That does not answer the question. Do you not understand it?billvon said:Why are you giving me averages from government test numbers, when my points were about specific availability and the defects of those government numbers?
Because those test numbers come from third party emissions analysis equipment, and the requirement numbers are the hard numbers that car manufacturers are required to design to. You cannot seriously claim that they are unreal, since there are quite literally tens of millions of independent tests every year that confirm them.
No. What most reduces the risk to the insurance company. Those are two different concepts, and especially in the area of personal safety for an individual they are often in conflict. Some of these conflicts - such as the airbag endangerment of short people who value their hearing and always wear seat belts - are serious. Gun owners do not want to be victimized in this manner, and who can blame them? When "public health" or "general safety" are involved, idiocy is common enough to beware automatically. And the confused, careless, slipshod "safety"arguments advanced by people whose opinion of firearm owners is colored by contempt and whose apparent agenda is the banning of private firearms ring every wary bell there is.billvon said:Correct. In other words, what reduces the most risk for the most people.
It is an observation of mine, from my own life and the people among whom I live and work. Famous examples include the drug laws, not so famous but essentially unarguable examples include air bags in cars, arguable but essentially clear examples include helmet laws of various kinds, overstringent lifejacket and official beach laws, and so forth.billvon said:the experience of this is common
That's a perception created by media.
Which leaves dozens of times, some of them familiar to most gun owners, in which the impositions did not promote the general welfare, or in which the improvement in the general welfare was slight while the impositions on the specific people were heavy, and so forth. One may be able to spot these minority exceptions by the spurious nature of the arguments justifying them, the presence of a visibly careless, irrational, ill informed agenda, or the scope and potential threat of the governmental intrusion involved.billvon said:Yes, they have. And 99 times out of 100 such impositions do in fact promote the general welfare of the people of the US.
Unfortunately, the public debates and legislative efforts are not in the hands of these "most people".billvon said:Sounds like a case where both sides are paranoid and fearful. Fortunately most people are not like that.