Facts are hard.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Click on the username. When you reach the profile, click on name history. That is how I keep track of who is who.

Ok thanks

Bah, too much work! I wish that was info that popped up when you hovered over the username.

I am graphic minded. I keep up with people by their sig in some cases.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Since facts are hard, we should clarify that chart a little.

Medical malpractice is a legal term. People don't die from medical malpractice, doctors and hospitals get sued for it. 195,000 is an estimate of people died from potentially preventable medical errors. That estimate is the upper limit made from looking at 3 years of medicare data. Some of the things they look at as potentially preventable, such as pulmonary embolism and sepsis are also complications of surgery. They can be minimized, but they can't be prevented with current technology.

The majority of these cases involve surgical patients, so the actual comparison that needs to bed done is risk of having surgery vs risk of not having surgery. They actually do that with a lot of things, including gun ownership. So here are two statistical facts:

With the exception of non-medical surgery, the risk of mortality and morbidity from not having surgery generally outweighs the risk of having surgery.

The risk of death from having a gun in the house is greater than the risk from not having one.

No one ever dies as the result of medical malpractice.. Cool give back all the money awarded for it.

Look the graphic was not actually intended to debate gun control vs medical malpractice. It's just a comparative graphic, to illustrate how few people really die from assault weapons every year.

[Dakine10 5,452]

No one ever dies as the result of medical malpractice.. Cool give back all the money awarded for it.

No, what I said is medical malpractice is a legal term. It's not the same as potentially preventable errors. The number on the chart is an estimate of mortality due to potentially preventable errors. Some of those would amount to malpractice, but many would not.

Look the graphic was not actually intended to debate gun control vs medical malpractice. It's just a comparative graphic, to illustrate how few people really die from assault weapons every year.

Is anyone here on VJ arguing the assault weapons point? You have posted it many times, but I haven't seen anyone argue that assault weapons are the only issue. I think more people have argued restrictions on access to guns, not on type of gun.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Is anyone here on VJ arguing the assault weapons point? You have posted it many times, but I haven't seen anyone argue that assault weapons are the only issue. I think more people have argued restrictions on access to guns, not on type of gun.

I disagree. Nearly have of the gun threads have focused on the type of gun. However, after explanations I think most people on VJ are either in the ban 80% of firearms camp (semiautos capable accepting more than 10 rds), or they are in the do nothing camp

Edited January 6, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[Dakine10 5,452]

I disagree. Nearly have of the gun threads have focused on the type of gun. However, after explanations I think most people on VJ are either in the ban 80% of firearms camp (semiautos capable accepting more than 10 rds), or they are in the do nothing camp

That's what I mean. Nobody here is suggesting a ban on only assault rifes would accomplish anything. I'm guessing that's why Herschel's AR topics are getting moved to off topic. There's nothing to debate in an article about a home owner using a rifle to legally and responsibly defend their home.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I was a framer one summer.. No need to google.

This thread has nothing to do with politics and religion. Should I report my own thread. LOL

So you know that an Estwing framing hammer would make a great assault weapon. In close, hand to hand even better than an assault rifle.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That's what I mean. Nobody here is suggesting a ban on only assault rifes would accomplish anything. I'm guessing that's why Herschel's AR topics are getting moved to off topic. There's nothing to debate in an article about a home owner using a rifle to legally and responsibly defend their home.

Yes they are. The national topic is ban assault weapons ...

So you know that an Estwing framing hammer would make a great assault weapon. In close, hand to hand even better than an assault rifle.

Indeed, and it pounded many a nail back in my young foolish days. I think I never meet a framer that was not a druggie or a painter that was not a drunk

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Yes they are. The national topic is ban assault weapons ...

Indeed, and it pounded many a nail back in my young foolish days. I think I never meet a framer that was not a druggie or a painter that was not a drunk

Banging nails is a good way to release pent up anger and hostility.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That's what I mean. Nobody here is suggesting a ban on only assault rifes would accomplish anything. I'm guessing that's why Herschel's AR topics are getting moved to off topic. There's nothing to debate in an article about a home owner using a rifle to legally and responsibly defend their home.

Of course there is. He used an assault weapon , the kind that everyone is trying to ban.. You been out of the country ??/ P.S. they got moved back, evidently you, Steven and one middle of the night organizer thought they were ot.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Of course there is. He used an assault weapon , the kind that everyone is trying to ban.. You been out of the country ??/ P.S. they got moved back, evidently you, Steven and one middle of the night organizer thought they were ot.

You are obsessed with "assault weapons". It's pretty much you and a couple of others starting the topics. I don't see anyone else here focusing on assault weapons unless they are responding to your posts.

I can only guess why they were moved. Whether they are OT or not I don't know or care. The entire assault weapon issue is contrived. Sometimes I start to reply to a post, but I usually just end up hitting exit. After the first few, I'm not really sure what the point is anymore.

By continuing this issue ad nauseam, I have to conclude that you don't really read the responses anyway. There's no debate here.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Frankly I'm against banning assault weapons with the exception of personal choice to make the decision not to own one on a personal level. Virtually anything can be used to inflict injury or death but that hardly makes victims of mass murder with assault weapons feel better.

And no, your personal weapons cache is not all that stands between 'we the people' and tyranny.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You are obsessed with "assault weapons". It's pretty much you and a couple of others starting the topics. I don't see anyone else here focusing on assault weapons unless they are responding to your posts.

I can only guess why they were moved. Whether they are OT or not I don't know or care. The entire assault weapon issue is contrived. Sometimes I start to reply to a post, but I usually just end up hitting exit. After the first few, I'm not really sure what the point is anymore.

By continuing this issue ad nauseam, I have to conclude that you don't really read the responses anyway. There's no debate here.

I do understand your post. The two hot topics of the day are Taxes/Debt and renewing the assault weapons ban. Yes the issue is contrived and stupid. That is my point.

[scotinmass 588]

If there were 12,000 people killed by drunk drivers then we should have more drunk drivers. That will make it safer. Everyone in Vermont drives drunk and because of this there are fewer deaths. (Or something like that)

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

If there were 12,000 people killed by drunk drivers then we should have more drunk drivers. That will make it safer. Everyone in Vermont drives drunk and because of this there are fewer deaths. (Or something like that)

if driving drunk could protect you from other drunk drivers it might work, or if you could have legal drunk drivers and illegal drunk drivers. Since it it doesn't that that is just another dumb example.

All people driving drunk are criminals. Since we have banned drunk driving, then it should not be a problem right... Circular liberal logic.. Gotta love it.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Run Herschel Run

[scotinmass 588]

if driving drunk could protect you from other drunk drivers it might work, or if you could have legal drunk drivers and illegal drunk drivers. Since it it doesn't that that is just another dumb example.

All people driving drunk are criminals. Since we have banned drunk driving, then it should not be a problem right... Circular liberal logic.. Gotta love it.

As dumb as having more guns to stop gun crime.