Welcome to the SeeMeCNC Community

Aren't statistics wonderful?

(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 is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. The above is just a fact.


Now, The Above Meant Nothing Until I Did The Below

Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

Statistics courtesy of FBI. The above is also fact.



So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, Guns don't kill people, doctors do.



FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, But, Almost everyone has at least one doctor.

This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as by a gun owner!!!


Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of control.

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock

would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

Do cars next, and swimming pools.

Sorry, I had to
No intention of starting a political debate, just sharing a chuckle.

[img]https://tbrickert.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ontrol.png[/img]

It's legal here.

g.

geneb wrote:It's legal here.

g.

We are voting on it in Ohio in November, I hope it passes.

Nice image, Jim!

it passed here in Oregon, the whole state smells like a cheech and chong movie now.....

Tom C

stonewater wrote:it passed here in Oregon, the whole state smells like a cheech and chong movie now.....

Tom C

Bet people in Oregon now go around with a smile on their faces despite the smell.

The funniest part is, I think I know the "bad argument hippie" meme girl in real life. I think she's my best friend's cousin, Sara.

Eaglezsoar wrote:

geneb wrote:It's legal here.

g.

We are voting on it in Ohio in November, I hope it passes.

Nice image, Jim!

My wife is still trying to figure out the hire/fire rules if that passes.

barry99705 wrote:My wife is still trying to figure out the hire/fire rules if that passes.

Wouldn't legalization make that irrelevant?

Nope. The company I work for still regards it as strictly forbidden. I suspect it's because the company has many locations across a number of different states and will hold their current position as long as it's illegal at a federal level. Either that or they think "Reefer Madness" is a thing.

g.

Someone explain to me how smoking weed is any different than consuming alcohol. Don't do either before you work, or at work. Substance abuse has similar effects.

Jim, I've heard that the "bad argument hippie" is actually a dude.

I have never been able to tell. It's either a chick with a prominent chin or an attractive feminine dude. That's why I'm not a big fan of that picture...

Harry potter in disguise. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/college-liberal

LOL!

I like the one, "Voldemort won't find me / if I get a sex change." Classic.

JFettig wrote:Someone explain to me how smoking weed is any different than consuming alcohol. Don't do either before you work, or at work. Substance abuse has similar effects.

Jim, I've heard that the "bad argument hippie" is actually a dude.

Well, aside from the obvious differences in the law:

It takes anywhere from a week to several months (depending on their metabolism and how heavy a user they were before quitting) for a urine test for THC to come out clean.

A urine test for alcohol should be clean after about 80 hours.

geneb wrote:Either that or they think "Reefer Madness" is a thing.

I used to know a cop who thought Reefer Madness is an accurate portrayal of how people behave on marijuana.

It's terrible how many people think going straight for the band-aid (banning guns) is the solution. They don't even wonder whether it might be possible to address what makes a person want to shoot somebody. That's the problem, isn't it? I think someone proved that in 1995 with a Ryder van and a few hundred pounds of fertilizer. He never fired a shot, but he sure did kill a lot of people.

I read recently that the UK is trying to encourage people to hand in their knives. I suppose guns weren't enough! I shudder to think of what it's like to live in a country so infested with nannycams, let alone to think that's an acceptable state of affairs.

626Pilot wrote:

geneb wrote:Either that or they think "Reefer Madness" is a thing.

I used to know a cop who thought Reefer Madness is an accurate portrayal of how people behave on marijuana.

It's terrible how many people think going straight for the band-aid (banning guns) is the solution. They don't even wonder whether it might be possible to address what makes a person want to shoot somebody. That's the problem, isn't it? I think someone proved that in 1995 with a Ryder van and a few hundred pounds of fertilizer. He never fired a shot, but he sure did kill a lot of people.

I read recently that the UK is trying to encourage people to hand in their knives. I suppose guns weren't enough! I shudder to think of what it's like to live in a country so infested with nannycams, let alone to think that's an acceptable state of affairs.

+!

geneb wrote:Nope. The company I work for still regards it as strictly forbidden. I suspect it's because the company has many locations across a number of different states and will hold their current position as long as it's illegal at a federal level. Either that or they think "Reefer Madness" is a thing.

g.

I still don't know how states can legalize it, when it isn't legal at the federal level. Didn't know states could overrule federal laws.

In modern political practice, it depends on the federal law in question...

IMBoring25 wrote:In modern political practice, it depends on the federal law in question...

Ahh, the "Can we tax it" loophole.

It's that emotional line that divides us all, not necessarily a bad thing. Until we find common ground or something we all can equally focus our attention on; we'll always have the same debates over and over.

guns/drugs/immigration/gay/abortion/climate/racism/politics

politics = guns/drugs/immigration/gay/abortion/climate/racism, right?

barry99705 wrote:

geneb wrote:Nope. The company I work for still regards it as strictly forbidden. I suspect it's because the company has many locations across a number of different states and will hold their current position as long as it's illegal at a federal level. Either that or they think "Reefer Madness" is a thing.

g.

I still don't know how states can legalize it, when it isn't legal at the federal level. Didn't know states could overrule federal laws.

The state legalizing thing only applies to state officials, like police. The Feds can still raid/arrest/confiscate if they want to, but Obama has a standing order for feds to prevent them from doing so, since they have jurisdiction everywhere.

Which is why some of the republican candidates get a lot of attention when they say they will shut down Colorado when they're president. If elected, they could easily do it.

It is basically an OR table, if either the feds OR the state OR the county OR the city OR ect. says something is illegal, a person can be arrested for doing it.

Generic Default wrote:It is basically an OR table, if either the feds OR the state OR the county OR the city OR ect. says something is illegal, a person can be arrested for doing it.

Great analogy...and now I'm officially not a fan of OR tables.

Watch out for maybe gates. They'll really mess with your head.

g.