Medical staff arn't trained with guns and they figure there's less possibility of an accidental discharge the less people are touching it
Oh I apologize, I kind of saw through the lense of an American so I assumed basic firearm knowledge. We have 15 guns per person so there really is no excuse not to know over here. With that in mind the possibility of discharge goes down because a gun with no ammo does not discharge.
We have 15 guns per person
And this is why statistics classes are important. Only 30% of US adults own guns. So at 15 guns per person, that means most of those people own a fuckton of guns. I'd hazard a guess to say most of those people are not in the medical field.
Most American adults do not own a gun, probably have never fired a gun, and their only training is from video games.
Also, a good handful of the people who DO own a weapon, have no training in the weapon and don't know how to use or handle one safely.
Regardless of owning a gun: when they're so commonplace then you should learn the basics, it could save a life someday knowing about the safety, magazine, chamber, and about never pointing a gun, loaded or otherwise, at anything that you don't intend to destroy.
Amassing guns does not mean amassing knowledge and training on how to properly use them. On a side note, the actual number is more like 1.2 guns per civilian, which is (terrifyingly) impressive.
Even if that number wouldn't be a simple average, it still doesn't mean each civilian has received proper training or is even fit for handling a gun, even though 72% have apparently at least once fired a gun in their lifetime - though that can literally mean they onced pulled the trigger on a hunting trip with dad at age 7, with him holding the gun.
You probably meant to link to this rather than the SAS homepage: LINK
Also, by that estimate, there are less registered firearms than total US Soldiers in the military...
This explicitly estimates civilian gun ownership.
So then what was the point of using that as an argument against my estimate if it was an intentionally incomplete dataset?
I understand but we've all seen the video of buff 'locs shot himself while giving a gun safety course to students. No need to get poor Mary, the nurse who has been on shift for 14 hours because the hospital refuses to staff properly, any extra duties that she hasn't been explicitly trained for.
The prompt outlines that a physician has the gun. IN THEIR HANDS. Every possible answer has the same concern that you just outlined, we've crossed that line a while back.
It doesn't say that. I'm feeling that you aren't arguing in good faith.
You think you can do any of the given responses without touching the gun?
I'm done with your obviously stupid questions. Have a great life. Didn't waste your time replying I'm blocking you to save both of us time.
Medical staff arn't trained with guns and they figure there's less possibility of an accidental discharge the less people are touching it
Oh I apologize, I kind of saw through the lense of an American so I assumed basic firearm knowledge. We have 15 guns per person so there really is no excuse not to know over here. With that in mind the possibility of discharge goes down because a gun with no ammo does not discharge.
And this is why statistics classes are important. Only 30% of US adults own guns. So at 15 guns per person, that means most of those people own a fuckton of guns. I'd hazard a guess to say most of those people are not in the medical field.
Most American adults do not own a gun, probably have never fired a gun, and their only training is from video games.
Also, a good handful of the people who DO own a weapon, have no training in the weapon and don't know how to use or handle one safely.
Regardless of owning a gun: when they're so commonplace then you should learn the basics, it could save a life someday knowing about the safety, magazine, chamber, and about never pointing a gun, loaded or otherwise, at anything that you don't intend to destroy.
Amassing guns does not mean amassing knowledge and training on how to properly use them. On a side note, the actual number is more like 1.2 guns per civilian, which is (terrifyingly) impressive.
Even if that number wouldn't be a simple average, it still doesn't mean each civilian has received proper training or is even fit for handling a gun, even though 72% have apparently at least once fired a gun in their lifetime - though that can literally mean they onced pulled the trigger on a hunting trip with dad at age 7, with him holding the gun.
Honestly, let me speak as an American as well: People shouldn't be handling guns at all.
Sources: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/
You probably meant to link to this rather than the SAS homepage: LINK
Also, by that estimate, there are less registered firearms than total US Soldiers in the military...
This explicitly estimates civilian gun ownership.
So then what was the point of using that as an argument against my estimate if it was an intentionally incomplete dataset?
I understand but we've all seen the video of buff 'locs shot himself while giving a gun safety course to students. No need to get poor Mary, the nurse who has been on shift for 14 hours because the hospital refuses to staff properly, any extra duties that she hasn't been explicitly trained for.
The prompt outlines that a physician has the gun. IN THEIR HANDS. Every possible answer has the same concern that you just outlined, we've crossed that line a while back.
It doesn't say that. I'm feeling that you aren't arguing in good faith.
You think you can do any of the given responses without touching the gun?
I'm done with your obviously stupid questions. Have a great life. Didn't waste your time replying I'm blocking you to save both of us time.
That guy was a moron.