Threat assessment, job or gun

[beardown]

Other forms of death have been mentioned a few times here, but I don't know that I've seen the work deaths yet.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/who-are-biggest-killers-america-numbers-will-shock-you

Using data ranging from 1992 to 2006, Reiman estimates there are 55,325 “occupation-related deaths” per year...

That would mean your job — through the negligence of your employer — is seven times more likely to kill you than common street crime is. Reiman concludes that this means "workers are more likely to stay alive and healthy in the face of the danger from the underworld than from the workworld.”

------------------
So maybe we should take guns to work? Kidding aside, the USA powers that be have decided that 55,000 deaths a year are an acceptable death toll (meaning there is no massive movement of government legislation to reduce the toll or massive media emphasis or dedicated drive by posters posting the latest work related deaths on DU) to enable the corporate class. Add in deaths from big Pharma, big insurance, etc. and you are probably looking at a ratio of corporate related deaths to gun crime related deaths of around 30 to 1 or more. Reducing any senseless deaths are a good goal, but under most threat assessment models, you should prioritize the threats killing 50,000 a year or a combined 200,000 a year more so than those killing 13,000 a year.

Know your enemy and a big corporation is many times more likely to kill you than a gun.

Now excuse me while Karl Marx and I go off and have a cup of lap dog coffee.

[HassleCat]

1. Tell your friends

When I discuss workplace safety with my NRA member friends, I get nowhere. As far as they can see, the government is no good because the government might infringe on their 2nd Amendment rights. They hate OSHA, EPA, etc. They don't care about being killed on the job, clean drinking water, etc. as long a they can shoot their way out of a crisis.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. What that says is: If the Controllers could relent in their mania for disarmng people

agencies such as OSHA, the EPA, etc. might enjoy more popular support.

[HassleCat]

15. What it really says

Here in the United States, where we enjoy a truly dangerous level of firearms freedom, we have many paranoid people who believe "the Controllers" have a "mania for disarming people."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Considering the Controllers are saying, "melt them down" and, "we need a total war on guns"

"mania" is the proper description.

[beardown]

3. Which points back to corporations as the real enemy

I think that a large part of the pop have been taught and media poisoned to hate the govt since Ronnie. Not a characteristic of gun owners or nra, but of anyone exposed to the 24 hours onslaught of FOX like propaganda driven by billionaires and billion dollar corps. Fear that Afghan sheep herder out by Kabul, but ignore the toxic chem in your lettuce and the fracking waste in your water or the lung damaging dust at your workplace. So successful that it's to the point of teabaggers holding up signs saying keep the govt out of my social security.

And seeing how the government actually is working very well, but for the corporations that have bought and paid for it, you aren't paranoid if they really are coming for you and the Founders knew what they were doing when they wanted to not make govt the only holders of arms. Likely to ever be needed? Nope. Neither are fire extinguishers.

[Eleanors38]

4. We'd probably agree on most issues of economy and social change.

One's personal assessment of criminal threat, and the measures needed to counter those threats, not withstanding.

[flamin lib]

5. So what you're saying is that these 33,000 gun deaths are okay because workplace deaths happen too.

There's another character here doing the same thing with drug ODs. Gun deaths ok 'cause, ya' know, drugs.

Can we as a nation walk and chew gum at the same time? Apparently not when it comes to guns.

[beardown]

6. How do you in any way figure I said that?

"prioritize" does not mean do only one thing and ignore the others.

Unlike one side of this debate, I think any kind of death dealing is bad. Maybe our two sides could get together and work out some feasible and real world solutions if folks didn't jump onto their outrage horses and go tearing off into yet another misguide Charge of the Light Brigade and once again miss engaging the real enemy.

Hell, you can even tie corporations using their media to push fear and racism and being against reasonable gun control measures so we can both team up, I'll grab a pitchfork and you grab a torch and storm the corporate Bastille together. I was thinking of saying I'd grab a gun and you grab a pitchfork and torch, but I was concerned that I'd set you off again. You know, getting better social justice and economic stability by defanging the corporations would in all likelyhood, have a significant impact on crime and gun violence, but when all you (not you personally) have is a gun phobia, you can't see the forest for the trees.

[stone space]

7. Does job safety for postal workers count?

I'm guessing it doesn't, since a thread related to that got locked, despite the fact that it was a gun related safety incident.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172173717#post7

It's about mail safety, not gun safety.

Or something...

[blueridge3210]

8. Locked for violating group SOP.

"Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."

Reading is fundamental.

[stone space]

9. Gun safety for postal workers on the job is a censored topic here. (nt)

[blueridge3210]

10. Compliance with Group SOP is an ignored topic here.(nt)

[stone space]

11. It's within the SOP. It's just a censored topic, that's all. (nt)

[blueridge3210]

12. Um, no.

It's not.

[GGJohn]

13. Apparently the group host disagrees with you.

That is all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. And exactly which...

...AHEM...MEMBERS err, I mean topics are censored in GCRA?