Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

We can discuss this one in depth, as we have done before, but the problem remains. Americans are addicted to the possession of killing-tools. Whatever anyone says to them, they insist that the only way they can live safely is with an AK-47 in the 'closet', 'just in case'...

Ok, let's inject a bit more accuracy to the subject matter. First, "Americans" in general (meaning a statistical majority) are in favor of a change in gun laws, among the more popular are restrictions on "assault style" semi-auto rifles, especially with large magazines.

A minority of the populations of every country would like to have access to full auto guns, like AK-47s. Some actually do, say Switzerland, where gun killing is average to below average when compared worldwide.

You seem to be describing a certain American party's politicians, not Americans.

Yes and no. For a start, I view America from the UK, on the edge of (but no longer part of ) Europe. From a distance, I get a view that you do not, caught up in the middle of it all. I do not differentiate between the two American political parties; they seem little different to me. Both of them seem very Right-wing, pro-Individual, anti-government, anti-social, and pro-punishment.

Of course, Americans vary in their support for private gun ownership. But these Americans are all mixed together, and the consensus that seems to emerge is that 'Americans' are strongly in favour of the possession of massacre-tools by any and all. I have heard of the majority of Americans who would like some form of gun control, but I have seen no action. Many of them only want to limit the most mega-powerful weapons anyway. But any multi-shot gun will do to kill a few schoolkids; it doesn't take a machine-gun.

So yes, you are right to say that I am looking at Americans from a long way away, and seeing them to be pretty much the same as each other. Just as, from the outside, you might see that 'the UK voted for Brexit', when the split was very even, and 48% were opposed to it.

I think I too have a similar kind of view on this. We see America from the outside, through the various medias. What we see is people getting onto streets for both for and against possessing guns, and we have seen this for quite some time. These things are escalated when some related event, like a lunatic killing some innocent people, occurs but with time they just loose the intensity. But so far we have not seen any political moves with the clear intention of tightly controlling the guns. It seems like both the political parties are in favour of using guns within a civilized society.

[Sushan]

We can discuss this one in depth, as we have done before, but the problem remains. Americans are addicted to the possession of killing-tools. Whatever anyone says to them, they insist that the only way they can live safely is with an AK-47 in the 'closet', 'just in case'...

Ok, let's inject a bit more accuracy to the subject matter. First, "Americans" in general (meaning a statistical majority) are in favor of a change in gun laws, among the more popular are restrictions on "assault style" semi-auto rifles, especially with large magazines.

A minority of the populations of every country would like to have access to full auto guns, like AK-47s. Some actually do, say Switzerland, where gun killing is average to below average when compared worldwide.

You seem to be describing a certain American party's politicians, not Americans.

Yes and no. For a start, I view America from the UK, on the edge of (but no longer part of ) Europe. From a distance, I get a view that you do not, caught up in the middle of it all. I do not differentiate between the two American political parties; they seem little different to me. Both of them seem very Right-wing, pro-Individual, anti-government, anti-social, and pro-punishment.

Of course, Americans vary in their support for private gun ownership. But these Americans are all mixed together, and the consensus that seems to emerge is that 'Americans' are strongly in favour of the possession of massacre-tools by any and all. I have heard of the majority of Americans who would like some form of gun control, but I have seen no action. Many of them only want to limit the most mega-powerful weapons anyway. But any multi-shot gun will do to kill a few schoolkids; it doesn't take a machine-gun.

So yes, you are right to say that I am looking at Americans from a long way away, and seeing them to be pretty much the same as each other. Just as, from the outside, you might see that 'the UK voted for Brexit', when the split was very even, and 48% were opposed to it.

It is obvious that there has been zero progress, legislatively on the issue of gun reform/control in the US. The reason is that the Senate needs 10 votes from the other party (since it is split 51/50) to pass anything and one party is 100% (50 votes) against any and all gun reform. Now keep in mind that depending on the type of gun reform proposed as much as 60% of the members of this party supports gun law changes, yet zero % of the Congress members will support it. Why? Because not all wings of the party bother to vote in the primaries. As expected, party fanatics tend to vote in off year elections, so while 60% of the party supports gun reform, <50% of primary voters do in this party, thus zero sitting legeslators will support it.

The other party routinely calls for law change and actually proposes and passes legislation through the House (where a simple majority is required)

It is quite hard for me to understand your electoral system. But as a summary I think the situation can very well be defined as 'politics'. And that is common to most parts of the world. If the politicians actually thought about the people the world would have been a far better place a long time ago.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the June 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, What Makes America Great by Bob Dowell

Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (1776)........Witness the often quoted portion of the Declaration declaring under the laws of nature and nature’s God, “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

(Location 152 - Kindle version)

Since the beginning of America liberty to live has been declared in its constitution. But recently we see how this right is being violated by few men running around firing their personally owned guns. Even after a number of such incidents, no drastic measures are taken to control gun ownership, and still there are a lot of people who support the privilege of owning guns.

Have American minds and methods deviated from its original idea on 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness'?

You could be a reporter and write for the news, as this would make a popular article -- even though it is nonsense. The news is full of this kind of bad logic and emotional manipulation. You are implying that IF gun policy were changed, then there would no longer be a "few men running around firing their personally owned guns". IF "drastic measures are taken to control gun ownership" no one will be killed with a gun! Wonderful! All we have to do to accomplish this is to trash the Constitution. Except that people will still be killed with guns, knives, cars, fists, and in dozens of other ways, so instead of solving anything, we will simply have jeopardized the Constitution and created another problem.

The last time this issue came up, I went on Wiki and looked up preventable deaths, and what I found was surprising. Deaths caused by guns and even by drunk drivers was way down in the percentages, but deaths caused by doctors and hospitals was at the top of preventable deaths. This seemed very unlikely, but I remember that back in the 1970's, I believe, there was a problem with nurses in California, who were severely underpaid and overworked -- they wanted to strike. Everyone said, "No. You can't do that. People will die.", but they did it anyway. When it was all over and the statistics were checked, the surprising discovery was that less people died during the strike. After investigations, it was discovered that less people died because there were less surgeries and procedures done on patients, because the doctors and staff were busy doing the nurses jobs. Only life saving procedures were done during that time. So apparently the nurses were enabling doctors, who were a little careless. Do you think we should write an Amendment to the Constitution that would protect us from doctors? Maybe we should ban cars?

If anyone really wants to talk about this problem of people shooting kids in schools, then we need to actually think about what is causing the problem, because it is not the Constitution.

Gee

Zero percentage of violation and killing cannot be achieved with just changing the laws or the constitutions. But changing a constitution for the betterment of human race will not do any harm. If all thr guns are banned from tomorrow, and if it just saves a single life, won't that matter? Won't his/her family members be deprived of the life long dismay?

Yes, people die due to mistakes done by doctors. But it is fair to count how many are saved, then take the ratio in between, and see which part is more. I am pretty sure the latter is far greater in comparison to the former.

And as you said,

Only life saving procedures were done during that time.

and the deaths have been less. So I think that it implies 'doctors and nurses actually save lives'.

With regard to humans, they are not immune to dying and there are thousands of ways to die. If you are not killed by anyone there is the option of having a suicide. But that does not mean that we do not need to take measures that can save at least a very small number of lives

[Sushan]

You are implying that IF gun policy were changed, then there would no longer be a "few men running around firing their personally owned guns". IF "drastic measures are taken to control gun ownership" no one will be killed with a gun! Wonderful! All we have to do to accomplish this is to trash the Constitution.

Perhaps your Constitution need not be "trashed", but only updated in the light of changes in our world since it was written?

Gun deaths and injuries are more common in the USA than in most other countries, some of which also allow private gun ownership, but without the problems that seem to beset America. Changes to your Constitution might improve matters, but it looks to me like more fundamental, and wholly cultural, changes might achieve the best effects?

I am not an expert in American politics. But I think updating is necessary to any field, even to a constitution. It can hurt the minds of the traditional fellows, but in the long run the updates are necessary and will do more good than harm, if the changes and updates are done with a good will.

[Sushan]

You are implying that IF gun policy were changed, then there would no longer be a "few men running around firing their personally owned guns". IF "drastic measures are taken to control gun ownership" no one will be killed with a gun! Wonderful! All we have to do to accomplish this is to trash the Constitution.

Perhaps your Constitution need not be "trashed", but only updated in the light of changes in our world since it was written?

Gun deaths and injuries are more common in the USA than in most other countries, some of which also allow private gun ownership, but without the problems that seem to beset America. Changes to your Constitution might improve matters, but it looks to me like more fundamental, and wholly cultural, changes might achieve the best effects?

"Changes to your Constitution might improve matters?" Might? Are you seriously suggesting that we change the foundation of our government because it might solve the problem? Would you change the foundation of your house because it might make things better? What if it made things worse?

Back when I was studying law, there was a case that came up in California in the 1960's or 1970's. It was about a man who admittedly beat his wife with the express purpose of making her miscarry her pregnancy. Apparently the wife had told him that she was getting a divorce and explained that she was going to take half of his business, his money, his home, and was then going to make him pay for the support of her child for 18 to 20 years -- as was her legal right. He didn't like it, so in order to mitigate his damages, he beat her until she miscarried, saving himself 18 to 20 years of support payments. Apparently, he seriously doubted that the child was his, and had no intention of paying for it for a third of his lifetime. DNA testing might have released him from that responsibility, but maybe not as they were married at the time of conception. Different laws are written differently.

The police were called and he admitted his crime, but to their surprise, they could not charge him with anything more than assault. There was no law against killing a fetus. This would never do! The California legislature called an emergency session and wrote a law to ensure that a fetus would be protected and this could never happen again. Problem solved. Right?

Then the real trouble started; doctors and hospitals started refusing medical treatment to many pregnant women. Some pregnant women died. Why? Because doctors did not mind if they were sued because they made a mistake, but they were damned reluctant to go to prison for murder if they made a mistake and a fetus died. The law has since been changed, and changed, and changed, and there is still no resolution as to the rights of the woman, the man, the fetus, and the community -- as is evidenced by the recent Supreme Court activities regarding abortion.

It is not a good idea, nor is it wise to change laws because they "might" solve a problem. Nor is it a good idea to change laws because they need "updating" because of "changes in our world" since the laws were written. The Books of Law in the Old Testament of the Bible treats causing the death of a fetus as a civil act, not a criminal act, and those laws are thousands of years old, but still relevant.

Gee

I am not an expert in law, and had no formal education in the field. But I have some friends who studied law, and I have sit with them while they get ready to their exams (just out of interest). Among those discussions I got the feeling that the problem with the laws is that they can be interpreted in many ways, and the clever lalawyers find more and more ways to do so. And when a court decision is given in a novel way, the following similar kind of cases are given similar decisions quoting that previous decision. I am sorry if I am wrongfully accusing anyone, but I think it is an issue in the application, but not in the laws itself. I think this is applicable to the second amendment of the US constitution as well.

[Sushan]

"Changes to your Constitution might improve matters?" Might? Are you seriously suggesting that we change the foundation of our government because it might solve the problem?

I'm suggesting that changing your Constitution, or maybe even the more fundamental (and cultural) stuff that lies behind it, might be worth considering. After serious and careful consideration, it might turn out that there are changes that could be made that would improve matters. But by that time, we would be rather more confident than "might", having given the matter the serious consideration that I describe.

Knee-jerk reactions would benefit no-one, IMO. On that, at least, we can surely agree?

Constitutional changes are similar to 'leaps of faith' if not done very very carefully. In my own country the parliament decided to add an amendment, which ended up the jeopardizing the security of the country, and killing a number of people in a terrorist attack. Although everyone knew that the problem lied with the ruling party, not even the president could call an election because of that amendment. So, I think constitutional amendments are double edged, double cutting swords, which have to be handled with extreme caution.

[Sushan]

"Changes to your Constitution might improve matters?" Might? Are you seriously suggesting that we change the foundation of our government because it might solve the problem?

I'm suggesting that changing your Constitution, or maybe even the more fundamental (and cultural) stuff that lies behind it, might be worth considering. After serious and careful consideration, it might turn out that there are changes that could be made that would improve matters. But by that time, we would be rather more confident than "might", having given the matter the serious consideration that I describe.

Knee-jerk reactions would benefit no-one, IMO. On that, at least, we can surely agree?

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

Of course we can agree on that; unfortunately, I believe that this talk of changing the Constitution in order to resolve the problem of people shooting kids in schools is a "knee-jerk reaction". That is why I can not support the idea.

The Constitution is over 200 years old, guns being owned by private citizens is over 200 years old, and kids have been in schools for over 200 years, but the problem of people shooting kids in schools is relatively new. So did it take 150 years for us to come up with the idea of shooting kids in schools, or is there maybe a different reason for this development?

So do you have any evidence that this problem started in the US about 200 years ago, or at least more than 40 or 50 years ago?

Gee

People change, and seemingly the shootings are more a matter of moral values. But we can go way back looking for the cause for that moral degradation, and we may come up with the answer 'bad parenting', or terrorist involvement, in which neither of them have a simple or a quick solution. While addressing such matters that will take a long time, will it be that much harmful to make some amendments to the constitution as a quick measure to the problem in hand?

[LuckyR]

We can discuss this one in depth, as we have done before, but the problem remains. Americans are addicted to the possession of killing-tools. Whatever anyone says to them, they insist that the only way they can live safely is with an AK-47 in the 'closet', 'just in case'...

Ok, let's inject a bit more accuracy to the subject matter. First, "Americans" in general (meaning a statistical majority) are in favor of a change in gun laws, among the more popular are restrictions on "assault style" semi-auto rifles, especially with large magazines.

A minority of the populations of every country would like to have access to full auto guns, like AK-47s. Some actually do, say Switzerland, where gun killing is average to below average when compared worldwide.

You seem to be describing a certain American party's politicians, not Americans.

Yes and no. For a start, I view America from the UK, on the edge of (but no longer part of ) Europe. From a distance, I get a view that you do not, caught up in the middle of it all. I do not differentiate between the two American political parties; they seem little different to me. Both of them seem very Right-wing, pro-Individual, anti-government, anti-social, and pro-punishment.

Of course, Americans vary in their support for private gun ownership. But these Americans are all mixed together, and the consensus that seems to emerge is that 'Americans' are strongly in favour of the possession of massacre-tools by any and all. I have heard of the majority of Americans who would like some form of gun control, but I have seen no action. Many of them only want to limit the most mega-powerful weapons anyway. But any multi-shot gun will do to kill a few schoolkids; it doesn't take a machine-gun.

So yes, you are right to say that I am looking at Americans from a long way away, and seeing them to be pretty much the same as each other. Just as, from the outside, you might see that 'the UK voted for Brexit', when the split was very even, and 48% were opposed to it.

It is obvious that there has been zero progress, legislatively on the issue of gun reform/control in the US. The reason is that the Senate needs 10 votes from the other party (since it is split 51/50) to pass anything and one party is 100% (50 votes) against any and all gun reform. Now keep in mind that depending on the type of gun reform proposed as much as 60% of the members of this party supports gun law changes, yet zero % of the Congress members will support it. Why? Because not all wings of the party bother to vote in the primaries. As expected, party fanatics tend to vote in off year elections, so while 60% of the party supports gun reform, <50% of primary voters do in this party, thus zero sitting legeslators will support it.

The other party routinely calls for law change and actually proposes and passes legislation through the House (where a simple majority is required)

It is quite hard for me to understand your electoral system. But as a summary I think the situation can very well be defined as 'politics'. And that is common to most parts of the world. If the politicians actually thought about the people the world would have been a far better place a long time ago.

Well that's the thing with democracy, it's a popularity contest.

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe that this talk of changing the Constitution in order to resolve the problem of people shooting kids in schools is a "knee-jerk reaction". That is why I can not support the idea.

Simply to "talk" of changing the Constitution is not really a knee-jerk reaction; it isn't really even a reaction, but only a preparation to make a reaction.

But the logic apparent to people in most of the rest of the world - that more guns make more killings more likely - doesn't seem to impress Americans. Why is that, I wonder?

[Sushan]

This topic is about the June 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, What Makes America Great by Bob Dowell

Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (1776)........Witness the often quoted portion of the Declaration declaring under the laws of nature and nature’s God, “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

(Location 152 - Kindle version)

Since the beginning of America liberty to live has been declared in its constitution. But recently we see how this right is being violated by few men running around firing their personally owned guns. Even after a number of such incidents, no drastic measures are taken to control gun ownership, and still there are a lot of people who support the privilege of owning guns.

Have American minds and methods deviated from its original idea on 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness'?

THOMAS JEFFERSON also said:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

But what about the children you ask - Isn't this a good reason to revoke the Second Ammendment

For this we have to go back to the 20th Century and hear what one of the most famous {or infamous} gun control advocates
had to say. Yes, he was from Germany but many gun control advocates seem to favor his logic:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
― Adolf Hitler

So rather than do the right thing by adding effective security to ALL schools - the 'who gives a damn about the Constitution'
group would rather disarm all citizens and flush the Constitution.


“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” ​

– George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

Seemingly the American ancestors had good intentions and thoughts behind giving the right to American citizens to own weapons. But those who possess them nowadays have seemingly deviated from those original intentions. So, either the mindset of such people should be changed, or the constitution should be changed, and wonder which one is easy? (Seemingly both are almost unachievable )

[Gee]

I believe that this talk of changing the Constitution in order to resolve the problem of people shooting kids in schools is a "knee-jerk reaction". That is why I can not support the idea.

Simply to "talk" of changing the Constitution is not really a knee-jerk reaction; it isn't really even a reaction, but only a preparation to make a reaction.

It may not be a reaction, but it is certainly a misdirection that prevents the actual problems from being addressed.

But the logic apparent to people in most of the rest of the world - that more guns make more killings more likely - doesn't seem to impress Americans. Why is that, I wonder?

How about because it is nonsense? Misdirection? BS? Read this thread again, and you will find that there is almost no information about the actual shootings or the motivation behind those shootings. This thread is all about the Constitution and how to corrupt or take down the Constitution, which means to take down the government, which means that it is an attack on democracy, which makes people want to protect their gun rights. This attack is just as dangerous as Trump's attack on democracy. This thread has nothing to do with the kids -- that is just an emotional ploy to get attention.

As noted before: There. Is. NO. Causal. Relationship. Between. The US Constitution. And School Kids. Being Shot!

People are just rambling on without evidence and facts to support their Utopian beliefs.

Gee

[Sushan]

Yes and no. For a start, I view America from the UK, on the edge of (but no longer part of ) Europe. From a distance, I get a view that you do not, caught up in the middle of it all. I do not differentiate between the two American political parties; they seem little different to me. Both of them seem very Right-wing, pro-Individual, anti-government, anti-social, and pro-punishment.

Of course, Americans vary in their support for private gun ownership. But these Americans are all mixed together, and the consensus that seems to emerge is that 'Americans' are strongly in favour of the possession of massacre-tools by any and all. I have heard of the majority of Americans who would like some form of gun control, but I have seen no action. Many of them only want to limit the most mega-powerful weapons anyway. But any multi-shot gun will do to kill a few schoolkids; it doesn't take a machine-gun.

So yes, you are right to say that I am looking at Americans from a long way away, and seeing them to be pretty much the same as each other. Just as, from the outside, you might see that 'the UK voted for Brexit', when the split was very even, and 48% were opposed to it.

It is obvious that there has been zero progress, legislatively on the issue of gun reform/control in the US. The reason is that the Senate needs 10 votes from the other party (since it is split 51/50) to pass anything and one party is 100% (50 votes) against any and all gun reform. Now keep in mind that depending on the type of gun reform proposed as much as 60% of the members of this party supports gun law changes, yet zero % of the Congress members will support it. Why? Because not all wings of the party bother to vote in the primaries. As expected, party fanatics tend to vote in off year elections, so while 60% of the party supports gun reform, <50% of primary voters do in this party, thus zero sitting legeslators will support it.

The other party routinely calls for law change and actually proposes and passes legislation through the House (where a simple majority is required)

It is quite hard for me to understand your electoral system. But as a summary I think the situation can very well be defined as 'politics'. And that is common to most parts of the world. If the politicians actually thought about the people the world would have been a far better place a long time ago.

Well that's the thing with democracy, it's a popularity contest.

Yes, and that is the problem with democracy. The popular thing is always accepted, and it is not always the right thing. And most of these representative democratic systems actually do not represent the ideas of the society, rather than representing few personal agendas of those who actually involve in the politics.

[Sushan]

I believe that this talk of changing the Constitution in order to resolve the problem of people shooting kids in schools is a "knee-jerk reaction". That is why I can not support the idea.

Simply to "talk" of changing the Constitution is not really a knee-jerk reaction; it isn't really even a reaction, but only a preparation to make a reaction.

But the logic apparent to people in most of the rest of the world - that more guns make more killings more likely - doesn't seem to impress Americans. Why is that, I wonder?

I agree with you. I do not know whether there is a deep idea in arming the US citizens. But when there is fire, there is chance of burning. So, when there are weapons everywhere, there is the chance for killing. The countries with most guns are the countries in which more violent deaths by guns are reported. It is true that this is not the major cause of deaths in such countries, but the equation is significant, and pretty much obvious.

[Sushan]

I believe that this talk of changing the Constitution in order to resolve the problem of people shooting kids in schools is a "knee-jerk reaction". That is why I can not support the idea.

Simply to "talk" of changing the Constitution is not really a knee-jerk reaction; it isn't really even a reaction, but only a preparation to make a reaction.

It may not be a reaction, but it is certainly a misdirection that prevents the actual problems from being addressed.

But the logic apparent to people in most of the rest of the world - that more guns make more killings more likely - doesn't seem to impress Americans. Why is that, I wonder?

How about because it is nonsense? Misdirection? BS? Read this thread again, and you will find that there is almost no information about the actual shootings or the motivation behind those shootings. This thread is all about the Constitution and how to corrupt or take down the Constitution, which means to take down the government, which means that it is an attack on democracy, which makes people want to protect their gun rights. This attack is just as dangerous as Trump's attack on democracy. This thread has nothing to do with the kids -- that is just an emotional ploy to get attention.

As noted before: There. Is. NO. Causal. Relationship. Between. The US Constitution. And School Kids. Being Shot!

People are just rambling on without evidence and facts to support their Utopian beliefs.

Gee

The mentioning about the kids was done because it is the most recently gun-violence related incident. But the topic says Life liberty vs Gun policy. So, yes, it is indeed about the constitution. And I am pretty sure there is no one within this discussion that want to make the US government fall. We all are trying to understand whether there is anything beyond what we generally understand from 'more guns causing more deaths. And I really do not understand why a change to the constitution is getting such an resistance. After all it is just an amendment, and I do not think it will do any harm to the economy, healthcare, education, or any other important field of the country.

[Gee]

Zero percentage of violation and killing cannot be achieved with just changing the laws or the constitutions. But changing a constitution for the betterment of human race will not do any harm. If all thr guns are banned from tomorrow, and if it just saves a single life, won't that matter? Won't his/her family members be deprived of the life long dismay?

For the "betterment"? Another Utopian idea, or do you actually have a plan? If we write a law that says all the guns will be banned from tomorrow, then all the law abiding citizens will give up their guns. What will the criminals do?

Yes, people die due to mistakes done by doctors. But it is fair to count how many are saved, then take the ratio in between, and see which part is more. I am pretty sure the latter is far greater in comparison to the former.

Well, I am not so sure. Doctors tend to be faddish. If we just take the opium problem that doctors influenced in the what (1700's/1800's). Then we take the recent oxi-something drugs that are currently being prescribed, and maybe the psych drugs, and combine the statistics together with the botched surgeries that are killing people, we may not even need to go farther. But just for general principles let us add in the thousands of new mothers that died because doctors were too arrogant to believe the evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_infections Scroll down to "history" and read the part about the "Doctor's Plague".

And as you said,

Only life saving procedures were done during that time.

and the deaths have been less. So I think that it implies 'doctors and nurses actually save lives'.

With regard to humans, they are not immune to dying and there are thousands of ways to die. If you are not killed by anyone there is the option of having a suicide. But that does not mean that we do not need to take measures that can save at least a very small number of lives

Doctors and nurses do save lives, but the American medical system needs serious revision. If you want to write some laws regarding policy and procedure changes, hospitals would be a good place to start. I can think of two different cases where a man went gunning for a doctor that the man felt was responsible for the death of his wife.

Gee