Football is not even in the top 10 of the most dangerous occupations. What is it that Obama wants from his football controls? Is it simply control? Prior to his desire for football control, it helps to ask why did the president attempt to eliminate the most effective way for women to defend themselves against perpetrators—knowing his many gun controls would have had no effect on Sandy Hook, and will have no effect on Chicago and other dangerous gun-free cities?
Why should women not be enraged that Obama does not consider their needs in his control portfolio? Is self protection not more important than contraception? To keep women safe from much larger perpetrators, they should be encouraged to learn how to handle firearms as it is their big equalizer against a husky or tall or simply stronger perpetrator with designs on her and her children?
Who cares if it is after a break-in or on the street since 45% of robberies occur on the street in plain view? Women, even more than men, need protection from such egregious offenses. Why with dominance in the US legislature, are men denying women the opportunity to defend themselves v perpetrators of the worst ilk, and then daring to suggest that it is conservatives who conduct wars on women? Let the progressives stand by their stance that America and American women should be defenseless.
The top 10 most dangerous occupations have no relationship with gun use or professional football. Additionally, they do not include any other professional sports, unless you consider commercial fishing a sport. So let's take a look at the top 10 most dangerous occupations in the US so we have a proper perspective. Then, maybe we can figure out why the president picked football as his most recent controls target. Why does he care? Does he really care?
Perhaps President Obama should engage in the control of the much more dangerous occupations instead of messing with football? Of course the solid American opinion is for Obama to stay home and let Americans be Americans. No controls are needed on Americans having fun with traditional American sports. We are big boys and we accept the risks. Please take football out of your control sights, sir!
If you wanted to find the top ten most dangerous occupations, just like me, you could search the US Labor Department site. Obama's team surely can do that for him but I have already done it for him so he can check it out below. Let's ask the question again: "Where is the president regarding the safety and health of the workers in these most dangerous industries?" Why football?
People in the fishing industry (not fishing as a sport) reported the highest rate of on-the-job deaths in 2011, at 121.2 per 100,000. Nobody can be sure if any of these fishers ever played football. Logging workers were just behind, at 102.4 deaths per 100,000. Truck drivers come in at No. 8, with a much lower death rate of 24.0 per 100,000.
However, digging deeper into the trucker statistics, we find that the large number of truck drivers creates more risk and so the number of fatal injuries was by far higher than in all the other groups on the list, at 759. The only group in the top 10 that comes anywhere close to truck drivers in fatalities is farmers and ranchers, at 260 total deaths last year. Compare this with eighteen football deaths.
As you can see, all of these industries are substantially higher in terms of deaths per 100,000 than professional football. Should we ask our president to force all farmers and ranchers and fishermen out of their businesses so their fatal incidents can be reduced to zero? Should they be forced to wear helmets and shoulder pads while working to be safer? Of course not, but facts are facts, and football fatalities, as bad as they are, according to the facts, should not be at the top of anybody's injury prevention list.
Should we not instead, consider that there are dangers in all occupations and all sports? There is even danger on an organic farm. As much as we all want to make all occupations safer, the government should not redefine any occupations.
In other words, what good would it be if farmers were permitted to plant seeds but were not permitted to harvest their crops? What if harvesting was restricted to say, one hour per week by government decree. That would certainly reduce casualties but would there be an adequate harvest for America?
Another way to reduce injuries and deaths on the farm would be to deny farmers the right to use any of those magnificently huge heavy equipment tools to assist their efforts in reaping a most exceptional and productive harvest.
Nobody can deny that if we forced farmers to use tools from back in the Stone Age to be safe, there would be fewer fatalities as long as the number of farmers stayed the same. However, without a substantial increase in the number of farmers, and without farmers using productivity oriented farm tools, Americans, would begin to starve? How bad would it be? If the food production dropped by 3000%, while Stone Age tools were used by existing farmers to prevent injuries to just a few farmers, the country could not survive. Nobody is suggesting those few farmers are not important, but starvation, from what they tell me, is not a fun death.
So, since Obama is not picking on the health of farmers right now, should we think that farmers have nothing to worry about regarding Obama's penchant for control? Don't make me laugh. The president will get the farmers another way. Look at the 55% inheritance tax and you will see a way that Obama can eliminate all farmers after just a few generations. Who inherits their farms and at what cost every twenty years?
As many know, since big corporations never die, they are the only entities that can own farms without losing 55% per generation. On the bright side, even Obama seems to think it is OK for farmers to risk their lives if they choose to do so in order to bring in a crop that is of a size necessary to feed America.
The president unfortunately does not think that football players should have that option. Would there be more murders or less without football? Anybody who studies human behavior could prove that without football, there would be much more lawlessness. Football is both a passion and a great distraction from evil for many people. Many fans live vicariously through their favorite teams. Would these fans choose to suck it up and say it is all for the greater good and that they are OK with no more football? Perhaps! But, what will they do in their free time when this major passion is no longer available in their lives. Where will they apply their attention?
Should it not be OK to let great athletes risk their lives to be great football players if they choose to do so willingly? Instead of eliminating the sport, forcing talented players to find other work for lower wages, would it not be better for them to stay in their profession of choice and live as millionaires? Why not ask the football players what they would prefer rather than have them live with Obama's football controls.
Who would give up their freedom to be a millionaire because a narcissistic president has a desire to be a big shot that overrides their desire to be a millionaire? Obama's deep love for the limelight eventually could eliminate or minimize their jobs as professional athletes. Which football player do you think will be willing to stand up and do the next Obama in 2016 commercial?
Is it not acceptable in a country that once risked its all to defeat England for independence, to ask people to understand that in almost all facets of life, there is almost always risk? Though all situations can be made incrementally better and safer by small percentages over time, none of the occupations in the president's sights are inherently evil—including football. So, it makes sense that they not be eliminated by a quick stroke of a government pen.
The most dangerous occupations in America
FYI, these most dangerous occupation statistics are measured by number of deaths per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers. The stats are not columnar but you can get the gist by looking at the headings immediately below:
Occupation—Fatal Work Injuries per 100,000 FTE Workers—Number of Fatal Work Injuries
1. Fishers and related fishing workers—121.2—40
2. Logging workers—102.4—64
3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers—7.0—72
4. Refuse and recyclable material collectors—41.2—34
6. Structural iron and steel workers—26.9—16
7. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers—25.3—260
8. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers—24.0—759
9. Electrical power line installers—20.3—27
10. Taxi drivers and chauffeurs—19.7—63
In the Department of Labor statistics, there is a caveat on the information: "Data reflect occupations with the highest fatality rates as published by the [Bureau of Labor Statistics] BLS. Data may not reflect jobs that do not meet the BLS's publishing standards—for example, occupations with very few workers and therefore unreliable numbers. All data are preliminary."
The BLS did no studies specifically on football simply because football is not on their radar screen. Ask yourself why football is on Obama's watch list, and feel free to ask yourself why it is at Super Bowl time that he threatened to change football into a dull sport?
What about US homeowners being burglarized and murdered by thugs with illegal weaponry? Was that on the dangerous occupations list? Not this time, but only because homeowner is not recognized as an occupation.
Unfortunately, one in every thirty-six homes in America is burglarized on average each year. A significant proportion of the homeowners are at home during the crime and many are killed during the perpetration. Will gun controls help reduce the murders in these instances when in many cases, the guns used in the crimes and the crimes themselves are already illegal?
Which criminal do you think, while committing a crime is concerned about committing a second crime while in the process of finishing the first crime? Taking the means of defense from homeowners permits a perpetrator to have a major advantage over all law-abiding citizens. Is this good for American citizens?
There are also many robberies at convenience stores, banks, restaurants, and other businesses in which a firearm is used by the criminal. Do any of US think that criminals care that a particular weapon is not legal or that their magazines are loaded with too many bullets? As noted previously, forty-five percent of robberies are on the street—person to person. That is scary. What do the gun controls do for the victims of such crimes? Nothing!
Would we expect more or less murders and rapes and robberies if the victims are known by law not to be carrying protection? Senator Robert P. Casey, my senator, from Pennsylvania, recently said he does not own a gun. I hope this does not mean that his home has made it to the criminal high opportunity list as he lives in a fine home in a fine area of Scranton PA.
He did not offer that he had armed guards at his residence so I would hope folks like Casey in gun-free homes have other options. Is it possible that one of the reasons why the crime statistics in Chicago are so high is that the bad guys read the paper and they know the good guys have no means of defense?
The bad guys know they can shoot anybody and unless it is another criminal, the opposition, typically a devoted store owner or a home owner in Chicago does not have the means to shoot back. Is it not a great statistic that bad guys are surviving more in gun-free crime riddled cities, than in the past? So, not only do the new criminals find it easier to get into the profession, the old criminals stay alive a lot longer and are able to commit many more crimes during their extended lives.
There was a study done back in 2004 on the effectiveness of gun control by the National Academy of Sciences. This study confirmed that there is no credible evidence one way or another that gun controls reduce or increase violent crime. Why is the media not reporting that simple fact rather than being consumed with talking Americans out of their only means of defense?
There have been no studies that offer any statistics on whether poor Americans who have the talent to make it to the NFL would be better off engaging in such a rough sport or remaining extremely poor. I would like to see some estimates on mortality rates between these two options. You and I know the results and they make us all cry out to the president to get his ego out of football. Let Americans take their chances for success.
The election is over for sure but when and if Obama chooses to destroy football, more Americans will take notice. Some noticed well before the recent elections but there were not enough. Low information, benefit grabbing Americans chose to let Obama do all their thinking for them in whatever future there may be.
Hugh Hewitt wrote in his column in early September, 2012, long before America chose to seal its fate with a re-installment of the least capable president ever: "America does not need four more years of an in-over-his-head whiner; a petulant egomaniac who does not seem to understand the most basic of economic principles and who is a lousy negotiator to boot." Yet, that is what we got, and football is his new obsession. If there are any progressive liberal football fans, remember, elections do have consequences.
In past articles that I have written, I proved the US media was corrupt. By the way, they still are corrupt. Check out "The Day the Free Press Died." Add Brian Kelly to your search and you will be able to read this article on Conservative Action Alerts. Don't expect the "free press" any day soon to offer commentary about an Obama bad play in the football debate. They simply love Obama no matter how bad he is for America.
There are a lot of ideas about making it safer for us all, including Chicago's gun free laws and the president's 23 actions. Unfortunately, none of these will solve gun violence. In many cases, they make it easier for criminals to do their trade. Ask the people of Chicago about those innocent people who were killed at a clip of over 500 a year in 2012 if being defenseless has helped decrease the murders in their town. If anything, gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens in Chicago; has led to an increase in violence?
When the people cry out to politicians to do something, the all-knowing government has the bully pulpit to suggest any wrong-headed solution to appease the people who are demanding results. It does not matter if the subsequent actions of government violate the Constitution or actually hurt innocent law-abiding citizens. They still get credit for taking action.
Politicians are not known for being the sharpest tools in the shed. But, they know if they do something—anything, it helps their cause and many people will feel better because they have taken some action—any action—even if it is 100% wrong. So politicians cannot hoodwink US all, we the people must ask ourselves, "What problem are we trying to solve?"
Just like many Americans are really not interested in football owners adopting the lingerie bowl or the powder puff rules for boys or men, organizations concerned about government overreach are not interested in Obama and his team of lefties attacking major precepts of our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
For example, the Second Amendment Foundation, as expected in the "debate," is a big supporter of gun rights. This group has offered statistics to support their position and so they still continue to believe that more guns means less crime, not more crime. I think they are 100% right.
Obama never chooses to mention his home town of Chicago in the gun control debate; and nobody in the corrupt press calls him on it since, more than solving any problem, the press wants to continue the love-fest. Yet, because it is Obama's home town, conservatives should cite that the Windy City suffered more than 500 homicides in 2012, and the rate appears to be heading to 750 or more in 2013.
So, what if I told you Chicago for years had already enacted and has enforced even more stringent restrictions on guns than the even our famous skeet-shooting president recommends for US? If it cannot work in Chicago and the president is so embarrassed that he will not talk about his home town, why is he asking the rest of US to emulate Chicago's unworkable gun laws? Why last week when he was just a few miles from Chicago, did he preach gun control in Minneapolis instead?
The moral of the story is that gun control laws do little, if anything at all, to prevent gun violence. To prove my point, it would be helpful to check out whether our Congress and the president and Governor Cuomo and Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein and others on the side of abandoning the Constitution have developed a sudden case of imbecilism? Can such a malady go unreported under Obamacare?
Let's get them examined quickly! If they are not imbeciles, why then would such factions in this Congress and in the Obama administration be pressing so hard to follow Chicago's example? The results of the Chicago experiment are in: "IT DID NOT WORK!" Hopefully the disease of imbecilism is not fatal and it is curable, and legislators will again begin to reason properly. My suspicion is that it is simply not fatal. I suspect it is not curable and this means that legislative lunacy is destined to continue.
Chicago has become the poster city for failure to succeed in actual gun control actions, and so Obama chooses not talk about it. Yet, it is important to hang on the fact that it was not because of a failure to act. When someone acts, and they do the wrong thing, they solve nothing. Chicago is a city with no civilian gun ranges and it has bans on both "assault weapons," and high-capacity magazines. And, yet more people are being killed every day in Chicago by guns per capita than in cities that are not gun-free.
Chicago finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributes to more than 500 homicides each year. Over 42 killings already have occurred in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl, just a few weeks ago. She was buried just a few days ago and the First Lady attended her funeral. Since can infer that Obama knows the first lady attended this funeral, we must conclude that it is not that Obama does not know that gun control in Chicago is not working; it is that it does not help his message that Obama-style gun control is the panacea for America.
Chicago's gun-free laws permitted this killing and many others. They did not stop it. Tell me again how effective gun control is on the criminal mind? Why has Chicago locked in on a bad idea? Why should the US as a whole, or any city or state in the union adopt the losing Chicago model? We can do better!
And thus the problem with liberals' crime prevention schemes emerges: Unless you're going to ban all guns everywhere, there will always be access to guns and bad guys will always exploit it. Oh, and if you get the votes to ban and confiscate guns everywhere, it will be like booze prohibition and drugs. They will still be available and the bad guys will be in charge and well armed.
The Chicago police traced the origins of more than half of the guns seized since 2001. The guns whose origins were identified came from all 50 states and from more than 60% of the nation's counties. I did not say that the guns were legal. Criminals, sometimes we forget, do not need to be lawful to accomplish their perverse objectives.
The criminals if given a vote in Congress would surely vote for the gun bans and all the restrictions so that at their next criminal convention they [the criminals] would be able to celebrate the opportunity to have less deaths per year in their occupation of choice.
Regular people are not committing the murders in Chicago or elsewhere. It is whackos in all cases. The system calls them criminals but before being convicted and placed in jail they are simply whackos. All people who kill people are criminals for sure. Without regular people having guns it is an awful lot easier for the bad guys to win against the good guys and this increases the good-guy death count.
Can it be said any more clearly to the liberal socialist/communist democratic, gun control idiots than what we have put forth right here?
You cannot not stop crime, or deaths; with gun control legislation. It does not do it. It has not done it. It will not do it. No amount of gun legislation will ever control the criminal mind or keep guns out of their hands. It has been tried and it simply does not work. The perpetrators are called "criminals" because they do not follow the law. Recognizing this could make US all safer.
While we are at it, let us recall that the purpose of the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target practice. It is about self-protection and also for the citizenry to resist an oppressive, tyrannical government, such as a government prepared to take their means of self defense.
By the way, banning football will not work either as a salve for what ails America. Rules to make the game safer that come from the NCAA or the NFL or min-football or high school agencies; will be much better than anything coming from government. The federal government should minimize its footprint in America, not show its boots everywhere we look. At the very least, Obama and the feds should let sports up to US.
We intrinsically know that anything ruled or regulated by government will fail, and will kill more than it saves. If we can reduce the deaths in football below 18 per year, that would be wonderful. Making sure that every parent and every participant in football knows the extent of the risk is another great step forward.
Making head contact a 30-yard penalty in the game or even an automatic safety would help in a much better way than banning football, preventing contact in the game of football, or adopting the Obama powder puff or lingerie league rules. This, of course is just one person's opinion. Nobody wants anybody to be hurt on the gridiron but it should not be the government, especially this president as the regulator in chief to make those decisions for US.
Mr. President, we are big boys and girls and we can make our own decisions.
Keeping Obama off any regulatory team for football or guns is something all Americans should demand. We cannot let this prevaricator fool US ever again!