Something to think about.
 

Doctors vs. Gun Owners Doctors

(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 and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:
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

.0000188

Statistics courtesy of 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.
This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as by a gun owner!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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,
We withheld the statistics on
Lawyers

For fear the shock would cause
People to panic and seek medical attention!


:D

Further proof that healthcare reform is necessary.

Dave

ROTFLMAO!

Pete

That data is for accidental deaths by guns vs. accidental deaths by doctors.

How about digging up some data about deliberate deaths/injuries by guns vs. deliberate death/injuries by doctors.

I would argue that the ratio would approach infinity (i.e., any number divided by zero is infinity).

Busted.

Would that include abortions?:confused:

No, the law doesn't consider abortion a killing. Don't mix apples and oranges to try and prove a silly point that you couldn't make with your original analogy.:rolleyes:

It's killing. As it's legal it isn't murder.

Pete

Whatever. My point is that introducing abortion into an argument about the viability of gun control is just silly, regardless of what one thinks about abortion. (For the record, I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice, if you can wrap your head around that).

Finn, the first post was supposed to be silly. Where is your sense of humor? Don't the last two paragraphs give you a clue?
Pete got it.

Oops, sorry. It's just that sometimes people actually use such data to try to make an argument. The engineer in me screams BS when I see such stuff.;)

No harm, no foul.

That's good enough for me!:)

JJ, I thought your post provided excellent information showing how misguided it is to try to save healthcare costs by limiting the ability to sue negligent doctors - the so-called "tort reform." :p

Regards,

D-Ray

Don, I'm a little dense this afternoon. You're going to have to 'splain that one to me.:)

This also exposes the irony in the claim that; "If you have single-payer and you are harmed by an incompetent doctor, you can't sue the government."

Ironic? Yes, because the people who spout this are the same people who support "tort reform"...........limiting our ability to sue. I, for one think this is no accident. They don't give a flying crap about us anyways. It's the insurance company they want to protect. Not the patient. It's not a matter of "if" you can sue, but rather "who" you can sue.:rolleyes:

Dave

Are Americans really that politically naive? Single Ppayer means that the government is the insurance company. Period, full stop. Hell even some doctors back there are stupid as well. A bunch of doctors in Alberta asked the government to buy them an MRI machine. Government response was "Does Kaiser Permanente buy doctors MRI machines? We are the insurance company, if you think you can make an MRI machine pay then go buy one."

[QUOTE=d-ray657;58593 the so-called "tort reform." :p

Regards,

D-Ray[/QUOTE]

I guess I should explain, the only "tort reform" I care about is "loser pays" . I would put no limits on awards one way or the other.

Indeed they are!

It is wise to avoid them and find alternate ways if possible!