reliance and mutual reliance. In England today, a subject (I am careful not to say citizen) faces increasing limitations on the right of self-defense; the State is moving toward an absolute monopoly on the use of force. It should not be hard to imagine that the character of both the relationship of the individual to the state and of the individual’s relationship to society is vastly different under those circumstances. By being armed, I am taking responsibility – literally, the responsibility of life and death – on myself. When the state cannot entrust individuals to act with some significant responsibility, except as an adjunct of the state, we will have truly lost something that is a key part of what makes our politics work (note that I think that the same thing is happening in the EU today, with the same effect).
There’s more, which can be put simply that people will sometimes do stupid or evil things with their freedom. But without their freedom, they will seldom do great things. So by protecting society against one, you also deprive it of the other.
Sometime soon: how to be a liberal in a society that values freedom, and why freedom is critical to building an effective and durable liberal society.
(snip)
It may be important for anarchists and people of color to practice self defense with a blow gun tranquilizer dart gun in case of a rogue police emergency. Just a light dosage to give the agitated police officer a little snooze time, enough 4 u to get away..
Better to put a cop 2 sleep than risk another young child getting shot by trigger happy police..
Better to put a cop 2 sleep than risk another young child getting shot by trigger happy police..
the "why progressives" thing could have just as easily been title "why people should stop pushing for gun control laws". where was a single arguement made that actually dealt with so-called progressive values?
same for "I'm a gun-wielding liberal" -- I don't see a single so-called liberal value expressed. 1) wasteful use of resources, bullets and clay, because it's "fun" to hear a loud sound?? that's liberal! 2) because it's moral?? yeah, that sounds like something a liberal would say right off the bat. then you get the strong daddy arguement about peaceful societies that are well-armed. that's why Bush was elected, as a strong daddy, that all repugs crave 3) and 4) basically drawn out versions of the common "conservative" call for personal responsibility over collective responsibilities, and interest in social issues only after safety achieved, which author admits will never be, and hence the supposed need for guns. nice circular dodge of a real liberal value
both of these pieces are frauds and do not come from nor reflect real so-called liberal values. it'd be more honest to just say "these are the reasons I love guns" rather than to pretend either arguement had anything to do with liberalism or progressivism.
good to hear the refutation of the silly idea that citizens with their muskets will ever be effective against the armed might of the US military. so many gun nuts think with rifles and handguns they will hold off tanks, jets, and bunker busters and therefore keep themselves free from government oppression. the US government won the arms race with citizens a long time ago
same for "I'm a gun-wielding liberal" -- I don't see a single so-called liberal value expressed. 1) wasteful use of resources, bullets and clay, because it's "fun" to hear a loud sound?? that's liberal! 2) because it's moral?? yeah, that sounds like something a liberal would say right off the bat. then you get the strong daddy arguement about peaceful societies that are well-armed. that's why Bush was elected, as a strong daddy, that all repugs crave 3) and 4) basically drawn out versions of the common "conservative" call for personal responsibility over collective responsibilities, and interest in social issues only after safety achieved, which author admits will never be, and hence the supposed need for guns. nice circular dodge of a real liberal value
both of these pieces are frauds and do not come from nor reflect real so-called liberal values. it'd be more honest to just say "these are the reasons I love guns" rather than to pretend either arguement had anything to do with liberalism or progressivism.
good to hear the refutation of the silly idea that citizens with their muskets will ever be effective against the armed might of the US military. so many gun nuts think with rifles and handguns they will hold off tanks, jets, and bunker busters and therefore keep themselves free from government oppression. the US government won the arms race with citizens a long time ago
"Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment. If the guns are taken out of the hands of the people and only the pigs have guns, then it's off to the concentration camps, the gas chambers, or whatever the fascists in America come up with. One of the democratic rights of the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, gives the people the right to bear arms. However, there is a greater right; the right of human dignity that gives all men the right to defend themselves."
"Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself"
"We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us."
"We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us."
"he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
and will leave 800 comments before anyone else has a chance to speak. fine.
but Huey's quote is dated. I live in West Oakland and I'll tell you what: there's plenty of guns here, and in East Oakland, and in HP and so forth, and still the cops kill plenty of people. people themselves kill plenty of people. Huey himself was killed by a gun
so was Malcom. you could add Freddie Hampton to the mix as well (any good quotes there?)
to use these men as posterboys for the effectiveness of armed struggle in your defense of white gun-nutism today is a bit disengenuous, to say the least
Malcom was right about defending yourself, but there's more ways to do it than with a gun. by the time you have to use a gun, it's probably already too late
and, quoting Jesus on weapons??? okeydokey guy
but Huey's quote is dated. I live in West Oakland and I'll tell you what: there's plenty of guns here, and in East Oakland, and in HP and so forth, and still the cops kill plenty of people. people themselves kill plenty of people. Huey himself was killed by a gun
so was Malcom. you could add Freddie Hampton to the mix as well (any good quotes there?)
to use these men as posterboys for the effectiveness of armed struggle in your defense of white gun-nutism today is a bit disengenuous, to say the least
Malcom was right about defending yourself, but there's more ways to do it than with a gun. by the time you have to use a gun, it's probably already too late
and, quoting Jesus on weapons??? okeydokey guy
You clearly don't understand what guns are all about. A gun’s purpose is not to kill. It is to prevent its owner from being killed, or worse. If you don’t want the option of not being killed or worse, that’s your business. Our options are *not* your business. Butt out.
Gun laws only disarm law abiders. They do not disarm criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not obey they law.
Do you want to live in a place where the only people with guns are the criminals, the government, and those in the ever growing grey area where crime and government overlap? We’d don’t. We’re not going to, either. Get used to it.
Gun laws only disarm law abiders. They do not disarm criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not obey they law.
Do you want to live in a place where the only people with guns are the criminals, the government, and those in the ever growing grey area where crime and government overlap? We’d don’t. We’re not going to, either. Get used to it.
you clearly don't even understand what you are debating with your straw man arguements here
when did I state any opinion about gun laws? when did I say anything about guns only being about killing?
I did say something about your ridiculous use of assasinated Black Panthers and Black Muslims as posterboys for gun advocacy
you've got your gun-nut arguements on autodrive. is it a real person on the other end of this thread? I can't tell
maybe I'll just leave this thread now and let you rant unchecked again about the glory of guns all on your own, with more silly arguements quoting people killed by guns, or liars who falesly claim to be liberal or progressive without showing any value credentials, or statistics that are dishonestly stacked
the floor is yours gun nut. rant on
when did I state any opinion about gun laws? when did I say anything about guns only being about killing?
I did say something about your ridiculous use of assasinated Black Panthers and Black Muslims as posterboys for gun advocacy
you've got your gun-nut arguements on autodrive. is it a real person on the other end of this thread? I can't tell
maybe I'll just leave this thread now and let you rant unchecked again about the glory of guns all on your own, with more silly arguements quoting people killed by guns, or liars who falesly claim to be liberal or progressive without showing any value credentials, or statistics that are dishonestly stacked
the floor is yours gun nut. rant on
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$40.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network