Re: OT /Interesting amusing statistic

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Jun 19, 7:56=EF=BF=BDam, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 5:53=EF=BF=BDpm, "Robert L Bass" <Sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jim" wrote:
>
> > > Doctors vs Gun owners:
>
> > > Doctors :
> > > (A) The number of physicians in the U.S.. is 700,000.
>
> > > (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
>
> > > (C) Accidental deaths per physician =EF=BF=BDis =EF=BF=BD0.171.
>
> > > Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
>
> > > So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more
> > > dangerous than gun owners.
>
> > The quoted statistics don't take into account the more significant issu=
e of
> > "number of overall incidents." =EF=BF=BDLet us assume that the average =
doctor sees 30
> > patients per day. =EF=BF=BDNow let us assume that gun owners accidental=
ly fire their
> > weapons only once every 10 years.
>
> > If we multiply the number of doctors (700,000) by patients per day (30)=
 and
> > again multiply the result by number of days the average doctor actually=
 works
> > in a given year (say 200) we have 4,200,000,000 doctor-patient interact=
ions
> > per year. =EF=BF=BDDivide this into 120,000 and we find that you have a=
 0.000028
> > chance of dying from a doctor visit.
>
> > Now take the number of accidental gunshots -- 8,000,000 owners once eve=
ry 10
> > years. =EF=BF=BD1,500 of these accidental discharges result in deaths. =
=EF=BF=BDDivide 1,500
> > by (80,000,000/10) and we find that the likelihood of death from accide=
ntal
> > discharge of a firearm is 0.0001875. =EF=BF=BDThus the chance of dying =
from any given
> > accidental discharge of a firearm is nearly 7 times that of visiting a =
doctor.
>
> > This does not take into account the number of people who die of heart a=
ttacks
> > after receiving the physicians' bills. =EF=BF=BDIt also does not take i=
nto
> > consideration the probability that all of the statistics in the cited r=
eport
> > were made up on the spot by the author of the report, just like the one=
s I
> > just made up. =EF=BF=BD:^)
>
> > --
>
> > Regards,
> > Robert L Bass
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>
> > Bass Home Electronics
> > DIY Alarm and Home Automation Storehttp://www.bassburglaralarms.com
> > Sales & Service 941-870-2310
> > Fax 941-870-3252
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>
>
> RHC: Although both posts were made "tongue in cheek", it does
> illustrate how the gun hating and other paranoid groups use the same
> kind of approach to "prove" any number of ridiculous claims about the
> harm of private gun ownership. Distortion of the truth by the misuse
> of statistics is the name of the game in both the US and Canada on any
> number of issues (not just the gun control issue but definately with
> the gun control issue). You always have to look at the source of any
> report to get the true "colour" of the facts....
>
> =EF=BF=BDI think one of our long dead Prime Ministers said it correctly w=
hen
> faced with a poll showing stats that weren't in his favour..." Polls
> are for dogs to pee on...."-

Robert, how is the situation going up your way? Has it quited down or
are they still hell bent on taking away your right of self defense?