How many lives are saved by doctors? How many lives are saved by guns?

Is the number of lives saved by doctors - (deaths from malpractice - deaths from malpractice in cases where the patient would have died without medical care anyway) greater or smaller than the number of lives saved by guns - (the number of lives taken by guns - the number of lives taken by guns in self defence saving a life at the same time)?

I would guess maybe the doctors are more useful than the guns.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS EVEN A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION!!!!!

WE ALL *EVERYONE* STAND HERE FREE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES AND THE USE OF FIREARMS TO THAT EFFECT. HOW MANY WOULD HITLER HAVE KILLED? HOW MANY MORE PLANES WOULD FLY THROUGH BUILDINGS. HOW MANY MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE WOULD BE MURDERED IF THEY HAD NO WAY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES? YOU CANNOT TAKE GUNS FROM CRIMINALS BECAUSE THEY ARE OBTAINED FROM OUTSIDE THE LAW!!! NO ONE KNOWS THEY HAVE THEM UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE!!! WHAT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT IS THE PERSON BEHIND THE GUN. WITH OR WITHOUT GUNS YOU WILL STILL HAVE PEOPLE KILLING EACH OTHER AS THEY HAVE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE THIS BLOG EVER EXISTED. BE IT CLUBS, ROCKS, KNIVES, CARS, BOMBS MADE FROM HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS, OR SOMEONE'S BEAR HANDS,THIS WEB SERVER DOESN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO LIST EVERYTHING THAT IS A POTENTIAL DEADLY WEAPON. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!! OR THEMSELVES!!! ACCIDENT OR INTENT!!! ALL GUN BANS WILL ACCOMPLISH IS LEAVING ILLEGALLY OBTAINED WEAPONS IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS AND NONE IN THE HANDS OF THE INNOCENT LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. IF IT'S POPULATION CONTROL YOU'RE AFTER THIS WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE METHOD!

Including the Holocaust?

I didn't read the stuff you shouted later.

it's "bare hands" (exposed hands) not "bear hands" (hands of a large omnivorous animal of the family "Ursidae")

The problem is people don't really understand the Constitution. When reading things like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence you must view things from the perspectives of the Founding Fathers to truly understand those documents. From the perspective at the time they were all admitted though reluctant traitors to the crown, not the patriots they are viewed to be by modern society.

The Founding Fathers were STRONGLY against a single person controlling an oppressive all powerful government. The majority of the Constitution as originally written is full of checks and balances to keep the federal government or any individual in it from becoming too big or too powerful. Several amendments to the Constitution have eroded many checks and balances allowing the government to do things it was never supposed to be able to do.

The right to bear arms was NOT included in the Constitution because the founders were worried about the personal safety of the citizenry or hunting rights. The second amendment was created because the men leading this NEW nation were concerned with 2 things.

1. Replacing one oppressive government with another oppressive government.

2. The very real threat of invasion from a foreign power seeking to challenge the newly formed union.

What is the best way to keep a powerful, corrupt government from using military might to subjugate and oppress its citizens? The answer of course is you arm the citizens nearly as well as the military and provide them at least the basic knowledge of how to use their arms.

The second portion of the problem is also solved by arming the citizenry. Instead of like most countries in the world any country that invades the United States must not only fight military and police forces on the battlefield, but door to door, house to house against every single American.

Many people don't understand the terminology or reasoning behind the second amendment. When militias are talked about they mean ORDINARY CITIZENS TRAINED AS SOLDIERS THAT ARE NOT PART OF ANY ARMY. When the word "arms" is used they mean WEAPONS not guns. When they say "to bear" they mean TO CARRY not to own.

The second amendment reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In modern terms it would read more like:

Well trained citizens with military weapons being necessary to the security of a free country, the right of Americans to own and carry weapons will not be limited.

Our second amendment rights are already infringed upon, but people only care about owning guns. Sure when the second amendment was written things like tanks, fighter jets, ICBMs and nuclear submarines weren't even imagined, but swords, knives, brass knuckles and many other such things which are illegal to carry and in some cases even own existed for centuries before America was ever discovered.

Sacrificing freedoms in the name of safety or because you don't understand them is how you become oppressed. Your freedoms slowly erode until one day you realize you have no freedom.

For example it is unconstitutional to perform search and seizures or detain people without reasonable cause. Yet, every day DUI checkpoints are set up and thousands of people are harassed and detained just so a very small percentage of people can be arrested in the name of public safety. 

Beautifully well written Onikazi