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?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

---

 

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.

---

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.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

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.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

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.

---

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.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

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?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

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?

The NRA contributes about $1M a year in campaign contributions. Just as an exercise, divvy that up to roughly 50 Republican senators and 200 Republican congressmen (a few Dems get some too). That's $4,000 per person on average. Whoop-de-do. You think a candidate is going to change his position for a measly 1% or less of his total? It's much more likely that the NRA donated based on an already established position.

Just looked up a senator picked at random, Dean Heller of Nevada (based on it being a contested race). The NRA gave his campaign $2500. That's typical of his 766 donors, nothing special.

Dean Heller Campaign Finances

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Why do they give money to politicians?

---

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?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Why do they give money to politicians?

You give money to politicians to help them get elected.

Some businessmen (as Trump did in the past) give money to politicians hoping to get favorable decisions (such as zoning) or maybe just paying protection money (e.g "fund my campaign or I'll have your property condemned").

I'd guess the NRA donates to politicians who oppose firearm restrictions, or to the opponent of someone who was campaigning in favor of firearm restrictions. The cause/effect order is the reverse of what RJ implied. The donations are based on the politics, not the politics based on donations. The latter might work in the case of local fiefdoms and zoning laws, or even niche federal issues such as where to build a laboratory, but not for major national issues such as gun control. You don't change your mind on (say) abortion just because Planned Parenthood gave you a campaign contribution.

Is this not how it works in OZ?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Quit turning criminals in to victims and hero's.

Hey, I'm not the guy that voted for Trump.

---

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?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

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?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley