OT: Gunowners vrs doctors

[General Pain]

What's the most dangerous of the two?

http://www.sickone.com/gundoc.html

Can any of my US friends confirm this?

[kato13]

The base numbers seem at least semi accurate. Most gun deaths in the US are suicides and they are at least a factor of 10 larger than accidental deaths IIRC.

[Webstral]

I haven't combed through the FBI stats in a few years. Last time I looked, suicidal gun deaths were roughly on par with homicidal gun deaths. Homicidal gun deaths were something like 1/4 of vehicular deaths. What does this tell us? For all the press events like Columbine get, people are taking their own lives with guns at the same rate they are taking each other's lives. People are killing each other on American highways at an enormous rate. Interestingly enough, no one is interested in highways deaths until there are several young children involved or it affects one personally.

Highway deaths are down, largely due to the improvement in safety equipment. In 2000, we were losing the casualty rate of the entire US involvement in Vietnam every year. By the mid-2000's, the death rate was down by 20%, but the accident rate was up. Go figure.

80 million gun owners is a big number. Of course, it's tough to generate meaningful stats, given that guns trade hands without being tracked by law enforcement. The last figures I saw put the number of gun owners at 50 million, who owned 200 million firearms between them. (Have fun, comrades!) This estimate is several years out of date. I keep reading that since President Obama was elected, there has been a massive run on guns and ammo, so it's conceivable that the numbers have spiked in the past several years.

If only I lived in Nevada.

Webstral

[Jason]

Except Doctors also save many, many lives each year, while guns don't really work for healing.

Just saying.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Except Doctors also save many, many lives each year, while guns don't really work for healing.

Just saying.

I agree with the sentiment, unfortunately while their is much effort directed at removing guns from the equation, little has been done to remove the problems in the medical system that continue to result in the unnecessary death of patients. The same situation exists here in Australia.
At an ethical level I find it appalling that doctors/hospitals cause more deaths than firearms and very little is done to prevent it. Gun crime obviously is bad but how keen are you to go to hospital when there's a chance it will kill you rather than heal you?
It's always been cheaper to "get rid of the guns" than fix the medical system and governments love the cheaper option.

[pmulcahy11b]

Well, let's see -- I haven't been the victim of violent crime since high school...

Then again, I'm chronically ill with the doctors being unable to unwilling to do what it takes to figure out what's wrong with me, and possibly over-medicated...

Hmmmmm.....

[jester]

For the same reasons as Paul and probably the same treatment provider I have never met a Dr I had't wanting to kill on the spot. And most hmmm, all but three have changed my opinion about them. Should I encounter them in a rural setting :D

Or to quote the line from Pulp Fiction,

"Nothin a blow torch and pair of pliers wan't fix." :D

[waiting4something]

Doctors, cars, and tasty foods will always be seen as a necessary or a death caused by them exceptable. I find it exceptable too, as well as firearm deaths or anything that results in death from people still being able to enjoy freedom. Freedom is dangerous. Free thinking is dangerous. Some people believe that taking away rights will lead to a happier and safer society. These people are naive in my eyes and make great boot lickers. The war on private gun ownership is a world wide event. The U.N. supports anti-gun thoughts. The World powers really just want to control us more and have us meet there ideals.
Sometimes government ploys work like with smoking in the USA. They tax and raise the price so high people can't afford it. They also out law it in so many places makes it a hassle to do. Sometimes it doesn't like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. The governments of the world have become more united and smarter when it comes to taking away peoples rights they see as unfit. Now days they just tax or raise prices so they don't have to deal with legislative B.S.. "Hey we didn't out law it, you can still get it, but we know most of you can afford it".:rolleyes::D
I think the U.S.A. has been doing this with ammo too. Why deal with the hassle of a gun ban when you can simply make the price of ammo so unaffordable. People try to say there is a ammo shortage in the world and that is why the prices are so high. I really doubt this. Plus, I have read about how the U.N. likes to destroy surplus ammo, instead of letting it be sold on the private market. Why send in the troops if you can starve them out.:mad:

[Webstral]

People try to say there is a ammo shortage in the world and that is why the prices are so high.

There has been a major run on guns and ammo in the US since the current President was elected. The increase in sales is easily verified. I can't speak to a world-wide shortage, although the United States is by far the largest market for non-military firearms and ammunition.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

There has been a major run on guns and ammo in the US since the current President was elected. The increase in sales is easily verified. I can't speak to a world-wide shortage, although the United States is by far the largest market for non-military firearms and ammunition.

Webstral

Ammo manufacturers in the states are now also geared more towards 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO instead of .223 and .308 -- making those calibers even more expensive. .223 is moving towards a $1 US a round pretty quickly. They want those military contracts!

[headquarters]

Did you know that the US was a fierce supporter and the staunchest ally of the UN in the 1945 -1970 period ?

The UN is in part an American brainchild spawned from the League of Nations in the 1920s/1930s.



Doctors, cars, and tasty foods will always be seen as a necessary or a death caused by them exceptable. I find it exceptable too, as well as firearm deaths or anything that results in death from people still being able to enjoy freedom. Freedom is dangerous. Free thinking is dangerous. Some people believe that taking away rights will lead to a happier and safer society. These people are naive in my eyes and make great boot lickers. The war on private gun ownership is a world wide event. The U.N. supports anti-gun thoughts. The World powers really just want to control us more and have us meet there ideals.
Sometimes government ploys work like with smoking in the USA. They tax and raise the price so high people can't afford it. They also out law it in so many places makes it a hassle to do. Sometimes it doesn't like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. The governments of the world have become more united and smarter when it comes to taking away peoples rights they see as unfit. Now days they just tax or raise prices so they don't have to deal with legislative B.S.. "Hey we didn't out law it, you can still get it, but we know most of you can afford it".:rolleyes::D
I think the U.S.A. has been doing this with ammo too. Why deal with the hassle of a gun ban when you can simply make the price of ammo so unaffordable. People try to say there is a ammo shortage in the world and that is why the prices are so high. I really doubt this. Plus, I have read about how the U.N. likes to destroy surplus ammo, instead of letting it be sold on the private market. Why send in the troops if you can starve them out.:mad:

[waiting4something]

Did you know that the US was a fierce supporter and the staunchest ally of the UN in the 1945 -1970 period ?

The UN is in part an American brainchild spawned from the League of Nations in the 1920s/1930s.

Yes, well that is nothing to be proud of, is it?

[waiting4something]

Ammo manufacturers in the states are now also geared more towards 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO instead of .223 and .308 -- making those calibers even more expensive. .223 is moving towards a $1 US a round pretty quickly. They want those military contracts!

Yet, I find it hard to believe that we shoot more ammo in Iraq and Afganistan then we did in Vietnam. The 5.56mm 62 grain with the steel core penetrators are the dollar a shot ones. The 55 grain bullets can be had for around 50 cents a shot, which is still criminal. I was thinking about doing a AR in 6.8 SPC, but then I saw how much the ammo cost and said I stick with .223/5.556mm. The prices went up on ammo around 2006, they almost doubled from what they used to be. I remember when you could get some crappy Wolf ammo for under 100 bucks, now they want money for it.:(

[headquarters]

Yes, well that is nothing to be proud of, is it?


I disagree.

It all depends -the view of the UN is different from place to place and person to person .I believe -based on studies done on this side of the Atlantic that the changes in UN/US relations come from the opposition the US has faced from the UN over the last 3 - 4 decades in regards to its foreign policies .At one time the UN was more aligned with the US in its views and policies , then as a gap between the UN and the US widened a negative perception towards the UN took hold in the US.
Anyways..
That the UN should be the cause of ammo prices going up in the US seems to me to be without grounds.
The UNs work to limit ammo and small arms has nothing at all to do with domestic US policy - its to stem the tide of small arms proliferation into conflicts and wars in the third world.

That any outside party should actually be powerful enough to meddle in US domestic policy or affairs in this way also seems unlikely.

The ammo that you are referring to is more than likely surplus ammo that are present in warzones etc around the globe and that is destroyed to try to keep it from being stockpiled for round two of whatever civil war it was used in .

The law of supply and demand apply - apparently the demand is great so prices are high for some calibers.

Your best option is to try to secure a big load of a caliber you like at a reasonable price first ,and then buy the gun .

[waiting4something]

I disagree.

It all depends -the view of the UN is different from place to place and person to person .I believe -based on studies done on this side of the Atlantic that the changes in UN/US relations come from the opposition the US has faced from the UN over the last 3 - 4 decades in regards to its foreign policies .At one time the UN was more aligned with the US in its views and policies , then as a gap between the UN and the US widened a negative perception towards the UN took hold in the US.
Anyways..
That the UN should be the cause of ammo prices going up in the US seems to me to be without grounds.
The UNs work to limit ammo and small arms has nothing at all to do with domestic US policy - its to stem the tide of small arms proliferation into conflicts and wars in the third world.

That any outside party should actually be powerful enough to meddle in US domestic policy or affairs in this way also seems unlikely.

The ammo that you are referring to is more than likely surplus ammo that are present in warzones etc around the globe and that is destroyed to try to keep it from being stockpiled for round two of whatever civil war it was used in .

The law of supply and demand apply - apparently the demand is great so prices are high for some calibers.

Your best option is to try to secure a big load of a caliber you like at a reasonable price first ,and then buy the gun .

The U.N. likes to destroy surplus ammo that could be sold to the U.S. They don't really like our 2nd Amendment. I remember there was this Great UN Gun Debate between this U.N. lady Rebecca Peters and the NRA's Wayne Lapierre that really shows the true colors well. Do I think the U.N. can meddle in U.S. affairs? Yes. Especially when backed with a lot of money, or rich or powerful Americans that agree with these jokers. Actually all calibers are high priced now days, not just military ones. As far as buying ammo first why? I mean I would rather have a club then bullets to throw by hand at people. That is part of the strategy. Get the people to become ok with it. Then take a little more, and a little more, and so on.

[headquarters]

The U.N. likes to destroy surplus ammo that could be sold to the U.S. They don't really like our 2nd Amendment. I remember there was this Great UN Gun Debate between this U.N. lady Rebecca Peters and the NRA's Wayne Lapierre that really shows the true colors well. Do I think the U.N. can meddle in U.S. affairs? Yes. Especially when backed with a lot of money, or rich or powerful Americans that agree with these jokers. Actually all calibers are high priced now days, not just military ones. As far as buying ammo first why? I mean I would rather have a club then bullets to throw by hand at people. That is part of the strategy. Get the people to become ok with it. Then take a little more, and a little more, and so on.

I do not think there are any actual grounds for this statement.

I do not think there is any way to substantiate that the UN actively opposes the US constitution.(2nd amendment in particular ).

Rebecca Peters is not in any capacity working for the UN.(Googled her ).She is part of an Australian anti gun lobby organization and an international NGO in the same field.

The idea that the UN is after the 2nd amendment I think you would be hard pressed to find any facts on .
The fact that many wealthy Americans back antigun legislation and organizations is a domestic issue in the US and nothing to do with the UN whatsoever.

Again -if the UN actually destroys ammo we are talking stockpiles in warzones etc to keep from fuelling further war.I cannot see that there is anythig to suggest that the UN would buy and subsequently destroy ammo to keep it from reaching the US markets.

The US can veto any and all direct actions against any sovereign state in the security council hearings (where it is a permanent member) ,meaning that any formal action like war,blockade,sanctions ,wording of important documents etc has to be approved by the US .If Washington doesnt like-its not going to happen.

In my view the US is the one dictating the UN and not the other way around.The US could pull the plug on the whole UN by refusing to pay its yearly monetary contribution and pressuring a few other key states to back out of the organization.Poof ! UN reduced to a discussion club with no funding and would defacto collaps in less than a year.Or at least loose all legitimacy.

As for ammoprizes - I agree that they are high and would wish i could get mine cheaper.But the price of rawmaterials,labour and the general demand are to blame for the prices.

[Jason]

I agree with Headquarters on this one. I am a 2nd Amendment fanatic and I own several firearms. The opposition to the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. is not driven by the U.N., but rather by special-interest groups. Current ammo shortages are due to an over-reaction to the election of Obama.

In fact, I now have more gun rights than I did when Obama took office, so I do not understand why people are hoarding. :confused:

[waiting4something]

I yahooed Peters, and came up with the UN chronicle and she is in bed with the UN. She is the director of International Action Network on Small Arms. She may not be a UN employee, but they sure like to to listen to what she says. It find it funny how the UN also has a a statue of a Colt Python with the barrel tied in a knot.:rolleyes: If they recognize her, then that isn't a good sign.
Don't believe the U.S.A. is the power keg we used to be. Remember we are up to are necks in borrowed money. The big old U.S.A. is ok with shitting on people over money remember. That's why we like to send American jobs over sea's.

[kato13]

I kinda thought this thread was too political at the start and has certainly drifted further in that direction. Going to end it.