On 2/19/13 5:39 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 5:24 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/19/13 5:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:


Make cell phones and computer screens blank out at 10 mph.. but they
will never do that...


Yeah...what happens if you are a passenger in a car or on a train or in
a bus?

You really don't know anything about anything.


Maybe you could go a few minutes without posting lame insults to usenet?
But of course typical liberal, that would save millions of lives, but it
would inconvenience you so of course you are against it. Not like you
are working all that hard to pay back the folks you stole from with your
several bankruptcies...



And once again you demonstrate you don't know anything about anything.

I know you are not part of the workaday world, but millions of Americans
are, and they find it necessary to make and receive phone calls or
emails while they commute to work. They commute all sorts of ways,
including in vehicles of various types they aren't driving. Many commute
long distances. So, your proposal is that they folks should not be able
to use their smart phones/tablets/whatever because once the vehicle is
going more than 10 mph, it should blank out?

You don't know anything about anything.

--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.

On 2/19/2013 6:07 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/19/13 5:39 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 5:24 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/19/13 5:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:


Make cell phones and computer screens blank out at 10 mph.. but they
will never do that...


Yeah...what happens if you are a passenger in a car or on a train or in
a bus?

You really don't know anything about anything.


Maybe you could go a few minutes without posting lame insults to usenet?
But of course typical liberal, that would save millions of lives, but it
would inconvenience you so of course you are against it. Not like you
are working all that hard to pay back the folks you stole from with your
several bankruptcies...



And once again you demonstrate you don't know anything about anything.

Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL!

On 2/19/13 6:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 6:07 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/19/13 5:39 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 5:24 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/19/13 5:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:


Make cell phones and computer screens blank out at 10 mph.. but they
will never do that...


Yeah...what happens if you are a passenger in a car or on a train or in
a bus?

You really don't know anything about anything.


Maybe you could go a few minutes without posting lame insults to usenet?
But of course typical liberal, that would save millions of lives, but it
would inconvenience you so of course you are against it. Not like you
are working all that hard to pay back the folks you stole from with your
several bankruptcies...



And once again you demonstrate you don't know anything about anything.

Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL!


Hey, most of your posts make absolutely no sense. Why should your latest
idea of having everyone's cells shut off at 10 mph be any different.

Oh...my wife just messaged me from her iPhone. Her commuter bus, the one
on which is she a passenger and the one that travels at more than 10 mph
except when it is stuck in traffic arrived at her stop downtown 10
minutes late so she probably will be home a littler later than usual.

Under your plan, she wouldn't be able to send such a message.

You're a moron.

--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:12:01 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:00:48 -0800, Urin Asshole wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:57:32 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:13:19 -0800, Urin Asshole wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 2/19/13 9:00 AM, Eisboch wrote:
For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA. Data
is
the final numbers from 2010 as published by the Center for Disease
Control.
Surprisingly, firearms related deaths didn't make the top ten and
firearms related homicides weren't even close to the top ten. It's
interesting that deaths caused by traffic accidents numbered about 3
times those of homicides involving firearms, but all the focus is on
more gun control laws.

Personal note: This is not a excuse of deaths caused by firearms,
but
rather an attempt to put it all in perspective.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Traffic accidents: 33,808
Firearms: 30,470 (19,392 suicides, 11,078 homicides)


There are solid statistically based predictions that state that
firearms
deaths will exceed traffic accident deaths in a couple of years.

Oh, you forgot to list the number of Americans who die of old age.

On a more serious note, I only took one college-level statistics
course
and have forgotten most of what I ever learned about that sort of
math,
so I asked a family member who has taken four graduate-level stats
courses about these sorts of comparisons (gun deaths vs. car deaths
vs.
cancer deaths, et cetera) and got a chuckle in response. "Such
comparisions are based on silliness and are statistically absurd. Yes,
more people die of cancer than of gunshot wounds but...so what?"

==========================

The number that surprised me was deaths by homicide involving
firearms. I read the same thing you did regarding firearm deaths
exceeding traffic deaths by 2015 however that includes suicides.
Unfortunately, although a gun is the method of choice for most
suicides, further gun restrictions won't eliminate them. As stated
in my post, the data is presented simply to put things in
perspective. 11,078 firearms related homicides is too many of course
but it's a reflection of violence in our society ... which also cannot
be totally eliminated. There are bad people in the world. But the
number is not the huge number that some of the media and proponents of
even more gun control measure would like you to believe.

My state has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.
Permits require background checks and every purchase of a firearm at a
dealer involves a telephone check and taking of an electronic
fingerprint to verify that you are who you say you are and your permit
is valid. You must present a valid permit even for ammunition
purchases. But, our me-too governor has proposed and is pushing for
even more restrictive laws including jail time for purchasing more
than one firearm per month for existing permit holders, making
getting a permit more difficult, and putting a heavy state tax (up to
50%) on all ammunition sales (even range target practice rounds). I
don't see how that is going to affect the homicide rate by firearms in
the country.
All it is is political posturing in reaction to a horrible but
isolated event caused by a kid who was severely disturbed .... as are
all cases of mass murders.

By that twisted ****ing logic, we might as well do away with the NTSB
and all the other safety protocols, since they result in fewer deaths.
How about faulty cribs. What a load of horse****. You have a product
that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many as
cancer, it's ok.

Where, Mr. U. Asshole, did he say 'it's OK'?


Salmonbait

Never said he did. I said by that twisted ****ing logic ****bait.

Not your words?

"You have a product that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many as
cancer, it's ok. "

You, Mr. U. Asshole, make a good Harry.


Salmonbait

Sorry Salmonbreath.. I giving an example of twisted logic. Feel free
to foam at the mouth but you're still an idiot.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:06:23 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Funny how it's the bigger nanny states, they really don't want their
citizens to have a "say" in their government... Mass is a perfect example.

You stupid little fool!!! What does ANY of the above have to do with ANY
state's citizens having a "say" in their government? Do you know
(probably not) that the people that run states are hired BY those
"citizens"? It's called voting.

If I buy a product that just doesn't work out well when I get it home, I
can return it and get a refund.

With an elected official, whey you vote you are making a two year
commitment for any mistakes you have made in your judgment in selecting
the elected official. You can try and return it but often times it isn't
worth the effort.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:58:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The number of suicides by gun might drop if it were a bit more difficult
and time consuming to buy pistols. In my state, there's a waiting period
that ends up running about 10 days from purchase to approval by the
state police. If you are suicidal and want a gun to end it and you don't
have one, you might change your mind in 10 days.

Not likely. Most people who seriously contemplate suicide, eventually
decide to do it. Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US and
they have virtually zero firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aokigahara

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:26:55 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/19/13 11:08 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:58:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The number of suicides by gun might drop if it were a bit more difficult
and time consuming to buy pistols. In my state, there's a waiting period
that ends up running about 10 days from purchase to approval by the
state police. If you are suicidal and want a gun to end it and you don't
have one, you might change your mind in 10 days.

Not likely. Most people who seriously contemplate suicide, eventually
decide to do it.

- - -

You have valid statistics on that?

What exactly, That people who commit suicide have a history of
"gestures"? That is easy, or are you going for something else?

This is all over the news right now because of Mindy McCredy

Doctor Drew's fees took a nose dive today.

On 2/19/2013 4:55 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:19:17 -0500, Meyer wrote:

On 2/19/2013 12:52 PM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:



Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo

that are owned by the public?



What would be the point?



Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell

an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why

can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own

drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I

want to?



Why am I being punished?



That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years





I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were

incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find

another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent

methods available to suicidal persons?



The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of

the left's favorite example of gun control.





Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say

under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those

other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those

stats above? Not so many.



The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.



Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory

breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat

belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)

That might save more people than banning guns.


Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.
Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not limiting towing capacity.

What's the towing capacity of your Rav 4?

If it's a 2009 with a v6, and he's really full of bravado, he can tow 2000lbs. That doesn't mean he
can *stop* it though.


Salmonbait


I don't think he has the gutsy V6 His new boat is 3 times the
princecraft. It's hard to believe he can tow that hefty boat with that
pyrite gray devil of a rave 4.

On 2/19/2013 4:57 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:13:19 -0800, Urin Asshole wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 2/19/13 9:00 AM, Eisboch wrote:
For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA. Data
is
the final numbers from 2010 as published by the Center for Disease
Control.
Surprisingly, firearms related deaths didn't make the top ten and
firearms related homicides weren't even close to the top ten. It's
interesting that deaths caused by traffic accidents numbered about 3
times those of homicides involving firearms, but all the focus is on
more gun control laws.

Personal note: This is not a excuse of deaths caused by firearms,
but
rather an attempt to put it all in perspective.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Traffic accidents: 33,808
Firearms: 30,470 (19,392 suicides, 11,078 homicides)


There are solid statistically based predictions that state that
firearms
deaths will exceed traffic accident deaths in a couple of years.

Oh, you forgot to list the number of Americans who die of old age.

On a more serious note, I only took one college-level statistics
course
and have forgotten most of what I ever learned about that sort of
math,
so I asked a family member who has taken four graduate-level stats
courses about these sorts of comparisons (gun deaths vs. car deaths
vs.
cancer deaths, et cetera) and got a chuckle in response. "Such
comparisions are based on silliness and are statistically absurd. Yes,
more people die of cancer than of gunshot wounds but...so what?"

==========================

The number that surprised me was deaths by homicide involving
firearms. I read the same thing you did regarding firearm deaths
exceeding traffic deaths by 2015 however that includes suicides.
Unfortunately, although a gun is the method of choice for most
suicides, further gun restrictions won't eliminate them. As stated
in my post, the data is presented simply to put things in
perspective. 11,078 firearms related homicides is too many of course
but it's a reflection of violence in our society ... which also cannot
be totally eliminated. There are bad people in the world. But the
number is not the huge number that some of the media and proponents of
even more gun control measure would like you to believe.

My state has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.
Permits require background checks and every purchase of a firearm at a
dealer involves a telephone check and taking of an electronic
fingerprint to verify that you are who you say you are and your permit
is valid. You must present a valid permit even for ammunition
purchases. But, our me-too governor has proposed and is pushing for
even more restrictive laws including jail time for purchasing more
than one firearm per month for existing permit holders, making
getting a permit more difficult, and putting a heavy state tax (up to
50%) on all ammunition sales (even range target practice rounds). I
don't see how that is going to affect the homicide rate by firearms in
the country.
All it is is political posturing in reaction to a horrible but
isolated event caused by a kid who was severely disturbed .... as are
all cases of mass murders.

By that twisted ****ing logic, we might as well do away with the NTSB
and all the other safety protocols, since they result in fewer deaths.
How about faulty cribs. What a load of horse****. You have a product
that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many as
cancer, it's ok.

Where, Mr. U. Asshole, did he say 'it's OK'?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
....the death penalty is a 'no-no', but death by Hellfire
*without* a trial is AOK!

That was foad's comment. Are you confused or is foad really urine A.

On 2/19/2013 5:07 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 2:00 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 2/19/2013 11:49 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/19/13 11:33 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 11:06 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...

On 2/19/2013 9:56 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 2/19/2013 9:55 AM, Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:20 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 2/19/13 9:00 AM, Eisboch wrote:
For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA.
Data
is
the final numbers from 2010 as published by the Center for
Disease
Control.
Surprisingly, firearms related deaths didn't make the top ten and
firearms related homicides weren't even close to the top ten.
It's
interesting that deaths caused by traffic accidents numbered
about 3
times those of homicides involving firearms, but all the focus
is on
more gun control laws.

Personal note: This is not a excuse of deaths caused by
firearms,
but
rather an attempt to put it all in perspective.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Traffic accidents: 33,808
Firearms: 30,470 (19,392 suicides, 11,078 homicides)


There are solid statistically based predictions that state that
firearms
deaths will exceed traffic accident deaths in a couple of years.

Oh, you forgot to list the number of Americans who die of old
age.

On a more serious note, I only took one college-level statistics
course
and have forgotten most of what I ever learned about that sort of
math,
so I asked a family member who has taken four graduate-level stats
courses about these sorts of comparisons (gun deaths vs. car
deaths
vs.
cancer deaths, et cetera) and got a chuckle in response. "Such
comparisions are based on silliness and are statistically absurd.
Yes,
more people die of cancer than of gunshot wounds but...so what?"

==========================

The number that surprised me was deaths by homicide involving
firearms. I read the same thing you did regarding firearm deaths
exceeding traffic deaths by 2015 however that includes suicides.
Unfortunately, although a gun is the method of choice for most
suicides, further gun restrictions won't eliminate them. As
stated
in my post, the data is presented simply to put things in
perspective. 11,078 firearms related homicides is too many of
course
but it's a reflection of violence in our society ... which also
cannot
be totally eliminated. There are bad people in the world. But
the
number is not the huge number that some of the media and
proponents of
even more gun control measure would like you to believe.

My state has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

Funny how it's the bigger nanny states, they really don't want their
citizens to have a "say" in their government... Mass is a perfect
example.

You stupid little fool!!!

You fat old drunk... do you really think I am gonna' read anything you
write?



Yup. Because...you do.

He tripped himself up just as you have done on many occasions.

Nope... I just look at the screen. Usually by the first sentence I see
if it's kevin, don, asshole, the other asshole.. etc.. and I skip to the
next post. I never see the meat as none of them can write a decent post...

Actually there never seems to be any meat in their posts. They are all
pansys.