(02-26-2018, 12:10 PM)Teal Time Radio Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 12:26 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile:
General Cell Phone Statistics
Note: These are the most recent statistics available
The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
Nearly 330,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving.
1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving.
Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than driving drunk.
Answering a text takes away your attention for about five seconds. Traveling at 55 mph, that's enough time to travel the length of a football field.
Texting while driving causes a 400% increase in time spent with eyes off the road.
Of all cell phone related tasks, texting is by far the most dangerous activity.
Out here texting or using phone not handsfree is illegal and major fines. Minors they suspend license for caught texting.
But if they have such a strong law how oh how does it keep happening? Won't someone think of the children?
(02-25-2018, 12:26 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile:
General Cell Phone Statistics
Note: These are the most recent statistics available
The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
Nearly 330,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving.
1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving.
Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than driving drunk.
Answering a text takes away your attention for about five seconds. Traveling at 55 mph, that's enough time to travel the length of a football field.
Texting while driving causes a 400% increase in time spent with eyes off the road.
Of all cell phone related tasks, texting is by far the most dangerous activity.
So because people do one thing that is stupid we shouldn't worry about other things that are stupid?
Fyi, texting while driving is illegal and enforced when possible.
(02-26-2018, 12:17 PM)UCF Knight Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 12:26 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile:
General Cell Phone Statistics
Note: These are the most recent statistics available
The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
Nearly 330,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving.
1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving.
Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than driving drunk.
Answering a text takes away your attention for about five seconds. Traveling at 55 mph, that's enough time to travel the length of a football field.
Texting while driving causes a 400% increase in time spent with eyes off the road.
Of all cell phone related tasks, texting is by far the most dangerous activity.
So because people do one thing that is stupid we shouldn't worry about other things that are stupid?
Fyi, texting while driving is illegal and enforced when possible.
And what is "stupid"?
I think it's stupid liberals want more gun control when we can't even enforce the laws we already have.
(02-26-2018, 12:17 PM)UCF Knight Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 12:26 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile:
General Cell Phone Statistics
Note: These are the most recent statistics available
The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
Nearly 330,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving.
1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving.
Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than driving drunk.
Answering a text takes away your attention for about five seconds. Traveling at 55 mph, that's enough time to travel the length of a football field.
Texting while driving causes a 400% increase in time spent with eyes off the road.
Of all cell phone related tasks, texting is by far the most dangerous activity.
So because people do one thing that is stupid we shouldn't worry about other things that are stupid?
Fyi, texting while driving is illegal and enforced when possible.
FYI, murdering people is illegal and enforced when possible.
(02-25-2018, 02:41 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 02:26 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Because anyone in a city with restrictive gun laws won't have to travel far to find a town/county/state where guns are easy to get.
Even with NRA membership growing, they still only have about 4.5 million members, out of an estimated 70 million registered gun owners and 325 million citizens. Their influence seems to be a bit disproportionate.
Yet the left wants to blame them for any shooting. Seems they have the most influence over the deluded psyche of the liberal elite in the media, and their left wing lemmings lapping up every word.
That was a lot of alliteration for one post, are you channeling Limbaugh?
Are you telling me you think the reasons Republicans do not address gun control legislation have nothing to do with NRA contributions to their campaign coffers?
(02-25-2018, 02:50 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 02:26 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Because anyone in a city with restrictive gun laws won't have to travel far to find a town/county/state where guns are easy to get another way to kill innocent people.
What makes this so difficult to understand?
What makes my point, irrelevant to your edit, so difficult to understand? The main reason restrictive gun laws do not work in, say, Chicago is because the gun laws in nearby Indiana are permissive.
They may find some other weapon, but not one with multiple target lethal capability from a distance.
(02-26-2018, 05:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 02:50 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]What makes this so difficult to understand?
What makes my point, irrelevant to your edit, so difficult to understand? The main reason restrictive gun laws do not work in, say, Chicago is because the gun laws in nearby Indiana are permissive.
They may find some other weapon, but not one with multiple target lethal capability from a distance.
You shouldn't hold your breath for gun control. It's never happening.
(02-26-2018, 05:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 02:50 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]What makes this so difficult to understand?
What makes my point, irrelevant to your edit, so difficult to understand? The main reason restrictive gun laws do not work in, say, Chicago is because the gun laws in nearby Indiana are permissive.
They may find some other weapon, but not one with multiple target lethal capability from a distance.
The reason for the high murder rate in Chicago is Chicagoans, not gun laws or lack thereof. The same Detroit, Baltimore, Atlanta, Houston, Jacksonville, and every other city or town in the world.
P.S. - Rifles and so called "assault weapons" continue to lag far behind other methods of murder. And the "assault weapons" ban of 1994 didn't do a damn thing to prevent murders. So says noted Republican and NRA house organ
The New York Times.
The Assault Weapons Myth
FTA:
But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.
It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.
We don't have a gun control problem, we have a criminal entitlement problem. Quit turning criminals in to victims and hero's.
Hmm, the naive thought that negative repercussions would not follow the #boycottNRA corporate movement. While the discounts are a drop in the bucket to most NRA members, corporations deploying politically driven agendas may be costly! Delta's relationship with the city of Atlanta is the first public domino.
https://twitter.com/CaseyCagle/status/96...rline.html
(02-26-2018, 05:00 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 02:41 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]Yet the left wants to blame them for any shooting. Seems they have the most influence over the deluded psyche of the liberal elite in the media, and their left wing lemmings lapping up every word.
That was a lot of alliteration for one post, are you channeling Limbaugh?
Are you telling me you think the reasons Republicans do not address gun control legislation have nothing to do with NRA contributions to their campaign coffers?
That's a good possibility, but don't confuse politicians with their constituents being agrreadble with the NRA. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As has already been pointed out, many gun owners could give a rat's butt about the NRA and aren't even members. They certainly have no bearing on my husband and I deciding what to purchase for home or personal protection.
(02-25-2018, 04:23 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2018, 07:05 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...7a94e7db0d
See what happens when 17 people are murdered at a school with a high powered rifle and you blame everyone and everything but the gun? See what happens when you suggest that survivors are actors and the media loves the shootings? See what happens when you spend decades deflecting and obstructing any conversation about firearms by mongering fear and anger to your members?
I'm enjoying watching the NRA squirm and writhe in agony as it loses corporate partners left and right, and will continue enjoying myself as I watch members of Congress and the President back away from their NRA ties more and more with each passing day. Screw that organization, and good riddance to it.
Dude, are you on drugs? We rarely agree on anything but we've been able to respect each other's POV at the very least. Sometimes. It does seem like something shifted in your psyche because you sound like you're going off the deep end.
And I will say this with all seriousness.....my husband's farts are more high powered than an AR-15. For real.
Someone asked this in another thread: if my kid or spouse were killed in a shooting of this nature would I be all over the government to impose tougher gun laws? My answer is no, and for several reasons, the first of which is that until we enforce the laws we currently have, and I mean every single one of them that affects how a person acquires a gun, there is no reason to impose more laws that will not be enforced.
When this happens if we still have these incidents we can discuss this issue further, until then this a moot point.
(02-26-2018, 05:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 02:50 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]What makes this so difficult to understand?
What makes my point, irrelevant to your edit, so difficult to understand? The main reason restrictive gun laws do not work in, say, Chicago is because the gun laws in nearby Indiana are permissive.
They may find some other weapon, but not one with multiple target lethal capability from a distance.
So it is not the illegal act nor the total lack of respect for human life that offends you, merely the body count?
Why do they give money to politicians?
(02-26-2018, 05:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2018, 02:50 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]What makes this so difficult to understand?
What makes my point, irrelevant to your edit, so difficult to understand? The main reason restrictive gun laws do not work in, say, Chicago is because the gun laws in nearby Indiana are permissive.
They may find some other weapon, but not one with multiple target lethal capability from a distance.
Your point is not at all difficult to understand, it's your theory that's flawed. Yes, if guns are banned in Chicago, one will not have to travel far to a jurisdiction where laws are more permissive,
but, that's not the reason gun laws don't work.......let's apply your theory to the drug problem. Are you suggesting that drug laws in Chicago don't work because drug laws in Indiana are so permissive?
Thanks for conceding the bad guys can find another weapon (and thus admitting that a ban on guns won't automatically stop the violence). Multiple target, lethal capability couldn't be any more simple than with a car however. Your also wrong about the distance argument, as Timothy McVeigh has proven. Are you forgetting history or simply choosing to ignore it?
(02-26-2018, 06:01 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Quit turning criminals in to victims and hero's.
Hey, I'm not the guy that voted for Trump.
(02-26-2018, 06:54 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2018, 05:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]What makes my point, irrelevant to your edit, so difficult to understand? The main reason restrictive gun laws do not work in, say, Chicago is because the gun laws in nearby Indiana are permissive.
They may find some other weapon, but not one with multiple target lethal capability from a distance.
So it is not the illegal act nor the total lack of respect for human life that offends you, merely the body count?
That's what you got from my post?
(02-26-2018, 10:27 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2018, 05:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]What makes my point, irrelevant to your edit, so difficult to understand? The main reason restrictive gun laws do not work in, say, Chicago is because the gun laws in nearby Indiana are permissive.
They may find some other weapon, but not one with multiple target lethal capability from a distance.
Your point is not at all difficult to understand, it's your theory that's flawed. Yes, if guns are banned in Chicago, one will not have to travel far to a jurisdiction where laws are more permissive, but, that's not the reason gun laws don't work.......let's apply your theory to the drug problem. Are you suggesting that drug laws in Chicago don't work because drug laws in Indiana are so permissive?
Thanks for conceding the bad guys can find another weapon (and thus admitting that a ban on guns won't automatically stop the violence). Multiple target, lethal capability couldn't be any more simple than with a car however. Your also wrong about the distance argument, as Timothy McVeigh has proven. Are you forgetting history or simply choosing to ignore it?
I never said gun bans won't automatically stop violence, so I'm not sure what I'm admitting. I didn't even say guns should be banned. Gun laws won't work if a short drive will get a buyer to a less restrictive area. That's common sense. What that has to do with drug use I have no idea. Very few apples resemble an orange.
Presenting ridiculous examples doesn't prove a theory to be flawed, your examples are flawed. You can't put a car or a U-Haul full of chemical explosives. I imagine if those type of attacks became as common as gun related deaths, there would be more stringent laws in place. Until then, can we stick to something relevant?