posted on August 7, 2000 10:48:01 AM
A friend whom works at a computer software mfg that compiles multi-kind data, sent this piece of interesting information.
NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS IN THE U.S......................700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year.. . ....120,000
Average accidental deaths per physician...............................0.171
NUMBER OF GUN OWNERS IN THE U.S....................80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner........................ ..0.0000188
It appears that doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
posted on August 7, 2000 11:19:11 AM
Speaking of accidental shootings, the Illinois police officer that accidentally killed his future stepson has (so far) been exonerated of any criminal intent or negligence.
The ruling was handed down at a coroner's inquest. Although a ruling emanating from a coroner's inquest does not preclude criminal charges, the ruling is often indicative of what the criminal investigation has tentatively determined and whether an indictment is imminent; but no guarantee.
I know the details surrounding the incident but I will withhold the information until the matter has passed the gauntlet of criminal and civil considerations.
The officer is having a rough time but the deceased's mother and the officer is supporting each other, and friends and church are supporting both.
For us who know firearms, the word "improbable" comes to mind when the details (as given) are known. However, the words "not impossible" are also appropriate.
Also, according to various sources, the officer was not a "hot dog" or "John Wayner" as insinuated in another thread.
posted on August 7, 2000 12:28:26 PM
Just curious - what are the statistics for the number of non-accidental deaths caused by physicians versus the number of non-accidental deaths caused by gun-owners?
posted on August 7, 2000 12:53:32 PM
Do you really imagine, Irene, that a number of non-accidental deaths caused by doctors could be compiled? That would include mercy killings, deliberate overdosages to end pain, all criminal behaviors, and Dr. Kevorkian.
My father was killed non-accidentally by a doctor, but do you think that the doctor would say so, or that a police report was prepared?
By the title of this thread and the initial content (comments), I thought it would be obvious the point being made was in reference to the alleged, but fraudulent, stats regarding accidental shootings.
However, if you want to talk about intentional shootings too, I am game.
First, your use of the term "gun-owners" is totally inappropriate in respect to your obvious point. The term implies legal ownership/possession. I do not have the recent stats in front of me, but historically, many, if not most, intentional shootings are done with stolen and/or illegally possessed firearms.
Second, not all intentional shootings are/were a criminal act.
Third, is it your point that no person should own/possess firearms?
posted on August 7, 2000 01:37:29 PM
The "per year" statistics for doctors and for guns can't be reasonably related to each other without a "per use" statistic along with them.
A surgeon performs, what, 4 or 5 surgeries per day? Most gun owners use their guns more like once every few months, if that. Adjusted for frequency of use, the rate of gun deaths would be much higher the rate of medical deaths.
The two statistics are completely unrelated and don't justify comparison.
posted on August 7, 2000 03:18:52 PM
Actually, Sarge, I thought the point I was trying to make WAS obvious i.e. statistics can be twisted to make any point you wish to make. I know, I've worked with statistics for years.
With respect to gun ownership, believe it or not I don't know of anyone in my circle of acquaintanceship who owns a handgun (or even a rifle). It's not that common in Canada, at least amongst the urban population where I've lived all my life. For one thing, very few Canadian have had any military experience where they could have developed an interest in guns (I think the last time there was conscription was during WW2 or perhaps the Korean war).
posted on August 7, 2000 03:35:58 PM
The fewer guns there are in the general population, the fewer the guns that can stolen and/or illegally possessed.
posted on August 7, 2000 03:42:51 PM
A guy I used to go shooting with was a statistician. He'd fire his first shot two yards right of the target and then his second two yards left. His third and fourth shots would be a yard high and a yard low. He'd then pull out his calculator, do some quick equations, and shout "Bullseye!".
I learned that statistics and guns just don't mix.
...got my left and right mixed up.
[ edited by xardon on Aug 7, 2000 03:44 PM ]
Your initial premise that the number of "surgeons" performing more surgeries per X period than number gun owners using their firearms per X period has (some) merit regarding possible ratio of use vs. cause and affect, but falls down rapidly.
The statistics are based on physicians, not (just) surgeons.
The statistics I gave are an excerpt of an extended research, (all) to be used in research data to be provided to agencies having interest and institutions of higher education, worldwide. I doubt the company in question, which is renown, would provide statistical data that does not meet a reasonable criterion of accuracy and probability.
Your counter-argument regarding the average number of surgeries each surgeon performs each day, and the average number of times per month a gun owner uses his or firearm, is pure speculation.
Being your (guess) is not based on corroborated data, it cannot be considered having any practical value. Your rebuttal can have no worth beyond a personal opinion.
However, if the statistics are reasonably accurate and are to be used to identify what actions and/or things needlessly cause the greater and greatest mortality rate, with reduction of needless mortality being the priority goal, then accidental shootings, also an important issue, should not be the foremost concern.
What should be the principal concern? Reduction of needless deaths, or reduction of needless deaths only if caused by a firearm?
stockticker
How in the world did you arrive at such an absurd conclusion that the interest and use of firearms specifically generates from military/combat experience? That is undeniably false. In fact, it has been my experience that (many) vets who formerly had an interest in firearm related sports lost interest owing to their military experience.
As for your opinion regarding less legally owned firearms would bring about less criminals and less criminal acts, . If there were more law-abiding firearm owners, trained in the use of the firearm under defensive circumstances, and specially educated in laws governing self-defense, there would be fewer criminals to steal or illegally possess firearms.
posted on August 7, 2000 10:53:50 PM
Nevermind as a side stockticker that in a recent case more than 100,000 surplused military weapons were found to have been illegally imported into the United States through......Canada where import restrictions are quite lax if the product eventual destination is not to be Canada.
posted on August 7, 2000 11:21:30 PM
So, why are Americans so fascinated with guns?
Sarge: Are you suggesting that becoming a firearms owner will reduce the number of criminals? The only way I could see that happening is if I started eliminating criminals by shooting them! Sheesh, what a solution.
BTW Sarge, I notice that you have avoided quoting any statistics comparing crime involving guns in Canada vs. the U.S., adjusted for population of course.
posted on August 8, 2000 12:53:51 AM"So, why are Americans so fascinated with guns?
I cannot speak for others, but it is a phallus thing with me.
"Sarge: Are you suggesting that becoming a firearms owner will reduce the number of criminals? The only way I could see that happening is if I started eliminating criminals by shooting them! Sheesh, what a solution."
A reductive and permanent solution.
"BTW Sarge, I notice that you have avoided quoting any statistics comparing crime involving guns in Canada vs. the U.S., adjusted for population of course."
I am only interested in my US Constitutional rights. However, considering that Canada had gun control laws pre 1892 and required a permit to own and carry starting in 1892, the era when firearms were a tool and defensive situations were common, with progressively restrictive laws being legislated to date, but British subjects were exempted from (certain) laws/restrictions, I would suspect Canada's firearm laws may have something to do with British and French colonialism.
(We) kicked their butt and sent them packin'. Many went home, many went to or back to Canada. They (British/French) did not want a repeat in (their) Canada, so they had/have to prevent that which was the cause of their defeat here; well armed citizens.
posted on August 8, 2000 03:22:43 AM
Well, I never could tell a joke. But I do keep trying!
On a more serious note:
The other day, as I was arriving at work, I ran into a friend enroute to turn in a confiscated weapon at ballistics. I didn't get to examine the weapon closely so I don't know the manufacturer. It was a 9mm auto pistol, somewhat similar to a Glock. What struck me most about it was its unusual color. The slide was a bright pink! It looked like a toy. I've been troubled by the implications ever since. While I've never been a fan of knee jerk gun legislation, I wouldn't object to seeing that one restricted. Now that I've seen it, I can never again be sure of what I'm facing on the street. Seems damned irresponsible to me. I know my friend didn't recognize it as a real gun. It was discovered during a car stop, in plain view on the passenger side floor. The owner was a scofflaw and arrested. It was only during the post-arrest vehicle inventory that the weapon was closely examined and found to be an actual gun.
I'm not a gun collector. For the most part, I tend to view my personal and issued weapons as the tools of my trade. I have a Sig Sauer 226, a Benelli auto tactical shotgun, and a model 60 S&W Chief, in addition to my issued S&W .357. I also have a Hawken flintlock for sporting use. I suppose that seems like quite an arsenal to an anti-gun person.
I've given a lot of thought to my reasons for owning guns, especially with a child in the house. The only thing that makes sense to me is that I'm probably too aware of how many other people have guns.... and I do recognise the circular nature of that argument. Nevertheless, having been shot at many times (without effect, fortunately!), I'd feel very vulnerable without them. It distresses me that such feelings are so valid here in the US. I can't imagine any legislation that would effectively change things. I don't necessarily like the way things are but I'm able to cope with the situation as it is.
I've been in many other countries during my life and have concluded that I'm lucky to be an American, despite our peculiarities. I'm certain that Canadians have an equal sense of national pride. Our differences are hardly cause for serious argument.
posted on August 8, 2000 06:02:22 AM
Every man in our family has at least one gun, including my sons. One was a trapshooter during his teen years. I would never want any of them to work cattle without them, because of rattlesnakes. We have several ziploc bags full of rattles from snakes they've had to kill on my father in law's ranch. (I myself have used one of them to shoot wild dogs who were coming up in the yard and chasing the kids.) You just don't live out here without leaning to use one.
When they are not out there, the guns are in the closet. How many of the guns in America are exactly like this-kept for a certain purpose and not touched between trips to the ranch, etc. If you deduct those guns, the trap guns, the collectibles kept in cases,the guns of law enforcement officers, I think you will find that a very small percentage of the guns in America are actually used in crimes.
I'm not a gun freak, a gun is just a tool to us, but one that we cannot do without. For that reason, I would resist any law forbidding guns. The second reason is that our right to own guns is another freedom that bleeding heart liberals are trying to take away from us. We cannot allow our basic rights as Americans to erode, or else one day we will wake up and discover we have no freedom left!
posted on August 8, 2000 06:04:14 AM
Except that Canadians are subjects to the Queen.
Stockticker,
Thirty one of our US states have adopted the concealed carrying of firearms by the citizenry as an anticrime measure, and in each of those states there have been (most frequently) dramatic reductions in the rate of violent crime of all types.
It is difficult to find law enforcement officials who do not endorse the concealed carry laws in those and other states.
That set of facts sticks in the craw of most antigun proponents, who for the most part are either shortsighted or are frenzied politicians seeking desperately that golden and holy grail of election or reelection. The simple fact is that to rid any nation entirely of illegally owned firearms would broach into impossibility unless there were a concerted worldwide ban of all firearms, which, of course is ridiculous even to contemplate. No nation can be independently free of guns by it's sole enactments or even by the will of it's people.
As I implied above, should firearms be made impossible to aquire from within the US by any criminal element, those elements need only turn to the more friendly source to be found in Canada. Funny isn't it, that illegal arms are available in Canada where firearms are generally illegal, when they are less available here in a country which has as part of it's original doctrine the phrase that 'the congress shall enact no law which restricts the right of the people to keep and bear arms'?
A "gladius", I think, would have been a more accurate historical equivalent. The sarge may have a few artillery pieces lying around the bunker, though.
posted on August 8, 2000 06:53:32 AM
In 1996 or 1997, a liberal professor, but an honest person, setout to do research on firearms and related crimes in America, intending to compile information that would further support gun control.
He claimed to be astonished when he determined that 98% of the firearms legally owned by Americans are never used in a commission of a crime and that historical information supported, that approximately the same percentage of legally owned firearms will never be used in a commission of a crime.
He also determined that the majority of crimes committed with firearms repeatedly occur in the same geographical areas of the nation, and that the majority of the nation is free of gun related crimes considered being of epidemic proportions.
posted on August 8, 2000 11:23:31 AM
Well, my only comment is that I am glad that I don't need to own a gun to feel safe (even from rattlesnakes - I don't think we have them here, Bearmom, at least not in the city).
posted on August 8, 2000 02:44:49 PM
sgtmike said:
Your initial premise that the number of "surgeons" performing more surgeries per X period than number gun owners using their firearms per X period has (some) merit regarding possible ratio of use vs. cause and affect, but falls down rapidly.
The statistics are based on physicians, not (just) surgeons.
In that case my point is even stronger since physicians see many more patients per day than surgeons do.
I don't care to debate the subject at any length, though, and I'm all for the right to bear arms. I was just pointing out that the statistics were based on very different criteria, that's all.
In all of my years of involvement in shooting sports I've never seen a person arrive at a range, fire one shot, and leave.
If the statistics reflected patients seen as compared to shots fired, I'm sure that the rate of accidental death by gun owners would be far lower than that given by Mike, and that is what would be necessary in order that your premise might have substance.
Doctors/gun owners is one comparison.
Patients seen/shots fired by gun owners is another.
