A Startling Statistic
Wayne
Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
(one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
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
(one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners!
Joe Chandler
Exactly how many doctors kill people purposefully? ? Probably less than 10!
How many people are killed purposedly with handguns? Probably >10,000/ year
So what's your point?
Wayne <wlog...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:86giqo$p1v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
The Lab Rat
Wayne wrote in message <86giqo$p1v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>Some Startling Statistics...
>
>Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
>Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
>Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
>(one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
>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
> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
>
>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
>owners!
Wayne,
How many people are saved by guns every year???
Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
Jeff Fairman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Fairman, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Pharmacogenomics Research
Clingenix, Inc.
871 Industrial Road, Suite J
San Carlos, CA 94070
(650) 598-7645 (office)
(650) 598-7641 (fax)
jfai...@clingenix.com
VISIT: http://www.thelabrat.com - By Scientists... For Scientists.
Мария
And if seriously, doctors try to save human's life with any method, and
sometimes they use the wrong one. And, by the way, every person who is going
to die gets into the doctors' hands, but no gun owners':)
Mary
Wayne
Joe Chandler wrote in message ...
>Hey wayne,
>Exactly how many doctors kill people purposefully? ? Probably less than
10!
Let's see, 1,500,000 abortions a year in the U.S. Why that's 150,000
apiece. Busy devils arn't they!! Oops, I left out all the "pull the plug"
and "brain dead" cases. Why we can't let the common peasants decide when
they are really dead. Only a physician, from a pedestal, can decree such
lofty matters.
>How many people are killed purposedly with handguns? Probably >10,000/ year
Close. I heard approximately 9,000. I am all for executing all of them and
the other 10,000 murders each year, with them.
>So what's your point?
My point is "accidental" deaths. Have you been reading the papers lately?
Wayne
>
>Wayne <wlog...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:86giqo$p1v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Wayne
Мария wrote in message <94880118...@ipt2.iptelecom.net.ua>...
Not true. The ones who die while not under a doctor's care the government
gets to butcher.
Wayne
The Lab Rat wrote in message ...
>>
>>Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
>>Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
>>Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
>>(one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
>>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
>> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
>>
>>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
>>owners!
>
>
>
>How many people are saved by guns every year???
Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5 and 2
million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a shot
is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes the
criminal leave.
>
>Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you? I
know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
I know that about 1% of the people in the U.S. die each each year; that's
about 2.7 million. I know that about 10% of those are mutilated by
physicians via the procedure know as "consent" dissections, where in fact
most of the time informed consent is not given because the physician
withheld detailed knowledge of the procedure that the consentee needed to
make the "informed" consent. I know that about 1 in 17 (approx 160,000) of
the people who died where mutilated by the government via a procedure known
as the coroner or medical examiner dissection (forced government
dissection), many if not most of those against the will of the dissectee
and/or the will of the family. I know that, (unbeknownest to most
families) what they got back was not the person the government confiscated,
but "remains"; their fluids in the sewer with the feces and used condoms;
their tongues and brains cut out and sliced up, then stuck in their abdomen;
about a pound or two of their loved ones stolen and sitting in a save jar
somewhere in a government building, to be discarded later; need I continue?
After the physicians got done with them they ended up looking worse than
this:
http://www.crimelife.com/content/morgue/morg08.jpg
Wayne
Chris McCormack
>
>Joe Chandler wrote in message ...
>>Hey wayne,
>>Exactly how many doctors kill people purposefully? ? Probably less than
>10!
>
>Let's see, 1,500,000 abortions a year in the U.S. Why that's 150,000
>apiece. Busy devils arn't they!! Oops, I left out all the "pull the plug"
>and "brain dead" cases. Why we can't let the common peasants decide when
>they are really dead. Only a physician, from a pedestal, can decree such
>lofty matters.
You think it's that simple? A guy is still 'alive' in intensive care
with no brain function at all. Is he alive? There are some very gray
areas. Just because someone has a heartbeat doesn't mean they will
ever be able to hold a conversation again. What does your average guy
on the street know about EEG readouts or PET scans? Should we just
keep everyone alive indefinitely & hope they snap out of it at some
stage?
>
>>How many people are killed purposedly with handguns? Probably >10,000/ year
>
>Close. I heard approximately 9,000. I am all for executing all of them and
>the other 10,000 murders each year, with them.
>
>>So what's your point?
>
>My point is "accidental" deaths. Have you been reading the papers lately?
>
> Wayne
>
>>
>>Wayne <wlog...@erols.com> wrote in message
>>news:86giqo$p1v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>> Some Startling Statistics...
>>>
>>> Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
>>> Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
>>> Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
>>> (one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
>>> 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
>>> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
>>>
>>> Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
>>> owners!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Chris McCormack
Whose life can be seen at www.systron.xs3.com/
Haiku Error Message: Errors have occurred. We won't tell you where or why.
Lazy programmers.
Chris McCormack
<snip>
>>How many people are saved by guns every year???
>
>Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5 and 2
>million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
>themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a shot
>is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes the
>criminal leave.
So in your definition of 'saved' between 30,000 and 40,000 people get
shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy
American gun laws at all. Virtually no one dies of gun shot wounds in
UK.
>>
>>Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
>
>
>Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you?
Well, we all go sooner or later. Are you saying that the word 'saved'
is meaningless? You could die age 13 of appendicitis, with a bit of
crude surgery you could live to be 98. This is putting off death, but
still a worth while venture don't you think?
> I
>know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
I think you're confusing medicine with basic hygiene.
>I know that about 1% of the people in the U.S. die each each year; that's
>about 2.7 million. I know that about 10% of those are mutilated by
>physicians via the procedure know as "consent" dissections, where in fact
>most of the time informed consent is not given because the physician
>withheld detailed knowledge of the procedure that the consentee needed to
>make the "informed" consent. I know that about 1 in 17 (approx 160,000) of
>the people who died where mutilated by the government via a procedure known
>as the coroner or medical examiner dissection (forced government
>dissection), many if not most of those against the will of the dissectee
>and/or the will of the family.
Are you saying you're against post-mortem examinations? Why? Why do
you persist in calling it mutilation - the connotations are that it
concerns malice, which as you well know is not the case. You think
people do it for fun?
> I know that, (unbeknownest to most
>families) what they got back was not the person the government confiscated,
>but "remains"; their fluids in the sewer with the feces and used condoms;
What would you do with *waste* fluids then?
>their tongues and brains cut out and sliced up, then stuck in their abdomen;
This is standard practice is it? Or just an in joke?
>about a pound or two of their loved ones stolen and sitting in a save jar
>somewhere in a government building, to be discarded later; need I continue?
>After the physicians got done with them they ended up looking worse than
>this:
They are dead though. Give it a few weeks & they'll look a lot worse.
>>
>>Jeff Fairman
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Jeff Fairman, Ph.D.
>>Senior Scientist, Pharmacogenomics Research
>>Clingenix, Inc.
>>871 Industrial Road, Suite J
>>San Carlos, CA 94070
>>(650) 598-7645 (office)
>>(650) 598-7641 (fax)
>>jfai...@clingenix.com
>>
>>
>>VISIT: http://www.thelabrat.com - By Scientists... For Scientists.
>>
>>
>
--
Chris McCormack
Yeah, that's what they're there for.
>
> but no gun owners':)
>>Mary
>>
>>
>
--
Wayne
Number of physicians in the U.S.........................…....……..700,000
Accidental heath-care industry deaths per year…………..….98,000
Accidental health-care industry deaths per physician per year...0.14
(one for every 7.14 physicians, per year)
Number of gun owners in the U.S....................……..…...80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) ..900
Accidental deaths per gun owner..............................
.0.0000113
(one for every 88,889 gun owners, per year)
__________________
Revised the 120,000 down to 98,000 and attributed it to the health care
industry, not just physicians, although one could argue that they are
supposed to be in charge of most of the technical / clinical stuff.
The Philadelphia Inquirer ran the story "Medical errors debated in a fiery
hearing" on page A1 (above the fold) on 14 Dec 99. The story was about a
debate between Arlen Spector (R, Pa) chairman of the Senate appropriations
subcommittee on labor, health and human services, and education, and Nancy
W. Dickey, former president of the AMA. The article stated that an
estimated 98,000 lives in the United States were lost each year due to
medical errors and that the health care industry is a decade behind other
high hazard industries in addressing errors. The report was done by a panel
of experts convened by the Institute of Medicine, and was issued 29 Nov 99.
___________________
Revised the accidental gun deaths down to 900, based on a post I got on a
news group, where the poster cited a governmental source. I think my new
version is more accurate than the original.
In 1997 there were only 32k gun deaths in the US compared to four
times that in accidental deaths at the hands of physicians. Approx 13k
were intentional killings(the cdc lumps self defense and police
shootings in with murders) and 17k suicides. There were actually only
about 900 accidental gun deaths.
Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/47_19t16.pdf
Wayne
___________________
Wayne wrote in message <86giqo$p1v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
Wayne
Chris McCormack wrote in message ...
>
>>>How many people are saved by guns every year???
>>
>>Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5 and
2
>>million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
>>themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a
shot
>>is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes the
>>criminal leave.
>
>So in your definition of 'saved' between 30,000 and 40,000 people get
>shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy
>American gun laws at all.
You have the luxury of a more homogenous society, and the burden of far
fewer rights than God gave us.
I don't envy British citizenship at all. When are you guys going to give
the Scottish, Irish and Welsh their sovereign nations back?
Virtually no one dies of gun shot wounds in
>UK.
You must have much better physicians!!
BTW:
In 1997 there were only 32k gun deaths in the US. Approx 13k
were intentional killings(the cdc lumps self defense and police
shootings in with murders) and 17k suicides. There were actually only
about 900 accicental gun deaths.
Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/47_19t16.pdf
>
>>>
>>>Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
>>
>>
>>Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you?
>
>Well, we all go sooner or later. Are you saying that the word 'saved'
>is meaningless? You could die age 13 of appendicitis, with a bit of
>crude surgery you could live to be 98. This is putting off death, but
>still a worth while venture don't you think?
>
Of course, I agree.
>> I
>>know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>>death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
>
>I think you're confusing medicine with basic hygiene.
Don't they blend into each other? Was not the witch doctor and medicine
woman the forerunners of "modern" medicine?
>
>>I know that about 1% of the people in the U.S. die each each year; that's
>>about 2.7 million. I know that about 10% of those are mutilated by
>>physicians via the procedure know as "consent" dissections, where in fact
>>most of the time informed consent is not given because the physician
>>withheld detailed knowledge of the procedure that the consentee needed to
>>make the "informed" consent. I know that about 1 in 17 (approx 160,000)
of
>>the people who died where mutilated by the government via a procedure
known
>>as the coroner or medical examiner dissection (forced government
>>dissection), many if not most of those against the will of the dissectee
>>and/or the will of the family.
>
>Are you saying you're against post-mortem examinations?
Fuckin A I'm against it, like you could never imagine.
Why? Why do
>you persist in calling it mutilation - the connotations are that it
>concerns malice,
I don't care if there is malice or not. What kind of a "person" would do
this to another innocent helpless human being, especially one that has never
harmed anyone??????????????????
which as you well know is not the case. You think
>people do it for fun?
I DON'T CARE WHY THEY DO IT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO IT!!!!!!!!
>
>> I know that, (unbeknownest to most
>>families) what they got back was not the person the government
confiscated,
>>but "remains"; their fluids in the sewer with the feces and used condoms;
>
>What would you do with *waste* fluids then?
It's not waste to them, it's part of them. Where in the hell do you and
your kind get off forcing this barbarity on people against their
will???????????? What would I do with it? I'd respect them and leave it
where is was.
>
>>their tongues and brains cut out and sliced up, then stuck in their
abdomen;
>
>This is standard practice is it? Or just an in joke?
It's no joke. It may be standard practice to the histopaths. IMHO it's not
standard practice for common folks.
>
>>about a pound or two of their loved ones stolen and sitting in a save jar
>>somewhere in a government building, to be discarded later; need I
continue?
>>After the physicians got done with them they ended up looking worse than
>>this:
>
>They are dead though. Give it a few weeks & they'll look a lot worse.
Why is it any of your friggin business what they look like in a few weeks.
I saw a version of this quote from one of your swiss predecessors 400 years
ago; to paraphrase "I might as well cut him up, the worms are going to get
him anyway". For you information, which proper preservation, like some of
the elite and powerful get, we will look relatively the same for centuries
(i.e. immersion in formalin, and an air tignt stainless steel or glass
coffin.
BTW, how many people have you dissected in your life time; consent, and
forced?
Wayne
>>>
>>>Jeff Fairman
>>>
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Jeff Fairman, Ph.D.
>>>Senior Scientist, Pharmacogenomics Research
>>>Clingenix, Inc.
>>>871 Industrial Road, Suite J
>>>San Carlos, CA 94070
>>>(650) 598-7645 (office)
>>>(650) 598-7641 (fax)
>>>jfai...@clingenix.com
>>>
>>>
>>>VISIT: http://www.thelabrat.com - By Scientists... For Scientists.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Wayne
>>>Hey wayne,
>>>Exactly how many doctors kill people purposefully? ? Probably less than
>>10!
>>
>>Let's see, 1,500,000 abortions a year in the U.S. Why that's 150,000
>>apiece. Busy devils arn't they!! Oops, I left out all the "pull the
plug"
>>and "brain dead" cases. Why we can't let the common peasants decide when
>>they are really dead. Only a physician, from a pedestal, can decree such
>>lofty matters.
>
>You think it's that simple? A guy is still 'alive' in intensive care
>with no brain function at all. Is he alive?
In my opinion, absolutely!
There are some very gray
>areas. Just because someone has a heartbeat doesn't mean they will
>ever be able to hold a conversation again.
So should we execute all the mutes?
What does your average guy
>on the street know about EEG readouts or PET scans?
I know a little. But we don't have to know. We just hire you guys when
needed. Like what do you guys know about a combat radar system, or fixing
an automobile, or farming. It's called division of labor.
Should we just
>keep everyone alive indefinitely & hope they snap out of it at some
>stage?
Yes. In my opinion it is infinitely better than being dead. And at least
10 times infinitely better than being dissected. Do you believe in any
kind of a Supreme Being? Do you go to any special building once a week or
so owned by a corporation formed to organize worship of this Supreme Being.
Do you believe in any kind of a heaven and hell. Consider the theory that
every minute we are alive is a minute we are not in hell. According to the
rules of church, it is almost impossible to stay out of hell.
Along a different vein, you can't keep people alive indefinitely, but you
can keep them alive for a long time. Consider people like me, who pay a lot
of taxes (not as much as MDs of course), get almost nothing from the
government for it, pay several thousands of dollars a year for health
insurance, and see a physician an average of about 3 minutes a year.
Sooner or later, if I am lucky enough, I may be comatose and near death in a
hospital bed. I want the government to keep me alive "indefinitely". They
spent tons of my money on drug addicts, criminals, and people who absolutely
refuse to work for their daily bread. Then it will be pay back time for me.
>
>
>>
>>>How many people are killed purposedly with handguns? Probably >10,000/
year
>>
>>Close. I heard approximately 9,000. I am all for executing all of them
and
>>the other 10,000 murders each year, with them.
>>
>>>So what's your point?
>>
>>My point is "accidental" deaths. Have you been reading the papers lately?
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>>
>>>Wayne <wlog...@erols.com> wrote in message
>>>news:86giqo$p1v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>>> Some Startling Statistics...
>>>>
>>>> Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
>>>> Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
>>>> Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
>>>> (one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
>>>> 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
>>>> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun
>>>> owners!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Wayne
>>
>>Мария wrote in message <94880118...@ipt2.iptelecom.net.ua>...
>>>Well, I think the point is that gun owners are more careful:)
>>>And if seriously, doctors try to save human's life with any method, and
>>>sometimes they use the wrong one.
>>
>> And, by the way, every person who is going
>>>to die gets into the doctors' hands,
>>
>>Not true. The ones who die while not under a doctor's care the government
>>gets to butcher.
>>
>Yeah, that's what they're there for.
Try telling one no and see how far you get. I've been there. Seen their
tools and dissectorium and save jars too. Seen what's left of my daughter.
>>
>> but no gun owners':)
>>>Mary
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Wayne
I checked out your web page. Very nice.
Grades are good; almost an over achiever. I see you got an "A" in French.
So tell me, how many Frenchmen can't be wrong?
4 different jobs in about 40 months? Having problems being a team player?
What actually are you aiming for, educationally and career wise? And to
what level? After seeing your website I'm more confused than ever why you
are defending the barbaric practice of human dissection. How about if the
people got to vote on whether they wanted to continue with the present
system of forced government dissection, or outlaw it? You believe in
democracy?
Cheers
Wayne
P.S. - Are you and the Lab Rat one and the same?
B. Rhodes
post a response, something I rarely do, but in this case I feel too
strongly not to add my opinion.
Wayne wrote:
>
> The Lab Rat wrote in message ...
> >
> >Wayne wrote in message <86giqo$p1v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >>Some Startling Statistics...
> >>
> >>Number of physicians in the U.S...............................700,000
> >>Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year......120,000
> >>Accidental deaths per physician...................................0.171
> >>(one for every 5.8 physicians, per year)
> >>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
> >> (one for every 53,333 gun owners, per year)
> >>
These statistics leave out a large amount of information, not the least
of which is the basis of the statistics. While I don't disbelieve the
numbers, it's always nice to know who did the study so one knows about
any possible biased opinions. As to the greater number of doctors
causing deaths than gun owners, I think it's safe to say that doctors
practice medicine much more frequently than gun owners practice
shooting. It would also be safe to say, that medicine is somewhat more
complicated than using a firearm safely. While I happen to be a gun
owner and thoroughly believe in the rights of an individual to own the
firearm of his choice, I think this comparison does nothing other than
to prove the stupidity of some people who think that by comparing gun
ownership to the practice of medicine they will change the minds of
those who intend to restrict or halt gun ownership in the US. These
numbers prove less than nothing and only insult the intelligence of gun
owners nationwide. I'll also comment that ANY accidental shooting death
is caused by nothing less than blatant stupidity, and the moron who
pulls the trigger (or in the case of children, the idiot parents of the
child who let them near a loaded firearm) should be put away from normal
people for the rest of their life.
> >>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
> >>owners!
Absurd.
> >
> >
> >Wayne,
> >
> >How many people are saved by guns every year???
>
> Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5 and 2
> million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
> themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a shot
> is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes the
> criminal leave.
Equally absurd. There is no possible way to know how many lives are
saved every year by firearms, since there cannot be a way to verify that
the life would've been taken otherwise. I might believe the number to be
in the thousands, possibly even over ten thousand or more, but never in
the millions.
>
> >
> >Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
>
> Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you? I
> know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
> death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
> I know that about 1% of the people in the U.S. die each each year; that's
> about 2.7 million. I know that about 10% of those are mutilated by
> physicians via the procedure know as "consent" dissections, where in fact
> most of the time informed consent is not given because the physician
> withheld detailed knowledge of the procedure that the consentee needed to
> make the "informed" consent. I know that about 1 in 17 (approx 160,000) of
> the people who died where mutilated by the government via a procedure known
> as the coroner or medical examiner dissection (forced government
> dissection), many if not most of those against the will of the dissectee
> and/or the will of the family. I know that, (unbeknownest to most
> families) what they got back was not the person the government confiscated,
> but "remains"; their fluids in the sewer with the feces and used condoms;
> their tongues and brains cut out and sliced up, then stuck in their abdomen;
> about a pound or two of their loved ones stolen and sitting in a save jar
> somewhere in a government building, to be discarded later; need I continue?
> After the physicians got done with them they ended up looking worse than
> this:
>
> http://www.crimelife.com/content/morgue/morg08.jpg
>
> Wayne
>
> >
> >Jeff Fairman
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Jeff Fairman, Ph.D.
> >Senior Scientist, Pharmacogenomics Research
> >Clingenix, Inc.
> >871 Industrial Road, Suite J
> >San Carlos, CA 94070
> >(650) 598-7645 (office)
> >(650) 598-7641 (fax)
> >jfai...@clingenix.com
> >
> >
> >VISIT: http://www.thelabrat.com - By Scientists... For Scientists.
> >
> >
--
B. Rhodes Sr.
Chris McCormack
<snip>
>>So in your definition of 'saved' between 30,000 and 40,000 people get
>>shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy
>>American gun laws at all.
>
>You have the luxury of a more homogenous society, and the burden of far
>fewer rights than God gave us.
I'd rather have the Criminal Justice Act (a rather restrictive bit of
UK legislation) than a couple of relatives dead as a result of gun
law.
>I don't envy British citizenship at all. When are you guys going to give
>the Scottish, Irish and Welsh their sovereign nations back?
>
When the majority of the people ask for them.
>>>know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>>>death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
>>
>>I think you're confusing medicine with basic hygiene.
>
>Don't they blend into each other? Was not the witch doctor and medicine
>woman the forerunners of "modern" medicine?
>
Probably, but they did nothing to stretch out lifespan. I don't think
hygiene and medicine overlap. Hygiene is cleanliness and medicine is
prescriptions, surgery etc, etc. Your GP is very unlikely to have any
impact on your degree of hygiene.
>>Are you saying you're against post-mortem examinations?
>
>Fuckin A I'm against it, like you could never imagine.
>
> Why? Why do
>>you persist in calling it mutilation - the connotations are that it
>>concerns malice,
>
>I don't care if there is malice or not. What kind of a "person" would do
>this to another innocent helpless human being, especially one that has never
>harmed anyone??????????????????
>
> which as you well know is not the case. You think
>>people do it for fun?
>
>I DON'T CARE WHY THEY DO IT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO IT!!!!!!!!
>
They do it *for a reason*. Possibly to gather evidence for a criminal
investigation. If someone poisoned me I would want a post mortem done
on my body to gather evidence. I would want one if there were any
dubious circumstances. Having said that, I have a donor card, so if I
die any time soon all my organs will be harvested for transplants
anyway.
>I saw a version of this quote from one of your swiss predecessors 400 years
>ago; to paraphrase "I might as well cut him up, the worms are going to get
>him anyway". For you information, which proper preservation, like some of
>the elite and powerful get, we will look relatively the same for centuries
>(i.e. immersion in formalin, and an air tignt stainless steel or glass
>coffin.
I'd rather be cremated than put in a glass coffin full of chemicals. I
agree with the Swiss 'predecessor'.
>
>BTW, how many people have you dissected in your life time; consent, and
>forced?
None, you may be shocked to hear.
Chris McCormack
<snip doctors 'pulling the plug'>
>There are some very gray
>>areas. Just because someone has a heartbeat doesn't mean they will
>>ever be able to hold a conversation again.
>
>So should we execute all the mutes?
If it is believed by several experts that he will never recover
consciousness, yes. Don't agree with the term 'execute', but yes.
>
> What does your average guy
>>on the street know about EEG readouts or PET scans?
>
>I know a little. But we don't have to know. We just hire you guys when
>needed. Like what do you guys know about a combat radar system, or fixing
>an automobile, or farming. It's called division of labor.
So then you do agree with the doctors' decision that the guy will
never recover consciousness? Still you want his body maintained at
huge cost for no reason?
>
> Should we just
>>keep everyone alive indefinitely & hope they snap out of it at some
>>stage?
>
>Yes. In my opinion it is infinitely better than being dead. And at least
>10 times infinitely better than being dissected. Do you believe in any
>kind of a Supreme Being? Do you go to any special building once a week or
>so owned by a corporation formed to organize worship of this Supreme Being.
>Do you believe in any kind of a heaven and hell. Consider the theory that
>every minute we are alive is a minute we are not in hell. According to the
>rules of church, it is almost impossible to stay out of hell.
So by living, you're just putting off your inevitable journey to hell?
>
>Along a different vein, you can't keep people alive indefinitely, but you
>can keep them alive for a long time. Consider people like me, who pay a lot
>of taxes (not as much as MDs of course), get almost nothing from the
>government for it, pay several thousands of dollars a year for health
>insurance, and see a physician an average of about 3 minutes a year.
>Sooner or later, if I am lucky enough, I may be comatose and near death in a
>hospital bed. I want the government to keep me alive "indefinitely". They
>spent tons of my money on drug addicts, criminals, and people who absolutely
>refuse to work for their daily bread. Then it will be pay back time for me.
That's the welfare state for you. You're so bitter about that you want
all your taxes poured into nothing after your death?
B. Rhodes
Wayne wrote:
>
> >
> >> >>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
> gun
> >> >>owners!
> >
> >Absurd.
>
> Removed this sentence from the new stuff. Absurd? I think it has a core of
> truth. I think the statistics contain a stronge possibility that physician
> accidents kill more U.S. citizens per year than gun accidents. How can you
> refute this? 98,000 vs. 900. Even if 90% of those medical errors were
> caused by nurses instead of physicians (which I doubt), it's still 9800 to
> 900. I removed the sentence because it was too emotional and not concise
> enough. "Dangerous" is a very subjective word.
>
To me, yes. It's absurd. The reason I feel this way about it, is because
of the comparison itself. At the risk of being thought cliché, you'd
need to compare apples to apples, not apples to sports cars or whatever.
To further the line of thought in this statement, you'd need to compare
the number of deaths caused by the complete removal of either factor,
both doctors, and gun ownership. At that point, the comparison data
would state that doctors (or the medical establishment) are necessary to
save lives, and gun ownership is not. I think a better comparison would
be gun ownership and car ownership. Many times the yearly number of
lives lost due to all types of shooting deaths (both accidental and
intentional) are lost daily in this country due to careless or reckless
driving, or intoxicated drivers, but this doesn't seem to be a large
concern to many for some reason, though it doesn't take a great amount
of imagination to realize what that reason is. I believe that stiffer
penalties for both careless handling of firearms and careless driving
would greatly reduce the number of casualties in both cases. Do you
suppose that, if drunk driving were an automatic capital offense
(whether the accused had taken a life or not), there would be many
people who'd get behind the wheel after going on a bender? No, probably
not. Consider the same with reckless driving. Do you think that the 18
year old punk who goes flying down a residential street at 80 mph would
reconsider the wisdom of this action if he were facing an electric chair
if he were unlucky enough to run over a 6 year old child? Almost
certainly. The same would be true for the moron who's playing quick draw
in the bathroom of his trailer house, taking the risk of accidentally
pulling the trigger and ending the life of a neighbor who happened to
pick the wrong time to have a bowel movement. He'd probably double check
the cylinder for bullets if he were worried about a hangman's noose in
the event he got careless. And don't get me started on what I think
should happen to the scum who intentionally commit crimes with firearms.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Wayne,
> >> >
> >> >How many people are saved by guns every year???
> >>
> >> Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5
> and 2
> >> million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
> >> themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a
> shot
> >> is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes
> the
> >> criminal leave.
> >
> >Equally absurd. There is no possible way to know how many lives are
> >saved every year by firearms, since there cannot be a way to verify that
> >the life would've been taken otherwise. I might believe the number to be
> >in the thousands, possibly even over ten thousand or more, but never in
> >the millions.
>
> Well that is what I have read, from studies done by Ph.D.s. What can I say.
I don't doubt it's data that has been published by someone, but as I
mentioned, it's impossible to determine the number of lives saved by
guns or gun ownership simply because there can be no control group,
unless you take into account the societies where gun ownership is
illegal. Still, those countries aren't necessarily a good example
because of the other dissimilarities with our ways of life. These are
the reasons I dispute any data concerning this particular subject. To be
an accurate study, there would have to be two identical societies, 1
with firearms present, 1 without. Even then, I believe the only thing
that would decrease is the number of crimes committed with firearms.
When people lack one weapon, they quickly find an alternative, or the
means of manufacturing a replacement for the first. Also, because of the
lack of armed law enforcement, it's likely that some forms of violent
crimes would actually increase because a certain number of criminals
would no longer be in fear for their lives when committing particular
types of crimes.
--
B. Rhodes Sr.
B. Rhodes
Chris McCormack wrote:
<SNIP>
> So in your definition of 'saved' between 30,000 and 40,000 people get
> shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy
> American gun laws at all. Virtually no one dies of gun shot wounds in
> UK.
>
Chris,
I've known many Englishmen who disagree with you, though for very
different reasons. New Zealanders also. That aside, what I wanted to ask
is, do you intend to state that, since disarming the public, the violent
crime, and murder rate in your country have signifigantly declined?
--
B. Rhodes Sr.
Wayne
Chris McCormack wrote in message <28qROODOmWR+TZYhfagjHl77WsB=@4ax.com>...
>>>shot?! As a resident of a country where guns are illegal, I don't envy
>>>American gun laws at all.
>>
>>You have the luxury of a more homogenous society, and the burden of far
>>fewer rights than God gave us.
>
>UK legislation) than a couple of relatives dead as a result of gun
>law.
Our chances of being murdered with a gun are 1/3 of our chances of being
killed by a vehicle, even much lower if we stay out of high crime areas.
Our chances of being murdered with a gun are 1/10 our chances of being
killed by a medical mistake. I'm happy where I am. To each his own.
>
>>I don't envy British citizenship at all. When are you guys going to give
>>the Scottish, Irish and Welsh their sovereign nations back?
>>
>When the majority of the people ask for them.
>
>
>>>>know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>>>>death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
>>>
>>>I think you're confusing medicine with basic hygiene.
>>
>>Don't they blend into each other? Was not the witch doctor and medicine
>>woman the forerunners of "modern" medicine?
>>
>Probably, but they did nothing to stretch out lifespan. I don't think
>hygiene and medicine overlap. Hygiene is cleanliness and medicine is
>prescriptions, surgery etc, etc. Your GP is very unlikely to have any
>impact on your degree of hygiene.
>
>
>>>Are you saying you're against post-mortem examinations?
>>
>>Fuckin A I'm against it, like you could never imagine.
>>
>> Why? Why do
>>>you persist in calling it mutilation - the connotations are that it
>>>concerns malice,
>>
>>I don't care if there is malice or not. What kind of a "person" would do
>>this to another innocent helpless human being, especially one that has
never
>>harmed anyone??????????????????
>>
>> which as you well know is not the case. You think
>>>people do it for fun?
>>
>>I DON'T CARE WHY THEY DO IT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO IT!!!!!!!!
>>
>They do it *for a reason*. Possibly to gather evidence for a criminal
>investigation. If someone poisoned me I would want a post mortem done
>on my body to gather evidence. I would want one if there were any
>dubious circumstances. Having said that, I have a donor card, so if I
>die any time soon all my organs will be harvested for transplants
>anyway.
>
>>I saw a version of this quote from one of your swiss predecessors 400
years
>>ago; to paraphrase "I might as well cut him up, the worms are going to get
>>him anyway". For you information, which proper preservation, like some of
>>the elite and powerful get, we will look relatively the same for centuries
>>(i.e. immersion in formalin, and an air tignt stainless steel or glass
>>coffin.
>
>I'd rather be cremated than put in a glass coffin full of chemicals. I
>agree with the Swiss 'predecessor'.
>>
>>BTW, how many people have you dissected in your life time; consent, and
>>forced?
>
>None, you may be shocked to hear.
Wayne
B. Rhodes wrote in message <38926EE5...@leru.net>...
>While lurking my way through this newsgroup I saw this and decided to
>post a response, something I rarely do, but in this case I feel too
>strongly not to add my opinion.
I have a way of eliciting opinions from people. Glad to have your input.
Thanks
Wayne
I agree with all you have written. As for the source of the statistics, I
got it as an email about 3 weeks ago. After many comments from ng posters I
have revised the statistics slightly based on new information, including
changing the perpretrators of the errors from physicians to the health care
industry in general. Here's the new info:
Some Startling Statistics...
Number of physicians in the U.S.........................…....……..700,000
__________________
___________________
times that in accidental deaths at the hands of physicians. Approx 13k
were intentional killings(the cdc lumps self defense and police
shootings in with murders) and 17k suicides. There were actually only
about 900 accicental gun deaths.
Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/47_19t16.pdf
>
>> >>Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun
>> >>owners!
>
>Absurd.
Removed this sentence from the new stuff. Absurd? I think it has a core of
truth. I think the statistics contain a stronge possibility that physician
accidents kill more U.S. citizens per year than gun accidents. How can you
refute this? 98,000 vs. 900. Even if 90% of those medical errors were
caused by nurses instead of physicians (which I doubt), it's still 9800 to
900. I removed the sentence because it was too emotional and not concise
enough. "Dangerous" is a very subjective word.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >Wayne,
>> >
>> >How many people are saved by guns every year???
>>
>> Don't know exactly. The statistics I have seen state that between 1.5
and 2
>> million people a year, in the U.S. draw their guns each year to defend
>> themselves or others or property from a criminal. Of those drawings a
shot
>> is fired only 2% of the time. Usually just the sight of the gun makes
the
>> criminal leave.
>
>Equally absurd. There is no possible way to know how many lives are
>saved every year by firearms, since there cannot be a way to verify that
>the life would've been taken otherwise. I might believe the number to be
>in the thousands, possibly even over ten thousand or more, but never in
>the millions.
Well that is what I have read, from studies done by Ph.D.s. What can I say.
>>
>> >
>> >Not many... esspecially compared to the number saved by doctors...
>>
>> Define saved. You mean putting off death for a while longer don't you?
I
>> know it has taken medicine about 50,000 years to get the average age at
>> death from around maybe 35, to around 75.
Wayne
Chris McCormack wrote in message <7s2ROGCMWDs=qWpKBffy...@4ax.com>...
>
>>There are some very gray
>>>areas. Just because someone has a heartbeat doesn't mean they will
>>>ever be able to hold a conversation again.
>>
>>So should we execute all the mutes?
>
>If it is believed by several experts that he will never recover
>consciousness, yes. Don't agree with the term 'execute', but yes.
>>
>> What does your average guy
>>>on the street know about EEG readouts or PET scans?
>>
>>I know a little. But we don't have to know. We just hire you guys when
>>needed. Like what do you guys know about a combat radar system, or fixing
>>an automobile, or farming. It's called division of labor.
>
>So then you do agree with the doctors' decision that the guy will
>never recover consciousness?
No. I agree that the doctor's "educated guess" that the guy will never
recover consciousness is probably right in most cases. I know that doctors
cannot see into the future, and I know that doctors often never prove he
will not recover consciousness because they kill the patient before the guy
dies naturally, by withholding treatment and/or life support.
Still you want his body maintained at
>huge cost for no reason?
Postponing death is not no reason. It is a huge reason. I want "him"
maintained, yes. Cost? How about if only the rich people who can lay down
the cash get kept alive by all that medicine has to offer. Would that be OK
with you?
>>
>> Should we just
>>>keep everyone alive indefinitely & hope they snap out of it at some
>>>stage?
>>
>>Yes. In my opinion it is infinitely better than being dead. And at least
>>10 times infinitely better than being dissected. Do you believe in any
>>kind of a Supreme Being? Do you go to any special building once a week or
>>so owned by a corporation formed to organize worship of this Supreme
Being.
>>Do you believe in any kind of a heaven and hell. Consider the theory that
>>every minute we are alive is a minute we are not in hell. According to
the
>>rules of church, it is almost impossible to stay out of hell.
>
>So by living, you're just putting off your inevitable journey to hell?
Isn't that the main goal of life; avoiding pain and avoiding death? If
medical science knew as much about the human body as the other hard sciences
know about their subjects, we would be living forever (baring trama deaths)
by now. How come the medical "scientists" make so much more money than the
other scientists?
>>
>>Along a different vein, you can't keep people alive indefinitely, but you
>>can keep them alive for a long time. Consider people like me, who pay a
lot
>>of taxes (not as much as MDs of course), get almost nothing from the
>>government for it, pay several thousands of dollars a year for health
>>insurance, and see a physician an average of about 3 minutes a year.
>>Sooner or later, if I am lucky enough, I may be comatose and near death in
a
>>hospital bed. I want the government to keep me alive "indefinitely".
They
>>spent tons of my money on drug addicts, criminals, and people who
absolutely
>>refuse to work for their daily bread. Then it will be pay back time for
me.
>
>That's the welfare state for you. You're so bitter about that you want
>all your taxes poured into nothing after your death?
Well, if the government would build me a 500 foot high gold pyramid as my
final resting place, that would be nice. If they spent nothing on welfare
after my death, my children might have the right to enjoy the standard of
living they work so hard for and are denied by the government, because of
economic discrimination and confiscatory tax rates.
Wayne
Thanks for the reply and the input. Well reasoned.
Wayne
B. Rhodes wrote in message <3893C1CA...@leru.net>...
B. Rhodes
Clearly in denial, Chris McCormack wrote:
(sorry, just thought it was funny at the time. No offense meant:)
No Chris, perhaps there hasn't been a great number of firearms owners
in your country, but that doesn't necessarily mean there would be a
greater amount of gun crimes if there were. I believe that in smaller
countries crime is less of a problem than in larger countries though
I've been criticized for this theory for awhile now. Another thing to
consider is that, for the most part, the people in this country are
descendants of rebels, or in other words: We can't help it. It's in the
genes. (I don't actually believe this, it's just a funny thought;)
My biggest problem with completely removing guns from the hands of law
abiding citizens is in the statement itself. The guns will be removed
from law abiding citizens, not the criminals, at least for a good number
of years. As I mentioned, if penalties were more severe for crimes
involving firearms, then it might make sense, or even if laws were
enforced as they are it might make some sense. When somebody who has
committed a felony is caught with a handgun and only receives probation
then there is a fault with the system, not the people who pay the bills.
I don't think for a second that the US government is concerned about the
lives of the people who die by shootings. If they did, they would care
just as much about automobile accident victims but his doesn't seem to
draw nearly as much attention no matter that the ratio of children to
adult deaths in auto accidents is several times greater than that of
shooting deaths, or that more people die in auto accidents every day
than in shootings in an entire year. Has the government in the UK ever
considered removing automobiles from public hands because of the much
higher death rate from accidents than shootings? I don't know what the
statistics are in the UK but I assume there are like numbers. I'm sure
they haven't, just like they haven't here. I'm not sure why, but it's
definitely something to think about isn't it? When handguns* are banned
because of a single case of a school shooting, but autos are left alone
even though thousands more die every year in them, you have to question
the reasoning behind it. My opinion is that no government feels
completely safe unless the public is disarmed. This has included nearly
every successful (and many unsuccessful) government since Rome, which
refused to let it's people arm themselves even when they were trying to
protect themselves from foreign invaders. Hitler's WWII Germany is
another good example. Any idea why he insisted on disarming the people?
UK, NZ, Australia and many others have been disarmed since and I, for
one, will refuse to give up so much as a single pellet gun while I yet
breathe. In our country, not only is it a constitutional right (though
even that is being disputed these days), I believe that owning a firearm
(or any other reasonable choice of weapon) for one's own protection is a
God given right that can be taken away by no other. Ok, I'm finished
with the soapbox. Would anyone else like to use it now? <G>
*One quick note about handguns: I believe there is no use for a handgun
except for self defense or concealing a weapon that is going to be used
to commit a crime. People who are caught carrying a sidearm (except
unloaded AND in plain sight for transport) without an appropriate
license (which should be rarely handed out) should be charged with a
felony and be sentenced to no less than 5 years in a penitentiary.
>
> Clearly in haste, "B. Rhodes" <baeo...@leru.net> said:
>
> >Chris,
> > I've known many Englishmen who disagree with you, though for very
> >different reasons. New Zealanders also. That aside, what I wanted to ask
> >is, do you intend to state that, since disarming the public, the violent
> >crime, and murder rate in your country have signifigantly declined?
>
> Well, this doesn't really apply because there has never been a time
> when the public at large has been 'armed'. Although I can't provide
> you with any statistics, I am certain (having seen such stats in the
> past) that there are a tiny fraction the number of crimes involving
> guns in the UK compared to the US. I also believe our murder rates are
> much lower as well; it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife or
> blunt object or whatever.
>
> Until recently you could own a handgun with the appropriate license. A
> few years ago a madman took to a schoolyard with a handgun killing
> several adults & kids. In the following public outcry, all hand guns
> were made illegal.
>
> That said, a few days ago a local MP (Member of Parliament) was
> attacked in his office by a guy with a samurai sword. An aid was
> killed & the MP is in hospital with extensive cuts & gashes. Crazy!
> --
> Chris McCormack
> Whose life can be seen at www.systron.xs3.com/
>
> Haiku Error Message: Errors have occurred. We won't tell you where or why.
> Lazy programmers.
--
B. Rhodes Sr.
B. Rhodes
Chris,
At least your being civil about it, unlike so many others who appear on
newsgroups and throw a temper tantrum if you don't agree with their
every written word. Besides, if we all agreed then there would be no
reason to read these newsgroups:) Though I believe that people should be
allowed to own what weapons they choose (within reason) I'll also admit
that probably over half the people in my country shouldn't be allowed to
handle so much as a steak knife, mostly because of the level of
stupidity they've inherited from 50 years of having the government do
their thinking for them. If everybody were responsible enough to own
firearms then there would probably be no need for them (at least for
protection purposes), but there would also be no need to ban them except
for the government's fear of being replaced by force, which is (I
believe) the larger reason for any government restricting the ownership
of weapons.
Chris McCormack says,
>
> Basically I think were're going to have to agree to disagree here!
> --
> Chris McCormack
--
B. Rhodes Sr.