Doctors vs Gunowners

[phylo_roadking]

meanwhile, on the issue of legal firearms possesion and the safety aspects of gun ownership....

[pzrmeyer2]

Hey John,

here's an Ohio tale of progress and diversity for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/us/17 ... ref=slogin

your neighborhood?

[Paddy Keating]

Closer to topic, George Orwell could never be described as a reactionary but he summed up the need for armed citizenry when he remarked "that rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." Orwell was not thinking of self-defence against delinquents but more of a guarantee against the excesses of the State. As as we have seen time and again throughout history, organised violence is the only effective means of communication when faced with corrupt government, as Republican guerillas in Ulster proved, even though it took them thirty years.

Coming back on topic, doctors are probably more dangerous than guns. They are probably responsible for more death and injury. However, scalpels, pills and hypodermics are not as emotive as pistols and rifles, even though the the hypodermic full of allegedly HIV-tainted blood is the weapon of choice for many an mugger looking for the money for his next fix. In his hands, the hypodermic is more frightening than a Glock. Yet junkies with hypodermics are not known to have killed as many people as doctors and their teams have killed with hypodermics.

Look at this statistical table in which two of the most notorious massacres involving guns in Britain pale are compared to the total tally racked up by a General Practitioner. Only about 250 of the doctors victims were judged to have been murdered. The rest were attributed to normal deaths while in his care. Mind you, he signed the death certificates.

Gunman Michael Ryan (Hungerford) AK47, M1 & Beretta - 16 + a dog

Gunman Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) Browning HP/S&W .357 - 17 + Self

Dr Harold Shipman GP (Manchester) - medical equipment - 459

While the government relieved law-abiding gunowners of their firearms as a result, there are still a lot of doctors out there in circulation. As I said, it's all to do with social class and image. If he wears a suit, speaks with a plummy accent, smells of malt whiskey and has a signet ring on his pinky, he can kill whoever he likes without anyone paying too much attention to the sudden drop in quarterly state pension payouts and other benefits as the over-70 population plummets in his area. Shipman was caught because he wasn't one of the chaps. He had a regional accent. So people didn't trust him as much.

Therefore, the question must surely be amended to "Upper Class Doctors Versus Guns" because we have no idea how many posh doctors there are out there murdering away with impunity. Of course, the richer you are when you're old, the longer they'll keep you alive. So, all you Senior Citizens out there: make sure you're expensively dressed when you go out, even if it's from thrift shops, in case you have an accident and end up in hospital near a loaded doctor.



PK

[Tom Houlihan]

Closer to topic, George Orwell could never be described as a reactionary but he summed up the need for armed citizenry when he remarked "that rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." Orwell was not thinking of self-defence against delinquents but more of a guarantee against the excesses of the State. As as we have seen time and again throughout history, organised violence is the only effective means of communication when faced with corrupt government, as Republican guerillas in Ulster proved, even though it took them thirty years.

That was essentially the original intent of the Second Amendment. Of course, at that time there were still marauding natives (upset for some reason, something about land?), over-spill of European rivalries, plus the number of hungry animals was rather larger in those days.

While I understand why some people would like to see guns taken away from the average person, I am inclined to disagree. Anybody remember when Florida passed their 'right to carry' law a while back? Remember how robberies and muggings of natives dropped off and tourists became the targets? If you knew there was a good chance the 'local' was armed, but the tourist was guaranteed not to be, who would you hit?

Unfortunately, there is a predatory strata in this country. They are vicious, self-centered, and rather difficult to control. They have no limits. Young, old, male, female, even cops. They often get away with their depredations. If their potential victims were armed and trained, the number of these thugs would begin to drop off.

[phylo_roadking]

plus the number of hungry animals was rather larger in those days.

Out on the frontier - which wasn't TOO many days' walk from the Atlantic seaboard in those days - there were plenty of hungry humans looking for animals too!

[lwd]

Unfortunately, an NRA-approved HS (Hunter's Safety) course is NOT mandated for firearms' owenership in the majority of US states ...

I suspect that is why there has been a drop in the number of deaths due to suicide and accident in Michigan even though the number of guns owned and owners has increased. The Michigan right to carry laws require an apporved training/safty class. It's apparently quite through and very worthwhile.

[Annelie]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

International Homicide Rate Table (Death rates are per 100,000)

[lwd]

Interesting but essentially meaningless. Note that it states in the table that 23% of Finish homes have firearms but a foot note mentions a source that states 50% do. Also the Swiss number seams low is this because it doesn't include the state ownded weapons stored at home? As they say data is so confounded that it's of little use in the gun ownership vs violence debate.

I do find the Michingan numbers particularly significant by the way. One of the factors here is that economic down turns are often associated with increased crime of all types including violence and increased suicide rates. For at least most of the last 6 years Michigan has been in such a state but the both the gun crime and non gun crime death rates have fallen.

[John W. Howard]

Hello Erik:
Shaker Heights is about an hour away from me. Another sad story. My brother lived in a similar type of community in Chicago: very affluent, liberal("a nuclear free zone" was posted on all of the town's sign boards), with good schools, but right on the edge of a very destitute part of Chicago. No child was safe on a bicycle in my brother's suburb; kids from the city would beat the suburban kids senseless and steal their bikes. Then there was the issue of basketball hoops: any suburban home-owner who had a basketball hoop could wake at any hour of the day or night to find groups of inner-city youths using their hoops. If the home-owner protested, he was usually beaten, and always the hoops were torn from his garage. The suburb had a tradition of a summer side-walk-sale/ block-party up until the year a group of rampaging youths from the city knocked people over, stole merchandise, and upset the tables the merchandise was on. The final straw for my brother was a summer evening when he took his wife and three daughters to get ice-cream- cones and they were followed by three inner-city youths, who repeatedly made explicit sexual references about my brother's daughters. My brother, who is 6'4", went up to them and confronted them face-to-face; he told them he had had enough of their crap. After mocking him for a few seconds, they walked away. I think my brother, along with one or two of them, is probably lucky to be alive. Not long after that my brother moved his family to a more conservative suburb, where such garbage is not tolerated. He has never been happier.

[pzrmeyer2]

Interesting but essentially meaningless.

completely concur.

A deeper, and truly objective examination would show other factors are conclusively more inidicative of high violence rates, gun or otherwise. Sadly, despite the obvious, this makes some types here uncomfortable, and so we cannot discuss it openly.[/list]

[Paddy Keating]

Free discussion is, indeed, a thing of the past here, as Erik says. This is no reflection on the moderator team in place here for over a year. John W. Howard, Commissar D, the Evil, Tom Houlihan and sniper1shot have been very correct. But there is a new repression abroad. We feel that we shall be deleted, edited or bullied into toeing the line. FG was never like this.

PK

[Jason Pipes]

Sadly, despite the obvious, this makes some types here uncomfortable, and so we cannot discuss it openly

But there is a new repression abroad. We feel that we shall be deleted, edited or bullied into toeing the line. FG was never like this.

Nothing of the sort is true. The issue has ZERO to do with making people uncomfortable, it has to do with the fact that Soldatenheim and now the Verboten section are on this forum as a collection point for off-topic posts, not as a place where users are supposed to spend all their time and energy posting. They are just that, off-topic. The topic is not uncomfortable, it's simply off-topic. In addition, we have new guidelines in place requesting users refrain from talking about or posting on their personal political view points. This is a research site, not a place to further your own personal viewpoints on xyz topic. For the most part no one here cares what your personal political or social views are. This is a place for discussion of facts and questions and answers to matters of historical importance. This has been made clear over and over again in the past month.

Do not spin this issue as being one about curtailing freedom of speech and people being uncomfortable discussing certain aspects of heated subjects. We are directing the flow of discussion here to fall within some very specific guidelines which includes leaving out your personal political views. There is nothing more to it than that. Keep in mind every post in the off-topic areas of the site are just that, off-topic. They are allowed at our liberty and to help foster a collection point for stuff we'd normally delete immediately. We find this to be a kind gesture to our users in order to respect their ability to chat about different subjects from time to time. We all do it. But don't abuse the fact that these sections exist because every post in them is target for removal at any time for any reason. More so if posts stray into areas we are now requesting users refrain from posting, namely personal political and social views.

I trust this is the last we will have to make mention of this matter.

[Paddy Keating]

It is true that these sections tend to be excessively attractive and are hard to resist. Mind you, in my case, that's probably because my areas of interest within the parameters of this website are quite precise and specialised and interest in them doesn't seem very widespread.

PK

[John W. Howard]

Hello Paddy:
I am not so sure there is a lack of interest in your areas of expertise relative to this site; I learn a lot from your posts about awards and Fallschirmjägers and you are an excellent teacher, and I know others feel the same. Best wishes.

[Paddy Keating]

Of course, I haven't self-published a book on these subjects so I ought not to be taken too seriously.

PK