|
flatbus posted:Can this really happen? I want to try pinching myself but i don't want to tear through my skin and tear out my muscles by mistake This supposedly happened during a date rape, so maybe you need to be blackout drunk or drugged before you're able to rip out muscles with your bare hands. Twelve by Pies posted:There has to be something I'm missing in this quote, because taken at face value (which I'm sure some conservatives do) it almost sounds like it's saying if a guy runs on a platform of "I will vote for this" and then does not vote for it when he gets elected, then the people have the right to shoot him. I'm willing to bet that Hamilton doesn't mean that, so what I'm thinking is that "betray" here must mean actual treason against the country, and not just "He did something I didn't like." It is (by my understanding) a much more large-scale idea than that. He's talking about violence as a recourse against a government that in a general sense no longer acts in the best interests of its citizens. Perhaps, just as an example, one that is overwhelmingly run to the benefit of moneyed interests at the expense of the huge majority of people. But obviously the founders never imagined the balance of goverment vs. private military power would get so impossibly one-sided.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
The 195 Thousand figure is from a 2004 study by Healthgrades a private company that rates hospitals. I'm just picking through the studies trying to find relevant data. Their methodology probably changes from year to year http://www.healthgrades.com/quality/archived-reports Here's the 2004 study: https://www.cpmhealthgrades.com/CPM/assets/File/PatientSafetyInAmericanHospitalsReport2004.pdf "Using this finding and excluding obstetric patients, we calculated that an extra $19 billion was spent, and over 575,000 preventable deaths occurred, as a direct result of the 2.5 million patient safety incidents that occurred in U.S. hospitals from 2000 through 2002." 191,000 per year I think they're using their medicare data to extrapolate to the entire US healthcare system. Patient Safety Incidents and Their Attributable Mortality and Excess Charge Among Medicare Beneficiaries by PSI from 2000-2002 Actual Number of National Incidents: 1,141,472 Number of Deaths Attributable to a PSI (Attributable Mortality**): 263,864 87,954 per year. 2005 Study: https://www.cpmhealthgrades.com/CPM/assets/File/PatientSafetyInAmericanHospitalsReport2005.pdf 2001-2003 Total Patients with one or more patient safety incidents: 1,112,536 2001-2003 Total Deaths with one or more patient safety incidents: 298,865 99,621 per year 2006 Study: https://www.cpmhealthgrades.com/CPM/assets/File/PatientSafetyInAmericanHospitalsStudy2006.pdf 2002-2004 1,239,001 Total Incidents 304,702 Associated Mortality 101,567 per year 2007 Study https://www.cpmhealthgrades.com/CPM/assets/File/PatientSafetyInAmericanHospitalsStudy2007.pdf 2003-2005 1,160,184 Incidents 284,798 Deaths 94,932 per year 2008 Study https://www.cpmhealthgrades.com/CPM/assets/File/PatientSafetyInAmericanHospitalsStudy2008.pdf 2004-2006 1,123,497 Incidents 270,491 Deaths 90,163 per year 2009 Study https://www.cpmhealthgrades.com/CPM/assets/File/PatientSafetyInAmericanHospitalsStudy2009.pdf 2005-2007 864,765 Incidents 97,755 Deaths 32,585 per year, It looks like they way "Failure to Rescue" is defined has been changed because the numbers changed dramatically. "Additionally, HealthGrades modified the failure to rescue patient group by excluding cancer patients– patients having any ICD-9 code between 140.0 and 208.9 or between 230.0 and 239.9. (AHRQ now refers to failure to rescue as death among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications.) HealthGrades also removed hospitals in the U.S. territories and Puerto Rico from the data set." 2010 Study https://www.cpmhealthgrades.com/CPM/assets/File/PatientSafetyInAmericanHospitalsStudy2010.pdf 2006-2008 908,401 Incidents 99,180 Deaths 33060 Per year 2011 Study https://www.cpmhealthgrades.com/CPM/assets/File/HealthGradesPatientSafetyInAmericanHospitalsStudy2011.pdf 2007-2009 667,828 Incidents 79,670 Deaths 26,556 Per Year Here's the 2012 study: https://www.cpmhealthgrades.com/CPM/assets/File/HealthGradesPatientSafetySatisfactionReport2012.pdf 2008-2010 254,200 Incidents 56,367 Deaths 18,789 Per Year Edit: The study changes format from year to year but I'm going to try to get this all straightened out. Edit2: Got all the studies summarized. It's not possible to directly compare one study to another because the way incidents are defined changes from year to year. Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Please stop being fooled into arguing about the wrong thing so easily. It doesn't matter how many people die from malpractice, it has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulation (or lack thereof). In fact, millions of people die from old age every year, and rather than using this as an argument to let people own atomic bombs while we focus on fighting the passage of time we still manage to do other things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Well, it looks like enacting some serious reforms in an area where a lot of people are dying or getting hurt can actually yield HUGE results. Imagine if we took gun violence as seriously as we did healthcare reform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Nothing too spectacular, but these popped up in rapid succession on my facebook: I responded with "Good points followed by xenophobic, non-solutions." No response back.  My response: "Wait, never? really?" His response: "Never."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
KillerJunglist posted:
Charles Whitman was raised in a strict Roman Catholic household and was described as a nearly perfectly behaved child. He learned to properly handle and use firearms from a young age and frequently went hunting with his authoritarian father. This was all before he stabbed his mother through the heart with a knife and went on a shooting spree at UT. It's also all almost completely irrelevant since he was certainly mentally maladjusted at the time which may have had something to do with the large tumor in his brain. You can't control everything. Why do people bring these things up in the first place? Ror fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 09:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Maybe it's not that crazy, but I have a lot of trouble swallowing the idea that the Founding Fathers were this group of enlightened idealists that had the prescience to craft a Amendment solely for the purpose of letting the people retain a minimum level of arms to revolt against the government with, especially since if there was a revolt at the time, it would be the Founding Fathers themselves that the people would be revolting against.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 09:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Maybe it's not that crazy, but I have a lot of trouble swallowing the idea that the Founding Fathers were this group of enlightened idealists that had the prescience to craft a Amendment solely for the purpose of letting the people retain a minimum level of arms to revolt against the government with, especially since if there was a revolt at the time, it would be the Founding Fathers themselves that the people would be revolting against. Actually, that's (sort of) exactly why they included it. It was drawn from a similar right in the English Bill of Rights 1689, which guaranteed that the Crown could not legally disarm the Protestant population of England. That right itself was included because of James II's general policy of disarming Protestants in the years leading up to the Glorious Revolution as part of a policy of weakening the Protestant population to help prevent exactly such a revolution. It failed, he was overthrown by William III and Mary II, and William III had the Bill of Rights 1689 drafted to ensure that future monarchs couldn't repeat that or other such actions that James II had taken. It wasn't foresight, though, so much as them remembering a time in then-recent history when the government literally did try to steal the arms of its people in order to stave off a rebellion. That's why we're one of the only countries to have a right to bear arms in our Constitution, because it's derived from a right that was put in place originally due to a very specific set of historical circumstances. And it's well out of date because, like many have said before, if similar circumstances ever arose, the government wouldn't have to disarm the populace to shut down a rebellion anyway if it ever came to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Founding Fathers were the founders of a state that was born in violence, carved out of other people's land by violence, which had a large amount of people enslaved in a system that rested on coercive violence. A large amount of the support that created that state came from armed populations such as the frontiersman and the militia members of New England. However, I believe that they saw violent uprising against the state as an aberration that could be killed in the cradle by a proper new society. I don't think, apart from some extremists, that anyone believed the United States of America would ever become such a lovely country that the people of the USA would have to have some guns in the closet to enact a revolt. No Founders held up the Whiskey Rebellion as an example of an armed society revolting against the evil central government. Anyone who espouses the opinion you're talking about is just a pessimistic paranoid America-hater who doesn't share in the idealism of our exalted Founders. I like to think that they thought of it as a matter of practicality, both in terms of national defense and anti-government revolt. To the national defense end, an armed public posed a reasonable problem to an invading army back in the day. To the end of revolution, well, the whole system they designed was based around the idea of checks and balances. If the various parts of the government itself were designed to keep each other from becoming abusive, then why wouldn't they build in a system by which the public could enact a check in the event of design failure? I mean, obviously they had to be optimistic that the new system would work but I feel like they were pragmatists in a lot of respects more than they were idealists; and that means including failsafes. Not that either of those points works very well today, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
I personally knew a kid who hunted who also dealt a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Not to mention you were turning those ballots in to Nazi party election officials who were surrounded by German soldiers, part of an army that had just occupied your country by force. Don't post screeds. People who get their news from image macros won't read a screed. Brevity is the most important thing in Facebook discussion.   Engage people, don't rant at them. They won't have any sudden revelations and declare you the winner, but you can at least try to give them something to think about. Sadly it also seems like they also don't have the patience for a short description of fascism. He never replied back. edit: and for god's sake don't link to wikipedia. there will always be one genius who points out that wikipedia can be edited by anyone like it's a shocking revelation. use the citations that wikipedia uses, not wikipedia itself baw fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 11:27
|
|
|
Lonely Swedish posted:I like to think that they thought of it as a matter of practicality, both in terms of national defense and anti-government revolt. To the national defense end, an armed public posed a reasonable problem to an invading army back in the day. To the end of revolution, well, the whole system they designed was based around the idea of checks and balances. If the various parts of the government itself were designed to keep each other from becoming abusive, then why wouldn't they build in a system by which the public could enact a check in the event of design failure? I mean, obviously they had to be optimistic that the new system would work but I feel like they were pragmatists in a lot of respects more than they were idealists; and that means including failsafes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
Some Alex Jones from today: Linked so I don't post more Facebook screenshots. If whatever someone is citing has a stance on global warming, bring it up. It's one of the easiest ways to deflate someone's faith in whatever bullshit peddler they're linking to. Also don't answer their stupid questions point-by-point. Choose one or two that you can give a succinct rebuttal to, and ignore the rest. Ideally, it will make them question the other poo poo they brought up (why didn't the other buildings around the twin towers collapse? really!?) baw fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
baw posted:Some Alex Jones from today: The strangest part about the Building 7 conspiracy is that nobody ever has a good explanation for why the all-powerful and shadowy cabal supposedly behind the 9/11 attacks and the dropping of Building 7 would need to drop that building in the first place? If they are capable of doing such a thing, anything that they would be hiding with the destruction of it could be disposed of in a much more efficient manner that doesn't require demolishing a building that is right in the middle of everybody's focus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
9/11 conspiracy in general is way too overcomplex to make any sense. Even assuming bombs could be set without anyone realizing, why bombs and planes? If a plane "couldn't" destroy the towers (and this fact is apparently so easy people without engineering degrees can figure it out) why the planes? Why not just say terrorists planted bombs? They tried it before and almost succeeded so it would have precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
quote:Finally.............It is Said Publicly. I have never seen the white side explained better!  Nope, not racist at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:9/11 conspiracy in general is way too overcomplex to make any sense. Even assuming bombs could be set without anyone realizing, why bombs and planes? If a plane "couldn't" destroy the towers (and this fact is apparently so easy people without engineering degrees can figure it out) why the planes? Why not just say terrorists planted bombs? They tried it before and almost succeeded so it would have precedent. Modern day conspiracies seem to be really lazy, at least if my Facebook is any indication. I have more than one friend absolutely convinced that John Holmes and Adam Lanza were programmed and set loose by a global banking syndicate because their fathers were going to testify about the LIBOR scandal. I haven't even made an effort to look into the relevant facts about their respective fathers, because the conspiracy theory at no point actually explains why turning the sons of their enemies into high-profile mass murderers is a sensible approach to the problem. If I am a captain of finance with no moral qualms at all, how did I pass up the quietly simpler "kill witness" and "discredit witness" to arrive at "risk national exposure with a high-profile PsyOp that involves the witness' son"? It's a spinning back fist to Occam's face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
xwonderboyx posted:
That's from 2008 but holy poo poo. Pat Buchannen literally went all 'white man's burden' in that column. Edit: Funny enough, doing a little digging on Buchannen I found a statement regarding Elena Kagan's appointment to SCOTUS- "If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the US population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?" Curious that he's concerned with proportionality of representation in this case, considering his rants about programs such as Affirmative Action and black scholarships in the previous column. Hmmm... It's almost as if racism is a more coherent explanation for his views. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
It's generally people refusing to accept what happened that might violate their views or thoughts. Mass shooting? Well it was a ploy by the government to take our guns away and turn us into Nazi America! Towers went down because of terrorists in a third world country plotted it and was able to infiltrate our great nation and cause a national disaster? The government did it! I had a college buddy who believed that the Firestone tire failures were a plot to reduce the "ghetto population" because only thugs and drug dealers drove SUVs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:I personally knew a kid who hunted who also dealt a bit. And I used to go fishing with a couple of guys in high school who would get high as hell before we took the little boat out on the lake. Can't say much about trappers tho as I've never known any.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
One of my friends who is a huge gun nut loves to smoke and dealt through college.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
It's funny that some white people consider themselves part of a silent majority. I mean, silent? Really? Jesus loving Christ. When was the last time white people (men) in America were silent on anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
myron cope posted:It's funny that some white people consider themselves part of a silent majority. I mean, silent? Really? Jesus loving Christ. When was the last time white people (men) in America were silent on anything. Thank Nixon. He is the one who coined the term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I don't think, apart from some extremists, that anyone believed the United States of America would ever become such a lovely country that the people of the USA would have to have some guns in the closet to enact a revolt. Well, there was this: Thomas Jefferson posted:God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. Jefferson was pretty drat radical at times. Pat Buchanan posted:Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse The missing word is "reported," or perhaps "convicted."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
myron cope posted:It's funny that some white people consider themselves part of a silent majority. I mean, silent? Really? Jesus loving Christ. When was the last time white people (men) in America were silent on anything. It's just a fun little narrative that plays into the 'white man's burden'. Portraying Christians and white people as 'the silent majority' paints an image of the privileged as benevolent and 'putting up with' all minorities gracefully. The implicit idea is that all non-white Christian's should be thankful and shut up complaining. Buchanan literally spells it out- he doesn't even stop short of saying what amounts to 'black people should be thankful for slavery.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
a racist idiot posted:Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ? Is it really white America 's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Yes. Bbut...bootstraps!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:Bbut...bootstraps!!! I used bootstraps to get to the top all by myself.  Also a history of slavery and segregation. But that's all ancient history by now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Fionnoula posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Everything here comes from a retired Air Force senior NCO. He's been the best source of lovely screeds on Facebook. Pretty much the only response to these arguments is: what is their answer to the problem? If more laws are not needed, then what do we do? Do we let violence continue unabated? Do we spend more money on mental health care? Of course, the mother knew her son had mental problems, but chose to let him have access to the weapons anyway. At least that's my understanding.  More Founding Fathers worship. Have enough miracles been accomplished by them to canonize them as saints yet?  Still running this poo poo into the ground.  He almost gets it, but then misses everything completely. It's kind of sad to see him post stuff like this, he was an awesome mentor and never dredged up politics in the office. At least he's never posted any of the Sovereign Citizen or Oath Keeper crap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:40
|
|
Wang_Tang posted:Everything here comes from a retired Air Force senior NCO. He's been the best source of lovely screeds on Facebook. That there's nothing to be done is a common refrain. Wang_Tang posted:
Another guy who doesn't know the difference between Muslims and Hindu? Or is that the joke?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
I like how the organization that made this is called 'Braindead Americans United.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Yes. Sure we enslaved, denounced their native religions, raped them, destroyed their family, and denied them rights for 150 years but where is the gratitude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Down here in Louisiana, we have a ton of "Kids who hunt and fish don't steal and deal" stickers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Wang_Tang posted:
You responded to this with pictures of union workers and finance sector executives, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:Down here in Louisiana, we have a ton of "Kids who hunt and fish don't steal and deal" stickers. And in Louisiana my dealer was a pretty drat good hunter, we'd have deer jerky and he'd sell me weed and pills. What I'm saying is hunter dealers are pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:And in Louisiana my dealer was a pretty drat good hunter, we'd have deer jerky and he'd sell me weed and pills. On the other hand, fishers who steal from other people's fish traps are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:On the other hand, fishers who steal from other people's fish traps are the worst. This is also true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:You responded to this with pictures of union workers and finance sector executives, right? Believe me, I wish I could. Unfortunately I can't risk pissing him off, and I'm quite sure he'll go straight into an "In my my long years of experience..." diatribe. All while dismissing whatever I respond with, with the whole "Stupid young people!" response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Wang_Tang posted:Everything here comes from a retired Air Force senior NCO. He's been the best source of lovely screeds on Facebook. People like this can't wrap their heads around the simple fact that at one point, the gun that he stole was LEGAL. It was LEGAL when she bought them. It was LEGAL when he used them at the range. and it was LEGAL when she had them in their home. The Criminal 99.99% of the time got the gun from an originally LEGAL sale of the gun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 00:20
|
|
