Why does the number of ERs affect how many autopsies a forensic pathologist does on gunshot victims? Did she say that she had one GSV corpse a week in her ER?
She is also an expert witness in forensic pathology for trials. In that capacity, she likely sees gunshot deaths from lots of jurisdictions, not just SF.
Judy Melinek M.D.
“Do you have any idea how many bullets I pull out of corpses weekly? This isn’t just my lane. It’s my fucking highway.”
She is not pulling bullets out of bodies that Medical examiners or ER doctors have already finished with.
She alleged
That’s 52. All the murders in SF would have to be from guns (they aren’t) and she would have had to do nearly all the autopsies at all the morgues in SF (which she didn’t). So I suspect she is exaggerating just a wee bit.
I couldn’t find any data on how many gun suicides happened in SF - jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge seems to be a lot of what they worry about.
Regards,
Shodan
You are awful sure about what she does and doesn’t do in her work. I’m going to need a cite for what jurisdictions she works in and what her duties are in those jurisdictions that back up your claims. Not a half assed back if the envelope guess, but an actual cite about what Dr. Melinek does in the course of her work.
Huh, her book is subtitled “the making of a medical examiner.” I don’t think she is only doing a couple of autopsies a year at an ER.
We’re gonna stamp out hate, poke it with a pick!
Tear up all its insides out and see what makes it tick.
We’re gonna stamp out hate, let it know who’s boss,
Take it up a lonely hill and nail it to a cross!
We’re gonna stamp…out…hate!
Btw, her CV is at that link as well.
FYI it doesn’t show up on Tapatalk (on Android at least). I don’t know if that’s a new thing or not, but I haven’t noticed it conspicuously missing in the past.
The link actually addresses the effect of the removal more than what happened during. But I don’t think deaths by “assault weapons” should be a good metric anyway. Does it increase deaths by any gun, or death rate in general? If not, were people just switching to a new trend? In other words, the DUI rate by Toyota Corollas goes up every year, yet in 1965 it was zero. The introduction of a particular model is related to it’s misuse, but unless it can be shown to have a causal relationship it’s “interesting, but meaningless.”
It’s weird how we let the climate scientists control the climate change debate.
It’s weird how we let homosexuals control the SSM debate.
One side is ill-informed, but has strong feeling about something.
It’s also weird how “angry old white guys” is the go-to. It’s also angry young white guys! But seriously, gun ownership leans white and male, but I don’t think we should marginalize minority gun owners.
This actually puts it in perspective, we don’t let the scientist control the climate discussions and for the longest time we didn’t let gays control the SSM debate. Just like with guns, we let the angry old men control those debates. Our policies are too often driven by bigots reacting to their irrational fears. Thank you for helping me understand.
How nice of you to decide that suicides and accidental deaths don’t count. I care about anyone who dies in a firearm related incident, which is why I quoted that number.
You people talk about how we can’t compare death rates with Europe because of different cultures - yet here you are comparing rates with New Hampshire, which does not have a big gang problem. The California homicide rate would go way down if we could keep guns out of the hands of gang members (Florida too, no doubt) But that ain’t going to happen, is it?
The Thousand Oaks shooter didn’t use an assault weapon, though he surely knew how. Did the ban in California save lives or not? No way to tell for sure.
How can you honestly hazard a guess at a ratio between good and bad, when you only see the bad? You agree that any time someone end up in the ER, that falls into the “bad” category, right?
Yeah! You know, because climate scientists:
A) Totally control how we talk about climate, particularly in the halls of power
and
B) Are in any way analogous to the NRA
(/Sarcasm, in case it wasn’t totally obvious.)
You have some truly bizarre analogies, man.
Not unless what you were trying to say was something ridiculous. Your analogy was pretty meaningless otherwise.
[QUOTE=ExTank]
I was nice and allowed, by analogy, that they might be engaging in confirmation bias. Even the worst neighborhoods in Chicago they don’t have a 10:1 gunshot victims vs. ordinary patients ratio.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I think I may have spotted the problem: you appear to have inverted steatopygia’s ratio, besides misidentifying one of the objects of comparison.
ER doctors are NOT pulling bullets out of bodies, that would happen in surgery, if the patient makes it that far.
And once again, ERs are only seeing the ones who aren’t “DRT” Dead Right There.
The pathologist sees everyone that dies violently, whether they make it to the ER or not.
No, see post #17. I defined two rather broad categories as “good”.
That is patently ridiculous. Guns are designed to kill. The only time they are safe is when nobody is touching them. How easy is it for a 2 year old to kill an adult? I’d say almost impossible. I’d be wrong. This happened near me. Read the story, this was a very responsible gun owner. Guns are safe, give me a break.
Yeah, I don’t think an unarmed person can kill or hurt from dozens of feet away.
LOL
So far I have seen one valid argument that disputes my take on guns.
That is that I don’t see examples of gun use that don’t result in a shooting. Fair enough, I don’t see defensive gun use that ends peaceably, that definitely happens. I would counter that I also don’t see the results of armed robberies that don’t end in shooting.
I am pro hunting, I am completely anti-NRA.