TexasCHLforum.com

Signed it.

Also signed a petition for declaring Antifa a terrorist organization, which had already succeeded it's target.

DOD Nominee Withdraws Himself From Consideration After Anti-Gun Comments

He's still an anti-gun dimwit, but at least he's out of the way now.

Dr. Dean Winslow might have been a slam dunk for the role he was nominated for at the Department of Defense. As a former Air Force flight surgeon, the role of assistant secretary of defense for health affairs would have been right in his wheelhouse.

Unfortunately, he also said that he thought it was “insane” that regular citizens could buy an AR-15 following the Sutherland Springs tragedy.

While his role at the Department of Defense would have had no impact on the nation’s gun policy, now it won’t matter as Winslow has removed himself from consideration.

I am glad that this guy has removed himself from consideration, while he is entitled to his opinions, his rationalization is rediculous. He said that since he has treated so many people for gunshot wounds, he knows what type of damage they cause. I just wonder if he had treated people struck by automobiles, if he would think that only specially trained civilians should own them? I guarantee that there are more people killed/maimed in automobile accidents, than by AR 15s.

Jusme wrote:I guarantee that there are more people killed/maimed in automobile accidents, than by AR 15s.

Or ANY firearms for that matter. Cars are statistically more deadly than guns.

It looks like the petition site is down for a while.

The petition may be down since he has withdrawn.

He showed his ignorance by thinking that an AR15 is a high powered assault rifle.

Self-Pitying Anti-Gun Doctor Provides a Step-by-Step Lesson in How Not to Succeed in Government

Dr. Dean L. Winslow is feeling sorry for himself.

It’s a common -- and frustrating -- experience. You’re up for a job. You think you’re the perfect fit. But you blow the interview, and it doesn’t work out.

If you’re smart, it might be a good opportunity for self-reflection. What did you do wrong? How might you do better next time?

If you’re not smart, you might simply wallow in self-pity and double down on the same sort of behavior that tanked your opportunity.

And if you’re really not smart, you might take to the pages of a national newspaper, lambast your would-be boss and his policies, and demonstrate your ignorance anew to the entire country.

Unfortunately for Winslow, he took the third option, hosting his own pity party in the form of a Washington Post op-ed about his failed attempt to work for the Trump administration. To hear Winslow tell it, President Trump really blew it this time.

For the rest of us, Winslow’s misadventure, coupled with his breathtaking sense of entitlement to public employment, is a step-by-step lesson in how not to advance a career in government.

What an idiot.

Anyone know the stats for accidental deaths caused by doctors and nurses annually here in the states?

I think, it quite exceeds gun shot deaths by a substantial margin if memory serves...

Their analysis, published in the BMJ on Tuesday, shows that “medical errors” in hospitals and other health-care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third-leading cause of death in the United States — claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer's.

The nomination was rescinded.

The nomination was rescinded.

Flightmare wrote:

Jusme wrote:I guarantee that there are more people killed/maimed in automobile accidents, than by AR 15s.

Or ANY firearms for that matter. Cars are statistically more deadly than guns.

I am not sure about this, especially when you take exposure rats into account. That would be a requirement for proper consideration of which is deadlier, statistically.

srothstein wrote:

Flightmare wrote:

Jusme wrote:I guarantee that there are more people killed/maimed in automobile accidents, than by AR 15s.

Or ANY firearms for that matter. Cars are statistically more deadly than guns.

I am not sure about this, especially when you take exposure rats into account. That would be a requirement for proper consideration of which is deadlier, statistically.

The exposure rate for guns would include anyone within range of a LEO' would it not? If so, then there were an awful lot of folks exposed to the potential impact of a firearm on my way into work this morning. Of course, everyone that I saw was exposed to the potential for death / injury by my firearm in its holster, and again by my handgun in the car console, and again by the shotgun in my trunk. That's 3 exposures multiplied by the 100 or so cars I saw just on my drive in. When you consider the number of folks with a gun in their car, and the presence of LEO's, I would guess that the average exposure rate, per person, is greater than 1.0 per day.

Still less than the exposure rate for cars, but the number of gun related deaths is a tiny fraction of the number of vehicle related deaths.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:The exposure rate for guns would include anyone within range of a LEO' would it not? If so, then there were an awful lot of folks exposed to the potential impact of a firearm on my way into work this morning. Of course, everyone that I saw was exposed to the potential for death / injury by my firearm in its holster, and again by my handgun in the car console, and again by the shotgun in my trunk. That's 3 exposures multiplied by the 100 or so cars I saw just on my drive in. When you consider the number of folks with a gun in their car, and the presence of LEO's, I would guess that the average exposure rate, per person, is greater than 1.0 per day.

Still less than the exposure rate for cars, but the number of gun related deaths is a tiny fraction of the number of vehicle related deaths.

Not quite that simple, unfortunately. If you counted the exposure rate for pistols that way, then you would have to also count it for cars as anyone in the area of a car.

To be truly a rational comparison, you would have to figure out what is the potential exposure to risk with each one. For example, a person carrying a pistol has some degree of risk (witness Glock leg) but not nearly as much exposure as the people who have guns pointed at them (by people). A driver is exposed to risk of his car, as is the passenger and some people outside the car. I am not sure the risk to a person walking down the sidewalk is as high as the risk to the driver or passenger, but there is some degree of risk even there.

Another measure would be the time spent in proximity to the object. Figure the person carrying the gun have some exposure to count, as do the people they point it at, but the people walking nearby while it is in the holster have a negligible exposure. Typically the exposure rate for cars is measured in passenger miles (how many miles the car was driven times the number of passengers in the car at the time). This ignores all of the risk to pedestrians of course. A similar method for guns would ignore all of the people the gun gets pointed at and just measure the time of the person carrying it.

All of which is a way to say that these simple comparisons are very rarely accurate. I am not sure I could compute a reasonable exposure rate for the two that could be compared, though I know much better statisticians can do so. I just have great doubts that most people do this statistical study properly when making these comparisons. They may sound nice but are not very accurate.