For example, traffic safety research led to the inclusion of air bags and seat belts in vehicles, spurred educational campaigns on the dangers of driving while drunk and resulted in speed bumps on some streets. [More]This oughtta be rich: OK, now extend the analogy and give us a gun parallel.
What I'd like to know is what that idiot turncoat Dickey is doing teaming up with Rosenberg, a guy he knows full well said:
We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned.Yeah, right. Let's give him some more tax plunder to promote novel ways to do that.
2 comments:
Name one single activity, from breathing to bull riding, in which humans engage that doesn't affect public health.
The people who wish to manage our lives can and will attempt to scare gullible people into believing that any activity they personally dislike will cause untold human pain and suffering.
I remember my grandmother telling me that the only reason people went to hospitals was to die. And, even today I would wager that more people die in hospitals under doctors' care that in any other circumstance. Ergo, hospitals and doctors are considerably more dangerous than are any of the other activities in which humans engage.
[W3]
So educational campaigns are one of their answers?
Gun analogy: NRA's Eddie Eagle program, Jeff Cooper's "Four Rules" for firearm handling, countless firearm and hunter safety training courses nationwide.
But they refuse to let us implement them in public venues, including schools, or "educate" the public.
Who's fighting "common-sense" remedies to "public health" issues now?
Post a Comment