scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,748
|
Post by scgal on May 15, 2024 11:51:30 GMT -5
my comprehension is fine I really don't give a damn what you have done or are doing since the malpractice is still so high. My point is bark all you want about gun deaths but when I point out something that has creates higher deaths due to human error it's all defensive what else can I do blah blah blah. The thing is owning a firearm is a protected right. That is more important than Someone using them for malevolent purposes. I totally disagree. The purpose and reason for the second amendment hasn't been true for decades. So I think what follows should not be true either. I think it is also intentionally misinterpreted. The right to bear arms was not to be infringed so that a standing US army did not need to exist. It did not mean the right to have any old damn firearm that could be created. The reason for the existence of the amendment has long gone. It needs rewriting, but it would be a tough sell as many of the people who idolize their guns also idolize the idea of America having the biggest standing army on the planet. The amendment was not intended so anyone could own whatever damn gun they wanted for sport shooting or killing school children. It was so citizens could defend the country when needed. The 2a is what the supreme court says it is period. I'm good with trying to rewrite it even democrats will barely touch that subject. They will hoot and hollar but they won't get it done. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 8,031
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 15, 2024 11:53:25 GMT -5
Deflect all you want. How many dead kids will it take before you would consider any restrictions on firearms? How many? You still refuse to answer what you would be willing to do to decrease gun deaths. As to your other points, complete nonsense. You impugn the character of physicians, many of whom worked through the pandemic at significant personal risk. You claimed earlier you did not have a big up your ass about physicians, but it was just me. You just completely refuted your claim. As to malpractice injuries, nowhere does anyone claim that malpractice deaths are as high as you state. Reading comprehension is hard. It is a claim about medical errors. Malpractice requires negligence. Errors are not necessarily negligent. You also do not look at how care became safer prior yo the pandemic. Things worsened during and after, but you do not care as to why. National standards are a way to improve care, but that is either too hard for you to understand, do not care, or are trolling me th get a reaction. I guess I got under your skin about not caring about dead children. As tall guy points out, how many interactions are there with the medical system, compared to how many errors. Mistakes will always happen because humans are involved. The best way to protect patients is to put systems in place to make mistakes less common. But that is too difficult for you to understand Not deflecting at all just pointing out the obvious but you don't like it because it hits your profession. You can talk about all the national safeguards. They don't mean a thing if they are not followed, the same as laws, you know killing a person is not allowed but people still break the law. As far as what Tenn said it doesn't matter how many interactions there are in the medical system you are more likely on any given day to walk past someone who is carrying a firearm and yet you still are here alive. It is what it is you will accept medical errors deaths justifying it as a mistake just like I will justify gun ownership because it is a protected right and the person is committing the crime.q1q Here is another staggering number there is around 1 million practicing physicians in the US. There are approx 450+ firearms. Yet you are 5x more likely to die going to get some sort of procedure done. Wow talk about a mindfuck. Still won't say what you will accept to prevent gun deaths. Not that you care, but there are many initiatives underway to deal with this problem. You just think you can deflect and make me look bad with your harping on this. Safety has been a major initiative at a national level. 1 patient being harmed is too many. Unfortunately, treatments aren't perfect, patient's aren't perfect, medications have side effects, and doing something always entails risks. In addition, the studies being discussed rarely look at what would have happened if intervention is not undertaken. Many of these deaths that are being counted are in people who have serious medical conditions, and the things that happen are the result of trying to treat the condition. That being said- errors are rarely the fault of one person. Systems are helpful in preventing them. Data from high reliability industries such as airline safety and nuclear energy have provided examples for how to deal with this. A safety culture, checklists, protocols, and enabling people to "stop the line" all hve been shown to improve safety, and are being applied to medicine to help with the issue. You can see the effects in anesthesia, where the risk of serious safety issues has decreased significantly in the last 25+ years. The "swiss cheese model" of errors can be very helpful. One patient being injured is too many, but we can decrease that number. But I doubt you will stop with what you are spewing, because you would rather ridicule me than try to understand this. One final question- if I prescribe a medication, and do it electronically, and the pharmacy fills it incorrectly, is that my fault? How about bacterial contamination of IV fluids that occurs at the factory, and we use it to treat a patient. Is that the doctors fault? This is a complex, high risk system with many moving parts, and if one part does not do it job, patients suffer. But if it did not make the mistake myself, am I still to blame? And if not, I shouldn't care, right? Because that is what gun owners are saying. I didn't do it, I am not responsible, so I shouldn't be penalized. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,673
|
Post by tallguy on May 15, 2024 12:15:14 GMT -5
Deflect all you want. How many dead kids will it take before you would consider any restrictions on firearms? How many? You still refuse to answer what you would be willing to do to decrease gun deaths. As to your other points, complete nonsense. You impugn the character of physicians, many of whom worked through the pandemic at significant personal risk. You claimed earlier you did not have a big up your ass about physicians, but it was just me. You just completely refuted your claim. As to malpractice injuries, nowhere does anyone claim that malpractice deaths are as high as you state. Reading comprehension is hard. It is a claim about medical errors. Malpractice requires negligence. Errors are not necessarily negligent. You also do not look at how care became safer prior yo the pandemic. Things worsened during and after, but you do not care as to why. National standards are a way to improve care, but that is either too hard for you to understand, do not care, or are trolling me th get a reaction. I guess I got under your skin about not caring about dead children. As tall guy points out, how many interactions are there with the medical system, compared to how many errors. Mistakes will always happen because humans are involved. The best way to protect patients is to put systems in place to make mistakes less common. But that is too difficult for you to understand Not deflecting at all just pointing out the obvious but you don't like it because it hits your profession. You can talk about all the national safeguards. They don't mean a thing if they are not followed, the same as laws, you know killing a person is not allowed but people still break the law. As far as what Tenn said it doesn't matter how many interactions there are in the medical system you are more likely on any given day to walk past someone who is carrying a firearm and yet you still are here alive. It is what it is you will accept medical errors deaths justifying it as a mistake just like I will justify gun ownership because it is a protected right and the person is committing the crime.q1q Here is another staggering number there is around 1 million practicing physicians in the US. There are approx 450+ firearms. Yet you are 5x more likely to die going to get some sort of procedure done. Wow talk about a mindfuck. And you are also likely to walk past a medical practice on any given day and yet you are still here alive.  Your knowledge of even the basics about statistics is staggeringly poor. I would like to suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself by trying to cite any, but know it will be fruitless. Embarrass away! |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 8,031
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 15, 2024 12:23:23 GMT -5
Maybe it’s just me, but I think it would be more productive to talk about things like how guns get in the hands of criminals and what we can do about that. Or how they get (or stay) in the hands of people that are known to have made serious threats to kill a specific person or really, anybody. Or people that seem to be unhinged or suffering from some kind of psychiatric problem and are not living in reality. Why don’t we talk about things like that and what possible solutions might be, instead of getting sidetracked with arguing about something that is completely irrelevant and a bad comparison to gun deaths? Because the person who started it does not want to offer any solution to any of that, especially if it infringes on her special "right" to own a weapon with the ability to shatter a human body. She started it to get under my skin in order to annoy and provoke me, and to try to avoid talking about the other isssue. |
|
daisylu
Junior Associate
Enter your message here...
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 6:04:42 GMT -5
Posts: 7,609
|
Post by daisylu on May 15, 2024 12:25:47 GMT -5
Deflect all you want. How many dead kids will it take before you would consider any restrictions on firearms? How many? You still refuse to answer what you would be willing to do to decrease gun deaths. As to your other points, complete nonsense. You impugn the character of physicians, many of whom worked through the pandemic at significant personal risk. You claimed earlier you did not have a big up your ass about physicians, but it was just me. You just completely refuted your claim. As to malpractice injuries, nowhere does anyone claim that malpractice deaths are as high as you state. Reading comprehension is hard. It is a claim about medical errors. Malpractice requires negligence. Errors are not necessarily negligent. You also do not look at how care became safer prior yo the pandemic. Things worsened during and after, but you do not care as to why. National standards are a way to improve care, but that is either too hard for you to understand, do not care, or are trolling me th get a reaction. I guess I got under your skin about not caring about dead children. As tall guy points out, how many interactions are there with the medical system, compared to how many errors. Mistakes will always happen because humans are involved. The best way to protect patients is to put systems in place to make mistakes less common. But that is too difficult for you to understand Not deflecting at all just pointing out the obvious but you don't like it because it hits your profession. You can talk about all the national safeguards. They don't mean a thing if they are not followed, the same as laws, you know killing a person is not allowed but people still break the law. As far as what Tenn said it doesn't matter how many interactions there are in the medical system you are more likely on any given day to walk past someone who is carrying a firearm and yet you still are here alive. It is what it is you will accept medical errors deaths justifying it as a mistake just like I will justify gun ownership because it is a protected right and the person is committing the crime.q1q Here is another staggering number there is around 1 million practicing physicians in the US. There are approx 450+ firearms. Yet you are 5x more likely to die going to get some sort of procedure done. Wow talk about a mindfuck. Because knocking on the wrong door or pulling into the wrong driveway is a crime? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 15, 2024 13:05:03 GMT -5
CC - moon/Laura DJ-I decided to search Google for your statement of : "Their latest estimate found that approximately 251,000 lives are claimed each year because of medical error - about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States." The very first result of the search which contained your statement was the site where the statement came from. Hardly burdensome. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMSyeah, i got that. but the "article" is from some unknown law firm. the original data lies elsewhere. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 15, 2024 13:06:33 GMT -5
I totally disagree. The purpose and reason for the second amendment hasn't been true for decades. So I think what follows should not be true either. I think it is also intentionally misinterpreted. The right to bear arms was not to be infringed so that a standing US army did not need to exist. It did not mean the right to have any old damn firearm that could be created. The reason for the existence of the amendment has long gone. It needs rewriting, but it would be a tough sell as many of the people who idolize their guns also idolize the idea of America having the biggest standing army on the planet. The amendment was not intended so anyone could own whatever damn gun they wanted for sport shooting or killing school children. It was so citizens could defend the country when needed. The 2a is what the supreme court says it is period. I'm good with trying to rewrite it even democrats will barely touch that subject. They will hoot and hollar but they won't get it done. i asked you earlier when we were discussing global problems: do you believe in the constitution as a governing document? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 15, 2024 13:12:28 GMT -5
Tennesseer - so, just to be clear here, you are saying that if i type something as a question in google, and it responds in a way that does not link to any article or source, i am required to track that source down? that seems burdensome to me. but maybe that is the policy. laura/moon- care to comment? if you don't know what i am talking about, we can set up a 1:1 discussion, so i can send you screen shots. As to the first part of your reply, the data had to come from some internet source if it answered your question. There may be differing opinions as to the results of your question. Which would mean there are several linked sources on the internet. It may be burdensome to you but we cannot just throw out data as proof when there is no way to verify the source of the data. yes. it came from Google. i would send you a screen shot, but it reveals too much personal detail. there was no link cited. and for the record, i am ok with people doubting me. sometimes i am wrong. in this case i didn't verify the information. from now on, i will either write a disclaimer for each post without citation, or better yet, add it to my footnotes so it is on every post. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,748
|
Post by scgal on May 15, 2024 14:06:05 GMT -5
The 2a is what the supreme court says it is period. I'm good with trying to rewrite it even democrats will barely touch that subject. They will hoot and hollar but they won't get it done. i asked you earlier when we were discussing global problems: do you believe in the constitution as a governing document? Yes |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,748
|
Post by scgal on May 15, 2024 14:07:45 GMT -5
Not deflecting at all just pointing out the obvious but you don't like it because it hits your profession. You can talk about all the national safeguards. They don't mean a thing if they are not followed, the same as laws, you know killing a person is not allowed but people still break the law. As far as what Tenn said it doesn't matter how many interactions there are in the medical system you are more likely on any given day to walk past someone who is carrying a firearm and yet you still are here alive. It is what it is you will accept medical errors deaths justifying it as a mistake just like I will justify gun ownership because it is a protected right and the person is committing the crime.q1q Here is another staggering number there is around 1 million practicing physicians in the US. There are approx 450+ firearms. Yet you are 5x more likely to die going to get some sort of procedure done. Wow talk about a mindfuck. Because knocking on the wrong door or pulling into the wrong driveway is a crime? I should have been a little more through the person unjustifiable killing another is commiting a crime. Pulling into the wrong drive is not a crime |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,748
|
Post by scgal on May 15, 2024 14:12:53 GMT -5
Not deflecting at all just pointing out the obvious but you don't like it because it hits your profession. You can talk about all the national safeguards. They don't mean a thing if they are not followed, the same as laws, you know killing a person is not allowed but people still break the law. As far as what Tenn said it doesn't matter how many interactions there are in the medical system you are more likely on any given day to walk past someone who is carrying a firearm and yet you still are here alive. It is what it is you will accept medical errors deaths justifying it as a mistake just like I will justify gun ownership because it is a protected right and the person is committing the crime.q1q Here is another staggering number there is around 1 million practicing physicians in the US. There are approx 450+ firearms. Yet you are 5x more likely to die going to get some sort of procedure done. Wow talk about a mindfuck. And you are also likely to walk past a medical practice on any given day and yet you are still here alive. Your knowledge of even the basics about statistics is staggeringly poor. I would like to suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself by trying to cite any, but know it will be fruitless. Embarrass away! Well then show me where i'm wrong. No embarrassment here. People on this board are saying guns are the problem there are 450 plus million guns in the country. There are approx 50k killings from guns. There are approx 1 plus million DRS in the country with 250k wrongful medical deaths. So how the hell am I wrong. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,748
|
Post by scgal on May 15, 2024 14:19:02 GMT -5
Maybe it’s just me, but I think it would be more productive to talk about things like how guns get in the hands of criminals and what we can do about that. Or how they get (or stay) in the hands of people that are known to have made serious threats to kill a specific person or really, anybody. Or people that seem to be unhinged or suffering from some kind of psychiatric problem and are not living in reality. Why don’t we talk about things like that and what possible solutions might be, instead of getting sidetracked with arguing about something that is completely irrelevant and a bad comparison to gun deaths? Because the person who started it does not want to offer any solution to any of that, especially if it infringes on her special "right" to own a weapon with the ability to shatter a human body. She started it to get under my skin in order to annoy and provoke me, and to try to avoid talking about the other isssue. Not at all. I'm tired of everyone whining about guns and that something must be done with them to stop all the killing. Yet when I bring up another type of murder that has a 5x higher death rate than guns...crickets and some justify that. You even do the tried and true democrat liberal way of saying look at what i'm doing to stop it, when it isn't doing anything at all the rate keeps going up. People like you say that shit to make themselves feel better. You don't like it when I put the back on you. |
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 8,031
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 15, 2024 14:31:14 GMT -5
Because the person who started it does not want to offer any solution to any of that, especially if it infringes on her special "right" to own a weapon with the ability to shatter a human body. She started it to get under my skin in order to annoy and provoke me, and to try to avoid talking about the other isssue. Not at all. I'm tired of everyone whining about guns and that something must be done with them to stop all the killing. Yet when I bring up another type of murder that has a 5x higher death rate than guns...crickets and some justify that. You even do the tried and true democrat liberal way of saying look at what i'm doing to stop it, when it isn't doing anything at all the rate keeps going up. People like you say that shit to make themselves feel better. You don't like it when I put the back on you. No, we are actually trying to make things better instead of "thoughts and prayers' and throwing up our hands and saying there is nothing we can do. I admit we could do better. I pointed out what are some of the initiatives that are being done. But you do not want to understand the issues, you just ant to score cheap points. And you offer no solutions to gun deaths. So how do we prevent someone from being shot for knocking on the wrong door. Or do we have to just accept that s the way things are? And murder-seriously? You really need you head examined. Most of the murders happening in hospitals are attributed to nurses who are serial killers. If you are talking about people dying in the report(the results of which are seriously debated, actual number is closer to 90K), they do not fit the definition of murder. |
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,874
|
Post by thyme4change on May 15, 2024 14:58:16 GMT -5
Google is changing their algorithm to have AI answer the question rather than give you a lists of websites or articles. It will get harder to find verified sources with a simple google search.
Also, my kid’s school never locked down because a doctor was running around. I doubt very people have died because a doctor broke into a school and indiscriminately started treating kids.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 15, 2024 15:18:33 GMT -5
i asked you earlier when we were discussing global problems: do you believe in the constitution as a governing document? Yes me too. are you familiar with the letters that Jefferson and Madison exchanged on the Bill of Rights? i find it fascinating. Jefferson was quite clear in those documents what the second amendment was for. Wilson undermined the 2nd amendment considerably. the Supreme Court's error in 2010 was nothing compared to that error, which is now over a century old. i am less concerned with what the SCOTUS did than what Wilson did. i would very much like to get back to the original meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment, but i fear we have completely lost the forest for the trees at this juncture. the constitution also binds us to treaties, which is another issue we discussed recently. Article 2, section 2, requires us to abide by treaties as if they were constitutional law. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,673
|
Post by tallguy on May 15, 2024 17:23:21 GMT -5
Because the person who started it does not want to offer any solution to any of that, especially if it infringes on her special "right" to own a weapon with the ability to shatter a human body. She started it to get under my skin in order to annoy and provoke me, and to try to avoid talking about the other isssue. Not at all. I'm tired of everyone whining about guns and that something must be done with them to stop all the killing. Yet when I bring up another type of murder that has a 5x higher death rate than guns...crickets and some justify that. You even do the tried and true democrat liberal way of saying look at what i'm doing to stop it, when it isn't doing anything at all the rate keeps going up. People like you say that shit to make themselves feel better. You don't like it when I put the back on you. You are wrong multiple times just in the highlighted phrase. First, the number of "murders" in a hospital or medical setting is extremely low, and probably in the single digits nationwide over a multiple-year period. Murder is a legal term that requires intent. Second, the death rate is not 5x higher for medical error. The absolute number of deaths involved may be 5x higher, but the rate is much lower. Using your definition, over the last 75 years you are infinitely more likely to die by gunfire than by having an atomic bomb dropped on you. That statement is true, yet meaningless. Now, if you did have an atomic bomb dropped on you then you and hundreds of thousands of others would obviously die. If an atomic bomb were dropped then the rate of deaths per atomic bomb detonation would certainly by higher than for gun discharge, but the absolute numbers are meaningless without context. You are trying to conflate absolute numbers with rates. It doesn't work that way. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,347
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 15, 2024 18:12:54 GMT -5
I totally disagree. The purpose and reason for the second amendment hasn't been true for decades. So I think what follows should not be true either. I think it is also intentionally misinterpreted. The right to bear arms was not to be infringed so that a standing US army did not need to exist. It did not mean the right to have any old damn firearm that could be created. The reason for the existence of the amendment has long gone. It needs rewriting, but it would be a tough sell as many of the people who idolize their guns also idolize the idea of America having the biggest standing army on the planet. The amendment was not intended so anyone could own whatever damn gun they wanted for sport shooting or killing school children. It was so citizens could defend the country when needed. The 2a is what the supreme court says it is period. I'm good with trying to rewrite it even democrats will barely touch that subject. They will hoot and hollar but they won't get it done. It won't get rewritten now for the obvious reason too many gun owners believe the second amendment entitles them to any gun they want without restriction. |
|
Pink Cashmere
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 24, 2022 16:18:40 GMT -5
Posts: 5,546
Member is Online
|
Post by Pink Cashmere on May 15, 2024 18:38:00 GMT -5
Because the person who started it does not want to offer any solution to any of that, especially if it infringes on her special "right" to own a weapon with the ability to shatter a human body. She started it to get under my skin in order to annoy and provoke me, and to try to avoid talking about the other isssue. Not at all. I'm tired of everyone whining about guns and that something must be done with them to stop all the killing. Yet when I bring up another type of murder that has a 5x higher death rate than guns...crickets and some justify that. You even do the tried and true democrat liberal way of saying look at what i'm doing to stop it, when it isn't doing anything at all the rate keeps going up. People like you say that shit to make themselves feel better. You don't like it when I put the back on you. I think that what you call “whining” about guns, is really expressing valid concerns about how they are being used to commit crimes, including mass murders. I have lived in or near a city my whole life, that is now one of the most dangerous cities in the country. Guns are used in the vast majority of those crimes. Even though I, like you, appreciate being able to lawfully be a responsible gun owner if I choose to do that, I am also willing to admit that guns have become a very real problem problem in our society, and I am open to participating in honest conversations about possible solutions to the problems. I am also open to realistic solutions being implemented and made law, even if that means it is no longer possible for me to just go buy a gun with the process as easy as it currently is. I suggest to you, that if you really care about the subject of the right to own firearms, and have a problem with what you perceive as people wanting or trying to take away your right to do so, you should maybe consider that the way you come across and the arguments you make, don’t make people that could maybe otherwise be persuaded to see your side of the debate, want to help you protect something that is clearly very important to you. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,347
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 15, 2024 18:39:32 GMT -5
Because the person who started it does not want to offer any solution to any of that, especially if it infringes on her special "right" to own a weapon with the ability to shatter a human body. She started it to get under my skin in order to annoy and provoke me, and to try to avoid talking about the other isssue. Not at all. I'm tired of everyone whining about guns and that something must be done with them to stop all the killing. Yet when I bring up another type of murder that has a 5x higher death rate than guns...crickets and some justify that. You even do the tried and true democrat liberal way of saying look at what i'm doing to stop it, when it isn't doing anything at all the rate keeps going up. People like you say that shit to make themselves feel better. You don't like it when I put the back on you. Well I think there is going to be complaining about gun deaths and mass shooting events until they start dropping and are being addressed. Trying to bring up other kind of deaths is not going to change how people feel about school shootings, neighbors shooting neighbors over petty disputes, people getting killed by a gun that didn't deserve it. I do not particularly like when someone tries to deflect to something else when discussing a topic. I'm not alone in that. I don't believe your stats nor do I want to research it much. You posted a very simplistic view on deaths that hopefully could have been prevented medically. There is an entire cast of characters, not just doctors involved in healthcare. Nurses, aides, insurance companies, drug companies. manufacturing companies of drugs, medical devices etc. Insurance denials, insurance restrictions ... Fun with cherry picked stats - www.statista.com/topics/1294/death/#topicOverviewIn 2021, there was a record number of drug overdose deaths, with most of these deaths involving opioids. Fentanyl, an extremely potent synthetic opioid, accounted for around 70,600 deaths in 2021.
Cancer caused over 602 thousand deaths in the United States in 2020.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,748
|
Post by scgal on May 16, 2024 7:49:26 GMT -5
me too. are you familiar with the letters that Jefferson and Madison exchanged on the Bill of Rights? i find it fascinating. Jefferson was quite clear in those documents what the second amendment was for. Wilson undermined the 2nd amendment considerably. the Supreme Court's error in 2010 was nothing compared to that error, which is now over a century old. i am less concerned with what the SCOTUS did than what Wilson did. i would very much like to get back to the original meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment, but i fear we have completely lost the forest for the trees at this juncture. the constitution also binds us to treaties, which is another issue we discussed recently. Article 2, section 2, requires us to abide by treaties as if they were constitutional law. OK we can talk about the 2a. Why was Wilson wrong in saying that you have the right to keep guns to protect yourself and property? It makes perfect sense to me. It keeps in step with the 2010 SC decision. As far as treaties personally I think they are bullshit something nice to put on paper but since I also don't recognize united nations at all I don't care if they are broken. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,748
|
Post by scgal on May 16, 2024 7:59:09 GMT -5
Not at all. I'm tired of everyone whining about guns and that something must be done with them to stop all the killing. Yet when I bring up another type of murder that has a 5x higher death rate than guns...crickets and some justify that. You even do the tried and true democrat liberal way of saying look at what i'm doing to stop it, when it isn't doing anything at all the rate keeps going up. People like you say that shit to make themselves feel better. You don't like it when I put the back on you. I think that what you call “whining” about guns, is really expressing valid concerns about how they are being used to commit crimes, including mass murders. I have lived in or near a city my whole life, that is now one of the most dangerous cities in the country. Guns are used in the vast majority of those crimes. Even though I, like you, appreciate being able to lawfully be a responsible gun owner if I choose to do that, I am also willing to admit that guns have become a very real problem problem in our society, and I am open to participating in honest conversations about possible solutions to the problems. I am also open to realistic solutions being implemented and made law, even if that means it is no longer possible for me to just go buy a gun with the process as easy as it currently is. I suggest to you, that if you really care about the subject of the right to own firearms, and have a problem with what you perceive as people wanting or trying to take away your right to do so, you should maybe consider that the way you come across and the arguments you make, don’t make people that could maybe otherwise be persuaded to see your side of the debate, want to help you protect something that is clearly very important to you. I really don't care about persuading anyone. This whole too many guns out there whining is wrong that is why I brought up the medical error deaths. Both deaths are due to people there is really very little you can do about them. On the medical side as our resident DR here points out there are committees and review boards on practices but in the end it is all bullshit the numbers are staggering it will not change until people do a better job. On the murders by firearm, the whole idea of less available guns then less murders when out of 450 million guns only a handful of those are used for the wrong intent. Since we can't fix the people then lets go after the weapons. You cannot do anything about it until people change. Nothing should be done to restrict gun ownership more than what there already is. |
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,874
|
Post by thyme4change on May 16, 2024 8:21:17 GMT -5
I think that what you call “whining” about guns, is really expressing valid concerns about how they are being used to commit crimes, including mass murders. I have lived in or near a city my whole life, that is now one of the most dangerous cities in the country. Guns are used in the vast majority of those crimes. Even though I, like you, appreciate being able to lawfully be a responsible gun owner if I choose to do that, I am also willing to admit that guns have become a very real problem problem in our society, and I am open to participating in honest conversations about possible solutions to the problems. I am also open to realistic solutions being implemented and made law, even if that means it is no longer possible for me to just go buy a gun with the process as easy as it currently is. I suggest to you, that if you really care about the subject of the right to own firearms, and have a problem with what you perceive as people wanting or trying to take away your right to do so, you should maybe consider that the way you come across and the arguments you make, don’t make people that could maybe otherwise be persuaded to see your side of the debate, want to help you protect something that is clearly very important to you. I really don't care about persuading anyone. This whole too many guns out there whining is wrong that is why I brought up the medical error deaths. Both deaths are due to people there is really very little you can do about them. On the medical side as our resident DR here points out there are committees and review boards on practices but in the end it is all bullshit the numbers are staggering it will not change until people do a better job. On the murders by firearm, the whole idea of less available guns then less murders when out of 450 million guns only a handful of those are used for the wrong intent. Since we can't fix the people then lets go after the weapons. You cannot do anything about it until people change. Nothing should be done to restrict gun ownership more than what there already is. Cool - then can we fund mental health programs? Maybe make getting a living wage easier? Educate young people about contraception and give them an easy path to get it so they don’t end up with unwanted children, who grow up to be troubled adults? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2024 8:27:15 GMT -5
me too. are you familiar with the letters that Jefferson and Madison exchanged on the Bill of Rights? i find it fascinating. Jefferson was quite clear in those documents what the second amendment was for. Wilson undermined the 2nd amendment considerably. the Supreme Court's error in 2010 was nothing compared to that error, which is now over a century old. i am less concerned with what the SCOTUS did than what Wilson did. i would very much like to get back to the original meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment, but i fear we have completely lost the forest for the trees at this juncture. the constitution also binds us to treaties, which is another issue we discussed recently. Article 2, section 2, requires us to abide by treaties as if they were constitutional law. OK we can talk about the 2a. W hy was Wilson wrong in saying that you have the right to keep guns to protect yourself and property? It makes perfect sense to me. It keeps in step with the 2010 SC decision. As far as treaties personally I think they are bullshit something nice to put on paper but since I also don't recognize united nations at all I don't care if they are broken.no. Wilson never said that. in fact, what he did undermines the second amendment considerably. i would say that the SCOTUS decision has some teeth without Wilson. with him? it is in direct conflict, imo. treaties have the force of law through our constitution. it actually doesn't matter how anyone "feels" about that, just as it doesn't matter how anyone "feels" about the 2nd amendment. it just is a matter of fact, law, and consistency. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2024 8:28:49 GMT -5
PS- i would gladly post some of the exchange between Madison and Jefferson, if you haven't read it scgal. i think it is really interesting, and important. but i don't want to bore you with it if you are not curious about it. |
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,748
|
Post by scgal on May 16, 2024 9:11:55 GMT -5
PS- i would gladly post some of the exchange between Madison and Jefferson, if you haven't read it scgal . i think it is really interesting, and important. but i don't want to bore you with it if you are not curious about it. I am interested |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,673
|
Post by tallguy on May 16, 2024 13:29:30 GMT -5
PS- i would gladly post some of the exchange between Madison and Jefferson, if you haven't read it scgal . i think it is really interesting, and important. but i don't want to bore you with it if you are not curious about it. I am interested That rings pretty hollow, considering you didn't seem interested when I posted to you before not only that a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has called this Second Amendment nonsense one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the public, that the Supreme Court had NEVER until 2010 held in favor of an individual right to own guns, and that language specifically ensuring an individual right to own guns was debated AND REJECTED during the writing of the Second Amendment. You cling to your opinions, as ill-informed as they are, because that is all you have. Worse, it seems to be all you want to have. So...prove me wrong. Address those, and engage in the discussion with dj. I doubt anyone will convince you, because you are too wedded to your own interests and desires at the expense of everyone and everything else, but the discussion has value for anyone open to it. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2024 14:30:01 GMT -5
PS- i would gladly post some of the exchange between Madison and Jefferson, if you haven't read it scgal . i think it is really interesting, and important. but i don't want to bore you with it if you are not curious about it. I am interested ok. one of the more interesting ones is posted here: press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s46.htmlhere is the most relevant part. if you carefully review this, you will find that most of these negative laws* form the bill of rights in order. this passage at the end of this letter ended up forming the first and second amendment: A declaration that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing any thing they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed. The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished, does not give impunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error. The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14. years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression. If no check can be found to keep the number of standing troops within safe bounds, while they are tolerated as far as necessary, abandon them altogether, discipline well the militia, and guard the magazines with them. More than magazine-guards will be useless if few, and dangerous if many. No European nation can ever send against us such a regular army as we need fear, and it is hard if our militia are not equal to those of Canada or Florida. My idea then is, that tho' proper exceptions to these general rules are desirable and probably practicable, yet if the exceptions cannot be agreed on, the establishment of the rules in all cases will do ill in very few. I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government, as they are already guarded against their state governments in most instances. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2024 14:33:21 GMT -5
i forgot to note that what i sometimes call Amendment 1.5 never made it to the floor. Jefferson was fervently against monopolies. he was also against perpetual corporations. he felt that both would lead to oligarchy. if you leave that part out, the passage above approximates the reasoning for the first and second amendment from the perspective of the guy who crafted them.
edit: if you are wondering what corporations or monopolies should be tolerated for fourteen years, it is those that serve a public interest, like making a transcontinental railroad (an example that he would have supported) or sending a man to the moon. his feeling was that such corporations should be dissolved as soon as their work is done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2024 15:13:01 GMT -5
PS- this is one of MANY letters on this subject. if you want more i can provide it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,358
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 17, 2024 9:21:03 GMT -5
Oh come now the words of a man from 200 years ago doesn't matter in 2024. You shouldn't be trying to interpret things through the lens of an 18th Century mindset.
Unless it's about abortion, gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything else conservatives don't like and it suits their agenda to point towards the "original intent" of the Constitution.
|
|
