Doctors worried by Supreme Court gun ruling

Status
Not open for further replies.
JustFacts.com cites 49% of all households have firearms.
Click to expand...
JustFacts.com needs to recheck it's sources. The latest gallup polls and best estimates by the BATF have the percentage of households that own firearms as low as 35% in 1995. The NRA even estimated that these numbers are even lower today.

That still does not address how many people are exposed to firearms. Just because grampa has a shotgun in the closet does not mean much when the other five members of the family have never even seen it.

I remember reading an article in a Pink Pistols publication that stated the idea that you are "twice as likely to be homosexual than fire a gun" which cited the facts that many polls were showing that as few as 5% of all people reported actively using firearms. Which is not hard to believe at all.

Then take into account a full 3rd of the population receives medical care each year and those numbers start to really show how weak and arbitrary they are.

Your logic would indicate that running into a bumble bee is more physically dangerous to the average person than an encounter with a grizzly bear since bees kill more people each year.
 
PlayboyPenguin posted: JustFacts.com needs to recheck it's sources. The latest gallup polls and best estimates by the BATF have the percentage of households that own firearms as low as 35% in 1995. The NRA even estimated that these numbers are even lower today.

That still does not address how many people are exposed to firearms. Just because grampa has a shotgun in the closet does not mean much when the other five members of the family have never even seen it.

I remember reading an article in a Pink Pistols publication that stated the idea that you are "twice as likely to be homosexual than fire a gun" which cited the facts that many polls were showing that as few as 5% of all people reported actively using firearms. Which is not hard to believe at all.

Then take into account a full 3rd of the population receives medical care each year and those numbers start to really show how weak and arbitrary they are.

Your logic would indicate that running into a bumble bee is more physically dangerous to the average person than an encounter with a grizzly bear since bees kill more people each year.
Click to expand...

Citations and links PBP, citations and links. You're still blowing smoke but you are strengthening my argument.

One third of the population getting medical care? Who says? And one third in a year is considerably fewer than those daily exposed to firearms in whatever percent of households have guns. And it doesn't change the facts: Adverse effects of medicine kills more among that population that seeks medical help than accidental firearms deaths in the whole population (some of whom seek medical care). See what I mean? You made my point and defeated your own argument of an earlier post even though you don't seem to have a clue about what you're talking about or how to use reason supported by facts or even how to cite facts as one does in a real discussion.

Bears & bees? Come on, totally irrelevant, same with the homosexual vs gun stuff. The real nonsense is in your own method of argument. You're being contentious again without being informed and arguing from ignorance using unrelated assertions, all unsupported.

Keep the post count growing. :rolleyes:
 
I am in the medical profession and agree way too many adverse outcomes in medicine. Many of these are unpreventable, but many could be prevented. The medical community is not perfect by any means, and does a poor job policing itself. About the only way for a bad doctor to be banned from practice is to be sued so many times that he can't buy malpractice insurance. That is why it is important to be careful when people start talking about tort reform.
 
Citations and links PBP, citations and links. You're still blowing smoke but you are strengthening my argument.
Click to expand...
No smoke, just facts. Something your argument is very weak on. I would be curious as to how that information strengthens you argument.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics lists results of 14 Gallup surveys from 1959 through 1997. The results were as follows, including the '95 entry from another source. The sampling error of these surveys is generally just 1 or 2 percent (not percent of the percentages).


YEAR....59..65..68..72..75..80..83..85..89..90..91..MAR93..OCT93..95..96
%YES...49..48..50..43..44..45..40..44..47..47..46.....48 .......51.....35..38
Click to expand...


One third of the population getting medical care? Who say
Click to expand...
Look up the statistics. Nearly 40 million people visited ER's alone and another 60-70 million sought medical aid via other means (office visits, clinics, etc). That is just over a 3rd of the population.
 
Look up the statistics. Nearly 40 million people visited ER's alone and another 60-70 million sought medical aid via other means (office visits, clinics, etc). That is just over a 3rd of the population.
Click to expand...

Still smoke, PBP. Your claim, you look up a source to back it up and post a link so we can see the same data. Otherwise, I'll politely decline to merely take your word for it.

Your household survey stats are over ten years old and still irrelevant to the discussion. Just for practice, cite your source and provide a link. While you're looking it up maybe you can come up with a way of making the exposure numbers from one third of the US population once a year to medicine, etc, a bigger number than the number of exposures of people to guns every day regardless of the households with guns data you claim.

You're bashing the thread. It seems to be only you, unregistered, and I, now. Pertinent facts and points have been made long since, mainly: "Doctor, heal thyself;" adverse effects of medicine kill more people than firearms accidents; and guns are used way more to prevent crimes than to commit them. Additionally, efforts are being made to reduce deaths due to adverse effects of medicine and firearms, too.

The only reason I haven't followed more sensible folks and abandoned the thread is that you're demonstrating your incompetence attempting to discount demonstrable facts by citing irrelevancies or making unsupported statements and I'm annoyed by your mendacity.
 
Still smoke, PBP. Your claim, you look a source to back it up and post a link so we can see the same data. Otherwise, I'll politely decline to merely take your word for it.
Click to expand...
No need to take my word. You could easily look it up if you weren't being willfully ignorant.

BTW, those numbers are from the same report you are using to back up the malpractice rates claim. I guess you never bothered to read the report you are quoting.
Your household survey stats are ten years old.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the stats for those years have changed? That is not how statistics work.

...or are you suggesting numbers have risen drastically since then? If so please provide your information.
Cite your source.
Click to expand...
The source is cited in the quote.
While you're looking it up maybe you can come up with a way of making one third of the US population once a year a bigger number than people in households with guns exposed every day regardless of the households with guns data you claim.
Click to expand...
Wow, I did not know you had information that provided a number of people that handled firearms every day. I cannot seem to find that even though I have tried. Please provide a link or a reference point to search from.
 
I have known plenty of doctors my whole life who spend time at the range with me. Perhaps those who push this anti firearm garbage should check out the other end of it.
 
Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 2:42:19 PM by LiteKeeper

Think about this:
A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000. C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(US Dept. of Health &Human Services)

Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500.
C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner 0.0000188.

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

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 out of hand.

As a public health measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.
Click to expand...
!!!!

Doctors Deadlier Than Guns
by: Kim Weissman
December 5, 1999
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/doctors_deadlier_than_guns.htm

"Two large studies, one conducted in Colorado and Utah and the other in New York, found that adverse events occurred in 2.9 and 3.7 percent of hospitalizations, respectively. … In both of these studies, over half of these adverse events resulted from medical errors and could have been prevented. When extrapolated to the over 33.6 million admissions to U.S. hospitals in 1997, the results of the study in Colorado and Utah imply that at least 44,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. The results of the New York Study suggest the number may be as high as 98,000."

I guess I was way luckier then I thought, surviving the blood clots, and 5 days in ICU>....
According to the National Safety Council, for the year 1998, there were a total of 1500 people of all ages killed by firearms accidents. And according to the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control, for the year 1995 there were a total of 35,957 deaths by firearms from all causes -- accidents, suicides, and intentional killings. This means, even using the most conservative estimates from the Institute for Medicine study, that more people die from medical mistakes than from all types of gun violence. And since the Institute for Medicine study only examined accidental medical deaths, comparing accidental firearms deaths shows that doctors are at least 29 times deadlier than guns, and (if the figure from the New York study is accurate) doctors may be 65 times more dangerous than guns.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:

The National Academies: http://www.nationalacademies.org/

Book ("To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System"): http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068371/html/

National Safety Council: http://www.nsc.org/

Centers for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/

Physicians for Social Responsibility: http://www.psr.org/
PSR Violence Prevention Program: http://www.psr.org/violence.html
PSR "Information" site about the Second Amendment: http://www.psr.org/amend.htm
Click to expand...
 
http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx

Have a look at this page, for odds of death causes:

Breaks it down, with 2004 data:

All external causes of mortality 167K

Well, fireworks are very safe:
Fireworks discharge, W39
2 deaths 146,828,421 per Year Per life 1,884,832

Drugs take nearly 20k a year.

Suicide 32, 439

Firearms 16,750


Assault by firearm 11,624 25,263 324

Firearm discharge 235 1,249,604 16,041

Complications of medical and surgical care, ...
2,883 101,858 1,308

So, my odds are about 16 times less of dying in my life, from firearm discharge then from medical and surgical care.

Now, I have to go back and address the issue of benefits for doctors/hospitals with non-insured, E.R. admitted patients.

Simply put, the hospital charges so much, usually 10-20X the actual cost they would charge for the same thing to an insured person. The uninsured can't pay. The hospital then writes the super inflated figure off it's profit in taxes, at the end of the year, hugely decreasing the amount of tax they pay. So, in short, the hospital IS getting paid by the Federal Government to treat uninsured gun shot victims.
 
I feel bad for ya, PBP. You just don't get it.

The will to remain ignorant is clearly yours. I have made no claim about how many seek medical help. It's not even relevant. You made those claims without citing verifiable references. It's, therefore, your responsibility to show how many people seek medical help in order to support your claim. you have yet to do it. Your data (I'm assuming you didn't just make it up) is most definitely not from the same source as where I got the Adverse Affects data, which is not malpractice data. Malpractice is not germane and I didn't mention it. I posted a link to my source, the Centers for Disease Control. You blow smoke.

Ten year old statistics are not current, that's how statistics work, not that you'd know. Of course they've changed. Quibble about the number of households with guns all you want but your conclusions about the number of exposures to guns every day vs those exposed to medical care in a year are just flat wrong.

The source "cited in the quote" is not linked and is unverifiable and the differences make your argument still irrelevant. That is blowing smoke.

You are the one deriding me for claiming "to know" how many people have "handled firearms." Not my claim, PBP. Your reading comprehension needs some work. A certain percentage of households have guns. According to U.S. Census data (already cited) the average number of persons in a household is 2.53. Therefore, each person in that household is exposed to firearms on a daily basis. There are 365.25 days in a year and that makes exposures to firearms a much larger number than exposures to the medical professions. I'd like to remind you, handling is not a requirement for exposure to firearms. Handling firearms is not a requirement to be a victim of a firearm accident. Additionally, a firearm victim may be from a non firearm household and just visiting.

Now, put on your troll suit and make up another non sequitur, deliberate misunderstanding, or imitation argument. :rolleyes:

Socrates, nice link, thanks. Yellowfin, I've known some shooting entusiast doctors myself. Thanks for posting, guys.
 
An anti-gun speaker was speaking to a group of young people and every few minutes or so would clap his hands saying, "Every time I clap my hands, someone is killed with a gun. What can we do about that?"

A young girl in the front row answered, "You could stop clapping your hands!"

:rolleyes:
 
If I have a question about treating a disease or assisting my body with healing an injury, I'll ask a medical doctor; otherwise, their opinion is probably less valid than most others with regard to the use of firearms except in the treatment of gunshot wounds. Their focus and knowledge is only on the injured person, and not the weapon or motivations as to why one was employed.

Why do people think that being a professional in one area lends any credence to knowledge in an area completely outside their profession?

In other words, I couldn't care less what any medical professional thinks about firearms unless they are an avid shooter, much like I wouldn't care what my plumber thinks about what I eat, or what a criminal defense attorney thinks about my long-term retirement options.
 
I have made no claim about how many seek medical help. It's not even relevant.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha...you challenge my information and and demand verification. Then when you realize it was present and accurate in the report you supposedly put so much trust in you decide it is no longer "relevant." That is rich.

I am still waiting to hear where you got your information on how al these people are exposed to guns "every day."
According to U.S. Census data (already cited) the average number of persons in a household is 2.53. Therefore, each person in that household is exposed to firearms on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely and 100% false. I would be willing to bet at least 50% of all homes have a set of drill bits in the garage. Does that mean 50% of all Americans are exposed to drill bits every day? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
According to U.S. Census data (already cited) the average number of persons in a household is 2.53. Therefore, each person in that household is exposed to firearms on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

PBP, maybe he takes his gun out several times a day and plays with it in front of his family. You never know. Some people are into stuff like that.
 
So, PBP, now you're challenging Census Data and still blowing smoke. Whatta guy! You're also accusing me of bringing up the whole household thing when it was you that called that question. I was the one that said it wasn't relevant to the simple statistics. All this after you admonish everyone else to read the previous posts. You certainly are a piece of work and I believe you must be missing the "get it" gene.

You're right, I did challenge your claims (it's not information, yet) and you still haven't linked your info to the irrelevant household data you were touting. Fish or cut bait. Put you money where your mouth is. Put up or shut up.

All you have to do is verify a household with guns number, then multiply that number by 2.53 people per household, then multiply by 365.25 days per year and you'll get the number of daily exposure opportunities in a year for those people living in households with guns. Add people who visit those household, add people who are exposed to firearms in other places. Then compare that to the number of people seeking medical help in a year. Easy enough, you've already posted unsupported numbers. Clear the smoke and make the citations, show us the links, and do the arithmetic. That's it. You'll be done.

You evidently don't understand the English language, either. Read my lips: I cited and linked my data, you did not. Your claims were not at the same site as mine, so other readers and I have 1.) no idea if the data even exists, 2.) no idea if you even quoted the data correctly, 3.) why you even bother to cite or make up the data when the point you're making has nothing to do with the facts in question numerously and repeatedly posted in this thread by a whole slew of people.

If someone lives in a household where guns are kept, they are, however minimally, exposed to firearms. That should be obvious even to you. Conversely, firearms accidents (part of the subject of the thread, remember) require the presence of firearms. Among the places firearms can be found is in SOME percentage of households. Therefore, there is everyday exposure to firearms for each of the 2.53 people in those households. Get it?

Nice try on the drill bits. Another irrelevant comment.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
If the gun is locked in a closet or safe, I don't see how people are exposed to it daily, unless the gun magically unlocks the safe and floats around the room.
 
So, PBP, now you're challenging Census Data and still blowing smoke.
Click to expand...
Hardly, I quoted real numbers and brought into play factual realities. You are just playing with fuzzy, hypothetical math and then covering by asking others to prove their statement while not proving your own and then also accusing others of doing something when you are the one really doing it.
All you have to do is verify a household with guns number, then multiply that number by 2.53 people per household, then multiply by 365.25 days per year and you'll get the number of daily exposure opportunities in a year for those people living in households with guns. Add people who visit those household, add people who are exposed to firearms in other places.
Click to expand...
Like I said...fuzzy, hypothetical math. I have a can of paint thinner in the garage. Does that men everyone that comes into my home is exposed to paint thinner?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top