MichaelJR
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,089
- Reaction score
- 518
- Location
- Suckachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
There are close to 200,000 medical malpractice deaths a year.
Couldn't agree with you more. 88,000,000 people typically purchase them for protection/fun/hunting/zombies
So, 20-30,000 is a tiny percentage of misuse.
Thank you. I was waiting for some backup on this.
Medical field as well?
I am not denying there is medical malpractice, but it seems like you are arguing that the average patient would be better off not going to a doctor than going to one, since they are more dangerous than guns. Even if this is not what you are trying to say, its the message that stat delivers, at least to me it is.
I am not denying there is medical malpractice, but it seems like you are arguing that the average patient would be better off not going to a doctor than going to one, since they are more dangerous than guns. Even if this is not what you are trying to say, its the message that stat delivers, at least to me it is.
ok I see the point you are trying to make here Michael, but in my opinion you are missing the issue a bit. The point isnt to try to remove anything that is dangerous to people from our society. There is always a cost-benefit analysis done in determining the amount of regulation. Car accidents, for instance, is one of the leading causes of death in the US. Certainly we could cut down on such fatalities by banning cars all together, but society gets too much of a benefit from the existence of cars that such a ban is impractical. This doesn't stop us from regulating cars, does it? We have speed regulators, airbag/seatbelt laws, mandatory crash testing, ABS, etc etc. We do this because while we want the benefits driving provides, we still recognize the inherent danger of driving. The same can be said about the medical field, hence why doctors are required to provide patients with informed consent, patients can sue doctors for malpractice, etc. So we can't we regulate guns under this same logic?
Because the right to drive was not incorporated into the constitution.
ok I see the point you are trying to make here Michael, but in my opinion you are missing the issue a bit. The point isnt to try to remove anything that is dangerous to people from our society. There is always a cost-benefit analysis done in determining the amount of regulation. Car accidents, for instance, is one of the leading causes of death in the US. Certainly we could cut down on such fatalities by banning cars all together, but society gets too much of a benefit from the existence of cars that such a ban is impractical. This doesn't stop us from regulating cars, does it? We have speed regulators, airbag/seatbelt laws, mandatory crash testing, ABS, etc etc. We do this because while we want the benefits driving provides, we still recognize the inherent danger of driving. The same can be said about the medical field, hence why doctors are required to provide patients with informed consent, patients can sue doctors for malpractice, etc. So we can't we regulate guns under this same logic?
Who says we don't there are laws in the books that if 100% followed would keep guns out the hands of most crooks. But we don't/can't enforce them 100% of the time. People steal guns. People sell them to others on black markets. Sometimes people even obtain them lawfully and jump through all the hoops then use them in a criminal act. Most people that own them aren't the ones that use them for crimes. The problem is when people just say regulate them more. There is no regulation that will stop someone that wants to brake laws from braking them. It will add more the penalty in the end but if they are willing to risk death, a fine, and waiting period will not stop them.
Who voted for this law in the first place? And why are you complaining about it now? Did you just find out about it and immediately went into a rant?
you are generally going to make ignorant posts if you assume such things about me. I am not ranting nor am I new to this issue.
ok I see the point you are trying to make here Michael, but in my opinion you are missing the issue a bit. The point isnt to try to remove anything that is dangerous to people from our society. There is always a cost-benefit analysis done in determining the amount of regulation. Car accidents, for instance, is one of the leading causes of death in the US. Certainly we could cut down on such fatalities by banning cars all together, but society gets too much of a benefit from the existence of cars that such a ban is impractical. This doesn't stop us from regulating cars, does it? We have speed regulators, airbag/seatbelt laws, mandatory crash testing, ABS, etc etc. We do this because while we want the benefits driving provides, we still recognize the inherent danger of driving. The same can be said about the medical field, hence why doctors are required to provide patients with informed consent, patients can sue doctors for malpractice, etc. So we can't we regulate guns under this same logic?
That is potentially dangerous logic. It looks good on the surface but should cost-benefit equation be applied equally in other areas as well? Why is it that alcohol, which offers no compelling benefit at all to society (short of getting a buzz) is acceptable, yet firearms require more in-depth scrutiny? The fact that alcohol causes exponentially more tragedy (rapes, murders, beatings etc.) and costs to society than firearms yet is even easier to aquire and abuse is even more mind blowing.
The right to free speech is, that doesn't mean you can say anything you want (obscenity, fighting words, child pornography, libel/slander, etc)
The right to be presented with a warrant before undergoing a government search or seizure is, it doesn't mean the police cannot search you or arrest you without a warrant if there are imminent circumstances.
There are exceptions/restrictions/regulations to virtually every amendment to the bill of rights. Just as you are a medical student and I respect your knowledge in the medical arena, I am a lawyer, and would ask for the same respect in return.
Alcohol creates more tax revenue. Sweden practically lives off the taxes they collect from boozy tourists.
I know it was not your intent but, in essence, society is able to overlook the alcoholism, rapes (isn't Sweden the rape capitol of europe?), deaths, murders, family breakups etc. because the taxes generated are "worth it".
(isn't Sweden the rape capitol of europe?), .
The Buck Stops Here. Image - Bing ImagesHow did Obama shut down the government? Nothing ever reached his desk.
Oh, I forgot. "OBAMA BAAAAD." If something bad happens, it's Obama's fault. My mistake.
I know I am getting old, but when I was a kid, Sweden was one of the least likely places a woman would be raped.
Those regulations to free speech (and other amendments) only kick in when there has been harm to or potentially harms someone. Ownership of a firearm causes no harm and is no more a potential threat to anyone than buying a 24 pack of a cold, frosty, malted beverage.
How did Obama shut down the government? Nothing ever reached his desk.
Oh, I forgot. "OBAMA BAAAAD." If something bad happens, it's Obama's fault. My mistake.
I appreciate this may generate a similar topic line to the M-16 thread but why do you see undetectable weapons as being without need for regulation?. I would have thought this would be at least one area where even the NRA and gun right supporters may see the need for regulation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?