We need more laws against Camrys

[turtlespeed 212]

Al y'all are missing my point.

I was simply restating the irony hat we need to enforce the laws currently in the books before trying to add more unenforced laws.

Uphold the laws currently in effect, and then see where we are.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,647]

Anvilbrother

Who here is completely unwilling? How many dozen page debates here have you seen on heart disease, cancer, and chronic lower resporatory diseases, car accidents, strokes? Those are the top killers.

No need to debate heart disease, cancer, and chronic lower resporatory diseases, car accidents, and strokes BECAUSE all of these are already subject to detailed analysis and improvement in outcomes. It is ONLY firearms where there is such strong resistance to doing anything, or even analyzing the problem (such as CDC firearms injury research being unfunded as a result of NRA lobbying).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Heart disease rates UP, cancer rates UP, COPD/CHF rates UP, obesity rates UP, gun homicide rates DOWN. Out of all of those guns are at the bottom of the list. So the biggest killers are getting worse, and the lowest of the list is getting smaller but still gets majority of the attention around here especially.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 2,433]

>But it's likely that someone on this forum will be.

They unfortunately have been - several times.

[kallend 1,647]

Anvilbrother

Heart disease rates UP, cancer rates UP, COPD/CHF rates UP, obesity rates UP, gun homicide rates DOWN. Out of all of those guns are at the bottom of the list. So the biggest killers are getting worse, and the lowest of the list is getting smaller but still gets majority of the attention around here especially.

1. The ONLY reason that raw death rates are increasing for those diseases is that the average age of the US population is increasing and these are age related diseases. If the data are corrected for population age distribution then the rates are decreasing. The CDC does this very well, but it doesn't suit your agenda to admit that.
The reason the average age of the population is increasing is that the care is improving.

2. Tell us which organizations have lobbied AGAINST doing research on heart disease, cancer, stroke, diet... in the same way that the NRA has lobbied against research on firearm violence.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,433]

>2. Tell us which organizations have lobbied AGAINST doing research on heart
>disease, cancer, stroke, diet... in the same way that the NRA has lobbied
>against research on firearm violence.

Tobacco companies. Dairy companies. They have a fair amount to lose by people making healthier decisions.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>2. Tell us which organizations have lobbied AGAINST doing research on heart
>disease, cancer, stroke, diet... in the same way that the NRA has lobbied
>against research on firearm violence.

Tobacco companies. Dairy companies. They have a fair amount to lose by people making healthier decisions.

pharmaceuticals companies (that sell treatments vs cures), all natural healing folk (both the lefty and religious flavors), Jenny McCarthy and her elk, probably some doctors that make their living treating these afflictions, professors that get research funding, Camry owners, etc etc etc


that said, pharmos want to get research 'funding' but their success would put a lot of terrible treatments off the shelves.

seems the NRA is doing it wrong - they should lobby for funding to research ways and devices to make guns safer........the big government types would love that. and the anti-gunners would have some of the air let out of their sails

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,433]

>pharmaceuticals companies (that sell treatments vs cures)

I haven't seen any lobbying against research by the pharmas, mainly because that research more often than not leads them to make more money, not less.

>all natural healing folk (both the lefty and religious flavors)

I'll agree with you there partially. Most of the ones I've talked to support research because they feel it will vindicate their beliefs (i.e. "vaccines really do give you autism") but I've seen a few groups who oppose, for example, GMO research.

>professors that get research funding

Never seen a professor that relies on research funding lobby against research funding. That would be like Monsanto lobbying against agriculture.

[kallend 1,647]

billvon

>2. Tell us which organizations have lobbied AGAINST doing research on heart
>disease, cancer, stroke, diet... in the same way that the NRA has lobbied
>against research on firearm violence.

Tobacco companies. Dairy companies. They have a fair amount to lose by people making healthier decisions.

Tobacco companies are just as unethical as the NRA, but you knew that. Do you have a link to show that dairy companies have put effort into lobbying to shut down research on disease?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,433]

>Tobacco companies are just as unethical as the NRA, but you knew that. Do
>you have a link to show that dairy companies have put effort into lobbying to
>shut down research on disease?

I'll have to find it. It was from a documentary on government waste. The FDA came out with a new report on obesity, recommending a reduction in the amount of dairy people ate. The American Dairy Association came out with guns blazing, threatening lawsuits, writing their congressmen and publicizing how bad the FDA was. They also threatened to block any further such "biased" research.

A compromise was reached. The FDA came out with the new recommendations, while at the same time money was set aside for "dairy market development" to try to open new markets for dairy, thus easing the financial pain of the new recommendation. This eventually led to the US government funding part of the effort to develop the "stuffed crust" pizza for pizza hut.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

tkhayes

read my reply above - such narrow-mindedness from you. really. surely you can do better. let's nitpick every word, every detail, every nuance. Let's do NOTHING. let's continue to claim that we can do NOTHING.

Let's NEVER improve on anything....I mean, it is the American way, but only when it comes to guns.

How many products do you use EVERY SINGLE DAY in your life, that you only use because they are safer than they ever were before?

Guns are vastly improved since (say) 25 years ago. Lighter, smaller, more reliable, safer.

Market driven.

What "safety" improvements would you suggest?

If you want to cut down the number of accidental shootings, how about including training for kids (look up the "Eddie Eagle" safety program - from the NRA)
NRA's biggest function is actually training. Not lobbying. They preach gun safety more than just about everyone else. But they tend to oppose so-called "safety laws" because they would do more harm than good.

If you want to cut gun crimes, how about prosecuting criminals?

If you want to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, how about prosecuting people for lying on their background check applications?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

Guns are vastly improved since (say) 25 years ago.

Really? How are guns safer now than they were 25 years ago?

Quote

What "safety" improvements would you suggest?

There are various smart technologies that would allow a gun to only be shot by a designated person.

This technology is actively being blocked by the gun lobby, to the point of death threats to stores announcing they would cary such product in their inventory.

Quote

But they tend to oppose so-called "safety laws" because they would do more harm than good.

lol

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

SkyDekker

Quote

Guns are vastly improved since (say) 25 years ago.

Really? How are guns safer now than they were 25 years ago?

***What "safety" improvements would you suggest?

There are various smart technologies that would allow a gun to only be shot by a designated person.

This technology is actively being blocked by the gun lobby, to the point of death threats to stores announcing they would cary such product in their inventory.

Quote

But they tend to oppose so-called "safety laws" because they would do more harm than good.

lol

#1 - Most auto pistols (semi-auto) have multiple safeties. From "trigger insert" stuff (like Glock started) to firing pin block safeties (where the gun can't fire until the trigger is all the way back). Some of those go back more than 25 years (Colt "Series 80" has the firing pin safety and has had it for longer than that). Pistols today are more "drop safe" than ever before.

#2 - One of the greatest threats to a cop is being disarmed and shot with their own gun. It's gotten better in the past 25 years (or so), but it's still something they train and equip for.
Yet the cops refuse to accept that technology. Because they don't trust it. Some of it is "Institutional Inerta." But the states that have adopted rules that put requirements for it into place have all exempted cops from those rules.

The death threats were stupid. But some people tend to be a little irrational about this stuff. And that behavior isn't confined to gun rights types.

#3 - The NRA tends to oppose laws that they see as doing more harm than good. Much of it sounds good when proposed, but sneaks in registration through the "back door", which will always be opposed.
They see a lot of these laws as punishing the "law abiding gun owner" while doing nothing about the criminal use of guns. They see a lot of these laws as making it more difficult for the average citizen to get a gun without having any effect on crime.

And they really advocate training. I mentioned it in another post, but the NRA has the "Eddie Eagle" training program for kids. It's main points are "If you see a gun -Don't touch, leave the area and tell an adult." Yet when it was offered to anyone who wanted it (schools and such), the anti-NRA crowd had a conniption. "How dare those evil people try to teach our kids about guns!!!" was the standard reaction.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

> This eventually led to the US government funding part of the effort to develop the "stuffed crust" pizza for pizza hut.

Please, tell me that the government hasn't crossed the line into what should be free market.

say it with a straight face

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

#2 - One of the greatest threats to a cop is being disarmed and shot with their own gun. It's gotten better in the past 25 years (or so), but it's still something they train and equip for.
Yet the cops refuse to accept that technology. Because they don't trust it. Some of it is "Institutional Inerta." But the states that have adopted rules that put requirements for it into place have all exempted cops from those rules.

That's not a reason not to have it for sale though.

Accidental gun deaths, killings with illegal guns are seen as an acceptable price to pay for the 2nd amendment. However, this technology has to be 100% before it is allowed? That doesn't make sense.

So what it a gun owner dies every once in a while because the technology didn't work as it was supposed to. Why can that not be an acceptable loss?

[kallend 1,647]

SkyDekker

Quote

Guns are vastly improved since (say) 25 years ago.

Really? How are guns safer now than they were 25 years ago?

The concept of safety in a device designed to kill and maim is absurd.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

kallend

***

Quote

Guns are vastly improved since (say) 25 years ago.

Really? How are guns safer now than they were 25 years ago?

The concept of safety in a device designed to kill and maim is absurd.

Hence, I would think "safety" would be based on the tool not being able to kill and maim what it isn't supposed to. Ie. only being able to be used by the designated person and only being able to kill what it is intending to kill.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

kallend

***

Quote

Guns are vastly improved since (say) 25 years ago.

Really? How are guns safer now than they were 25 years ago?

The concept of safety in a device designed to kill and maim is absurd.

That's not true, Professor.

EVERY training course I've ever been a part of has treated "Safety" as the number one concept. It's taught from the beginning. It's reinforced throughout the course. It's practiced on the range (with penalties for failing to follow the rules).

The principle that it's a dangerous tool and should be treated as such isn't absurd. It tends to reduce the level of accidents (not eliminate, reduce).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,433]

>Please, tell me that the government hasn't crossed the line into what should be
>free market.

Oh, it's not just that. At one point the FDA had programs going to get kids to eat less dairy - at the same time that the "dairy stimulus" program was working to get more cheese into their pizzas.

I thought it would make more sense to just take all that money and have a big party. Same result (no change) and more people are happier afterwards.

[millertime24 8]

Wrong. Guns are designed to place holes in objects. I bet you think that aad's deploy reserves too.

Muff #5048