Re: Oregon incident.
 

Or knives

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Repubs don't like abortions so you've got to cull the population some how?

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Look at the rates chart.

Do the math.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

When the argument gets lost :/

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Republicans care passionately about everyone until the third trimester. After that, not so much.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Just amuses me how clueless people can be on this subject, emotive response. Guess that is why they get the crap politicians they do.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

36,000+ almost entirely preventable deaths per year on the roads in the US, about 100 per day. There is no outrage there, it doesn't even make a ripple. :confused: Despite lower speed limits and larger airbags than most of the industrialized world, Americans still seek remarkably effective at killing themselves while behind the wheel. :(

Everyone I have mentioned this statistic to is completely unaware that the US has five times the population of the UK, but twenty times the road death rate, and that the UK has halved the rate in the past fifteen yesrs yet in the US, if anything it has gone up!

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Natural selection? :sneaky:

Re: Oregon incident.
 

There doesn't need to be outrage. We did something about it: We now have NHTSA and safety regulations, i.e. the types of regulations that the right opposes for guns, and they are reducing the fatality rate.

If there were safety regulations for guns as there are for cars, you wouldn't stop complaining about them.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

The US homicide rate is well above that of other industrialized nations. That's statistical, not emotion.

On the other hand, it's practically autistic to make a point of not caring about it.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

So presumably you are in favour of stopping both road deaths and gun deaths. This is not an either/or proposition.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

I understand that and somewhat agree with it, but if Americans followed, even approximately, what the law prescribed, the death rate would probably fall by 90%. The leading causes of death on the road in the US include not wearing a seatbelt/helmet, driving drunk/drugged, driving at an inappropriate speed for the vehicle/road/weather (note "inappropriate", not speeding per se), and in-car distractions, including texting, eating, reading, and unrestrained animals among many other things. The death rate in the US is higher than the UK, by a large margin, yet the speed limits in the US are mostly lower, so merely reducing speed limits apparently doesn't help.

The ability of Americans to drive into on-coming traffic or off the road and into a tree, utility pole, body of water, building, or other object that would be best not driven into, is almost limitless!

Re: Oregon incident.
 

Not even close. The US fatality rate is fairly average, and there are a lot of factors that contribute to it that can't be fixed, i.e. a lot of remote areas where it is difficult to provide emergency trauma care quickly.

In any case, efforts are made to reduce the vehicle fatality rate, and it is studied extensively by various government agencies. Car design is regulated, as it should be.

In contrast, conservatives claim that any efforts made to reduce gun deaths are "emotional" and "politicized", and it is effectively impossible for the federal government to research it due to regulations crafted by the GOP for the NRA. If the factual case for guns is so favorable, then why does the right insist on having no data?

Re: Oregon incident.
 

I am, and have said so on many occasions here on BE. However I also look at the facts and statistics, and ownership of "military style" weapons is very rarely a factor in mass shootings (and arguably "never" given that the same shootings could equally well have been carried out using non-military spec weapons), therefore banging on about banning M-16s and AK47's is largely "noise" and entirely unhelpful to addressing the problem in the real world.

Re: Oregon incident.
 

You're looking at solutions after the wreck. I was talking about prevention, before the wreck, and I think you know that! :sneaky:

If you use a seatbelt/wear a helmet you are much less likely to be killed in a wreck. I have driven over 500,000 miles, none of them without wearing a seatbelt, nor drunk/drugged. I have also managed to keep my hands on the wheel and eyes on the road such that I have managed to avoid driving out of my lane and off the road. I don't believe I have extraordinary driving ability, I just keep my focus on the task in hand.