demos_jones

An easy question since almost any answer will be correct. So Best Answer really is the issue.

Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.

Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.

Accidental deaths per physician: 171 per 1,000 (U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.

Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500.

Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0188 per 1,000 (U.S Dept of Justice)

Statistically, then, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Fact: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one Doctor.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. Doctors must be banned before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health Measure, the statistics on Lawyers have been with­held for fear that shock could cause people to seek medical aid.

How much safer do you feel now that murder, robbery, and rape have been outlawed? And since you feel so safe with those laws, why do you need additional laws to outlaw guns to feel even safer? Or is it possible that simply outlawing something doesn't really make you any safer? (Due to candidate position, I kept this in the Elections section.)

In Houston, a campaign office opened up for the support of Barack Obama. On the wall hung a Cuban flag with the image of bloody revolutionary Che Guevara on it. While Obama states that it's not one his campaign headquarters, he still accepted the fundraising contributions on his behalf. Given Obama's stance on 'class warfare', wouldn't this frighten most Democrats as well as Republicans?

How about voting for Obama, the Obama-nable Snowman?

Why do Dems use the excuse that a measly two years as a Democratically-controlled Congress is not enough time to clean up Bush's 6 years of financial mismanagement, while they insist that Bush's 9 months in office was more than enough time to clean up Clinton's 8 years of security mismanagement of terrorist attacks that led to 9/11?

The 2009 U.S. federal budget is 3,110 Billion dollars. If you tax the rich at 100%, the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, would only keep the country running for 6½ days. According to Forbes, there are 987 billionaires in the world, slightly more than half of which are U.S. citizens. Trump, let's be charitable and say he's worth $4 billion. Even taxed at 100%, his money doesn't even keep the U.S. running for a half day. So, at best, all the billionaires combined, might barely run the country for one year. But it took years for them to accumulate their money and will take years again. In the meantime, their companies will have been liquidated and sold to foreign buyers to raise the capital. By taxing the rich into extinction, all that happens is that foreigners will own all of America. Is this the bailout that Obama promises by raising taxes on the rich?

Granted, it would qualify as change. Change we could do without, thank you.

Here I was raised that you place your hand over your heart while the national anthem is playing, but Obama is going to help me understand how to be TRULY patriotic. And my ownership of guns, and my religion, are just elements of my bitterness over the failed economy, even though I live in an upscale community and just bought a new Harley and a new pickup truck this year. Isn't it great that Obama can show me how bitter I am, even though I didn't know it until he pointed it out? And how the Republicans aren't addressing the issues that are most important to us voters. Why, I didn't know that until he pointed it out. Isn't it great how Obama knows what's important to me, even if I don't know it myself? If elected, what other wonderful things will he do for us, for our own good, because we don't know what's good for us as well as he does?

Police in the Dallas area have been writing tickets for speeding. The speed limit, as posted by the black on white sign is 35 mph. But near a curve, there is a black on yellow sign that reads 25 mph. So police have been writing tickets for those who are exceeding 25 mph. Under Texas law, black on yellow signs are warning or advisory signs and do not carry the weight of law. Only the black on white signs are regulatory and must be obeyed. Most people have been simply paying the fines because they figure the police MUST be right, and cops wouldn't write bogus tickets, now would they? And the court has only dismissed any remaining tickets since the News looked into this.

So here I am, watching COPS on TV, and a lot of episodes involve people who run when the cops try to pull them over. When caught, they're asked, why did they run? And the reply is always, "I was afraid." Now here we have all these tough guys who claim what they'll do if the cops ever hassle them, and when they finally get the chance, they run because they're "afraid." Is this the new moral backbone of America? Being afraid and running like cowards? Turning an infraction into a felony?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuROk...

Two people claimed to be Texas cops and said that warnings are not part of your record. Verbal warning are not part of your record, but there are also written warnings which remain part of your driving record for a year. If you are stopped for the same offense within a year, any other officer can see that you've already received a warning. So WHY would 'alleged' Texas cops give erroneous information?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ah2yV...

I'm going to resurrect this one. I read a statement that possession of handgun by anyone under 21 is a violation of Federal law, as well as state laws. Please show me THAT Federal law. It prohibits the under-21 purchase of a handgun from a federally licensed dealer, but in Michigan a 19-yr-old may legally buy a handgun from an individual. Also, possession is legal under 19 when accompanied by an adult that is legally permitted to possess such weapon. Additionally, federal law requires that toy guns be fitted with an orange tip when sold, but not that the tip remain on it after sale. And pictures of a holding a handgun, real or not, is not endangerment. It could easily have been during target practice, which is legal. My question is: What LAW has been violated which would lead to a charge of child endangerment?

Somewhere back I read a question about consenting to a car search, but the same could apply to a home. Many people say that if you have nothing to worry about, why would you refuse consent? And someone else mentioned that if you have nothing to worry about, why would the police even feel compelled to ask? So I ask the police, although others are welcome to give their opinion, what would instigate the police to ask for search permission if there was nothing for the owner to worry about it the first place?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2...

So, some obscure law in Louisiana prohibits barbers from cutting hair on Sundays, Mondays, and some holidays. It's still law, though, and one cop wrote a ticket to a barber. Even the police department didn't know about the law until they went searching for something to use. The DA refuses to prosecute and is even pushing to have the law repealed as an old strong-arm law of barbers' unions from the 1950's.

Silly me, I grew up believing that the police were there to protect us from criminals. But when new laws are passed each year that the police have to enforce, such as seatbelt violations, littering (a cigarette butt out the window), clamping down on lewd lyrics on CD's, or ridding our beaches of those dangerous criminal women wearing thong bikinis, and now the cops have to be on the lookout for an adult smoking in a car while there's a kid in there, just how are the cops supposed to find time to go after the really bad guys? Or are they all locked up now, and there's no crime left to prosecute but for the people smoking a cigarette on a public sidewalk?

Every year, the federal government (NHTSC) hands out millions of dollars in grants to city police departments all over the country. And in return, those departments must meet a minimum quota of seatbelt violation tickets during the last two weeks of May and the first two weeks of June. Any department that does not meet the quota, does not qualify for those millions of dollars in federal grants. Now, tell me again how the police do not have quotas. And, if seatbelts are such a great idea, why does the federal government have to BRIBE local police into writing tickets to force citizens to use them?