The Democrat Thread

[Texsox]

Well, over the past 15 years we've seen fewer gun laws and more guns.

 

??

 

I can not think of any gun laws being repealed. IIRC at no time in the last 15 years have we had fewer gun laws than the year before. We may have seen a slow down in the rate of new gun laws, but I don't believe we have had fewer. Unless you are talking about slight shifts such as certain weapons being allowed, when they previously have been illegal. But even in that nuanced area it seems that we have continued to reduce the types of allowable weapons.

 

 

[Reddy]

isn't it nice how mass shootings are now becoming so commonplace we don't even talk about them in the buster anymore?

 

i guess everything that needs to be said has been said, yet somehow it keeps happening over and over.

[DukeNukeEm]

??

 

I can not think of any gun laws being repealed. IIRC at no time in the last 15 years have we had fewer gun laws than the year before. We may have seen a slow down in the rate of new gun laws, but I don't believe we have had fewer. Unless you are talking about slight shifts such as certain weapons being allowed, when they previously have been illegal. But even in that nuanced area it seems that we have continued to reduce the types of allowable weapons.

CCW is undoubtedly what he's referring to, even if for the past 90 years now we've seen a steady erosion of the 2A for the sake of compromise. For now though America-hating government worshipers seem to be stopped dead in their tracks, finally gun rights people have woken up to the scheme and are unlikely to accept any "deal" from the bleeding hearts.

[Balta1701]

??

 

I can not think of any gun laws being repealed. IIRC at no time in the last 15 years have we had fewer gun laws than the year before. We may have seen a slow down in the rate of new gun laws, but I don't believe we have had fewer. Unless you are talking about slight shifts such as certain weapons being allowed, when they previously have been illegal. But even in that nuanced area it seems that we have continued to reduce the types of allowable weapons.

At the federal level the assault weapons ban expired as well. That's on top of the enormous number of restricions on the ATF so that they can't track illegal guns, prevention of anyone from doing research or collecting basic data on their use.

 

At the state level it's been embarrassing. Not just concealed carry, open carry, loosening restrictions on training and background check, taking away the rights of private property owners to have employees and customers not bring guns onto their property, stand your ground, removal of liability for accidents, etc. the dismantling of state laws has really helped spur the sales surge over the past few years.

 

Oh and the right to carry guns into national parks. Thankfully we did that otherwise that 3 year old shot in Yellowstone last week might be alive.

 

 

[Balta1701]

CCW is undoubtedly what he's referring to, even if for the past 90 years now we've seen a steady erosion of the 2A for the sake of compromise. For now though America-hating government worshipers seem to be stopped dead in their tracks, finally gun rights people have woken up to the scheme and are unlikely to accept any "deal" from the bleeding hearts.

And congratulations on your great victory at the Navy Yard too. I'm sure there were even a few bleeding hearts for you.

[DukeNukeEm]

And congratulations on your great victory at the Navy Yard too. I'm sure there were even a few bleeding hearts for you.

Oh they'll come pouring out.

 

You've yet to really address the argument I'm making about over-legislation though. You misidentified it (almost purposefully) as me saying were creating a slippery slope but the entire post revolved around how were well past that point and have started going full on nanny state through what are now sizeable increments. I just wonder what kind of freedom you think Americans should have? Not what you want to tell other people not to do (you do LOVE insinuating that you just know better), but what should we be allowed to be? Say? Own? Do?

[Balta1701]

Oh they'll come pouring out.

 

You've yet to really address the argument I'm making about over-legislation though. You misidentified it (almost purposefully) as me saying were creating a slippery slope but the entire post revolved around how were well past that point and have started going full on nanny state through what are now sizeable increments. I just wonder what kind of freedom you think Americans should have? Not what you want to tell other people not to do (you do LOVE insinuating that you just know better), but what should we be allowed to be? Say? Own? Do?

I'm going to answer your question with a question...what is te consequence of allowing people to own things, say things, do things?

 

If there's a major consequence to the people around you and society, then maybe its not the best idea. But you then have to take into account other things like enforcement costs as well.

 

I can't imagine the enforcement costs of getting rid of the guns in the hands of everyone today, but the costs of getting rid of assault rifles, high capacity magazines, arresting lunatics who think they need to carry a concealed weapon, not letting a guy who shot a gun at a car 10 years ago keep buying guns until he kills a dozen people, those all are higher reward.

 

Unfortunately the costs of getting rid of them all would be huge, so for now we just have to tolerate the hundreds of kids who die in accidents and the tens of thousands of suicided per year, but there would be a big benefit to more education and stricter licensing on that frot so maybe a few kids won't shoot their 4 year old siblings by accident this week.

 

Oh and since I was asked about new laws, that reminds me of the law in Florida banning doctors from mentioning how an unlocked gun in the house is a health hazard for children, because we need to make sure the kids find the guns. It's the only way.

[Balta1701]

Oh they'll come pouring out.

I think you may have missed that I was pointing out the irony of using the term "bleeding hearts" after this latest massacre of the week.

 

When there are actual hearts bleeding.

[DukeNukeEm]

I'm going to answer your question with a question...what is te consequence of allowing people to own things, say things, do things?

 

If there's a major consequence to the people around you and society, then maybe its not the best idea. But you then have to take into account other things like enforcement costs as well.

 

I can't imagine the enforcement costs of getting rid of the guns in the hands of everyone today, but the costs of getting rid of assault rifles, high capacity magazines, arresting lunatics who think they need to carry a concealed weapon, not letting a guy who shot a gun at a car 10 years ago keep buying guns until he kills a dozen people, those all are higher reward.

 

Unfortunately the costs of getting rid of them all would be huge, so for now we just have to tolerate the hundreds of kids who die in accidents and the tens of thousands of suicided per year, but there would be a big benefit to more education and stricter licensing on that frot so maybe a few kids won't shoot their 4 year old siblings by accident this week.

 

Oh and since I was asked about new laws, that reminds me of the law in Florida banning doctors from mentioning how an unlocked gun in the house is a health hazard for children, because we need to make sure the kids find the guns. It's the only way.

What are the consequences of leaving it up to people themselves to decide what is best for themselves?

 

I think we should almost never even ask that question.

 

Murder is illegal. Doesn't matter if you shoot, stab, beat, drunkenly run over, shove into railroad tracks or zap them with a laser... if something you did kills someone at the least its manslaughter and at most its murder. Both of those things are crimes. People will commit these crimes no matter what, and really the best defense you have against them is vigilance and preparedness; not the damn government. Banning stuff people use to kill each other is just redundant, and also prohibits people from exercising free will within the boundaries of the law.

 

Everything that could possibly infringe on someones property rights or right to live has been made into a crime by law. Its been done, the government did its part to solve the problem by punishing people for doing it. That's the most they can do, what more are you expecting? What comes after guns? No more cars? Ban open flames? Ban garage door openers? You're chasing the magic dragon dude.

 

And now I am going to say there's a slippery slope here. If you can say there's a societal benefit to prohibiting people from doing something, then there should also be a correlating similar benefit to forcing people to do something. "You, unit #2840987193, have been relegated to lifetime farm duty until the age of 60. Remember, if forcing you to do this work makes it so even one four year old gets to eat it was all worth it." Of course the four year old will grow up to meet the same fate as the man who was just forced into servititude because by the time.the four year old is eighteen there will be many four year olds who need saving.

 

Hyperbolic example? For now, yes. But the point still stands that you're infinitely more concerned with saving people's lives than you are preserving a life worth living. Every time you pass a law that grants security you are stripping freedom, this is an intrinsic irrefutable law of legislation. So I'll ask this one more f***ing time before I just cement my assumption that you're a state worshipping shill who leads such a pathetic excuse for a personal life that you meekly grasp onto to your precious society because god help you if you ever had to do something for your own damn self... at what point do you say to yourself "enough laws have been passed and now I'd rather see the consequences of inaction rather than the consequences of action"?

 

[Reddy]

So I'll ask this one more f***ing time before I just cement my assumption that you're a state worshipping shill who leads such a pathetic excuse for a personal life that you meekly grasp onto to your precious society because god help you if you ever had to do something for your own damn self... at what point do you say to yourself "enough laws have been passed and now I'd rather see the consequences of inaction rather than the consequences of action"?

 

One, holy personal attack batman. But two:

 

 

I never worry about action, but only inaction.

Winston Churchill

 

There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.

John F. Kennedy

 

Action is a great restorer and builder of confidence. Inaction is not only the result, but the cause, of fear. Perhaps the action you take will be successful; perhaps different action or adjustments will have to follow. But any action is better than no action at all.

Norman Vincent Peale

 

Iron rusts from disuse; water loses its purity from stagnation... even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind.

Leonardo da Vinci

 

The price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake.

Meister Eckhart

 

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.

John Stuart Mill

 

 

 

Here's the upshot. To choose inaction; to say "there's nothing to be done"; to throw up our arms and say "welp, can't fix it", violates the very crux of what makes us Americans in the first place. What you suggest is absolutely pathetic - no other way around it. It's cowardly, and it's weak, and it just shows that YOU are the very lemming you label us to be. Faced with a difficult dilemma - a seemingly unsolvable problem - you choose the path of least resistance. Whatever dude. I'd rather grasp onto society and be a "shill to the state" than be wherever the hell you are: alone and miserable as a hermit, but with a lot o' guns to keep you company.

[Balta1701]

What are the consequences of leaving it up to people themselves to decide what is best for themselves?

 

I think we should almost never even ask that question.

 

Murder is illegal. Doesn't matter if you shoot, stab, beat, drunkenly run over, shove into railroad tracks or zap them with a laser... if something you did kills someone at the least its manslaughter and at most its murder. Both of those things are crimes. People will commit these crimes no matter what, and really the best defense you have against them is vigilance and preparedness; not the damn government. Banning stuff people use to kill each other is just redundant, and also prohibits people from exercising free will within the boundaries of the law.

You do realize the "police" are a form of government right?

Everything that could possibly infringe on someones property rights or right to live has been made into a crime by law. Its been done, the government did its part to solve the problem by punishing people for doing it. That's the most they can do, what more are you expecting? What comes after guns? No more cars? Ban open flames? Ban garage door openers? You're chasing the magic dragon dude.

Again, this is nothing but a crappy "slippery slope" argument, and it's really a terrible one too. Cars kill a lot of people, know what we do? We enact laws requiring manufactures to make them safer even if they increase some costs because they save lives. We then require significant amounts of training, licensing, regular testing of capabilities, insurance, and even keep a registry of everyone who owns a car in each state. Garage door openers are killing people? We don't ignore that fact and yell "freedom!", we figure out what it is about that door opener that keeps killing people and either legislate it away or the manufacturer is bankrupted because they're making a product that keeps killing people.

And now I am going to say there's a slippery slope here. If you can say there's a societal benefit to prohibiting people from doing something, then there should also be a correlating similar benefit to forcing people to do something. "You, unit #2840987193, have been relegated to lifetime farm duty until the age of 60. Remember, if forcing you to do this work makes it so even one four year old gets to eat it was all worth it." Of course the four year old will grow up to meet the same fate as the man who was just forced into servititude because by the time.the four year old is eighteen there will be many four year olds who need saving.

 

Hyperbolic example? For now, yes. But the point still stands that you're infinitely more concerned with saving people's lives than you are preserving a life worth living. Every time you pass a law that grants security you are stripping freedom, this is an intrinsic irrefutable law of legislation. So I'll ask this one more f***ing time before I just cement my assumption that you're a state worshipping shill who leads such a pathetic excuse for a personal life that you meekly grasp onto to your precious society because god help you if you ever had to do something for your own damn self... at what point do you say to yourself "enough laws have been passed and now I'd rather see the consequences of inaction rather than the consequences of action"?

The idea that being able to carry a loaded gun down the streets makes life worth living is something I'll never understand. You call me a state worshipping shilll...I think that "life isn't worth living if I can't have my guns" makes you much more gun-worshipping than anything.

[southsider2k5]

One, holy personal attack batman. But two:

 

 

I never worry about action, but only inaction.

Winston Churchill

 

There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.

John F. Kennedy

 

Action is a great restorer and builder of confidence. Inaction is not only the result, but the cause, of fear. Perhaps the action you take will be successful; perhaps different action or adjustments will have to follow. But any action is better than no action at all.

Norman Vincent Peale

 

Iron rusts from disuse; water loses its purity from stagnation... even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind.

Leonardo da Vinci

 

The price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake.

Meister Eckhart

 

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.

John Stuart Mill

 

 

 

Here's the upshot. To choose inaction; to say "there's nothing to be done"; to throw up our arms and say "welp, can't fix it", violates the very crux of what makes us Americans in the first place. What you suggest is absolutely pathetic - no other way around it. It's cowardly, and it's weak, and it just shows that YOU are the very lemming you label us to be. Faced with a difficult dilemma - a seemingly unsolvable problem - you choose the path of least resistance. Whatever dude. I'd rather grasp onto society and be a "shill to the state" than be wherever the hell you are: alone and miserable as a hermit, but with a lot o' guns to keep you company.

 

Wait, what? That is ridiculous. Standing up when you think your constitutional rights are being violated is doing something. In fact in many situations where the lemmings have decided it is the "right thing to do", it is often unpopular. Who stands up for the KKK's rights for free speech? Who stands up for the billionaire's economic freedoms? Who stands up for gunrights when many people die? Who stands up for privacy when people die from terror attacks? That isn't the path of least resistance. Far from it. His opinion of "what is right" is valued just as much as yours. That is what makes us Americans, not that the way of the state is the only way to think.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Duke is out on an island with a lot of his thinking, and I don't really share what he thinks. But I think you are missing the big picture here.

 

And it is also worth pointing out that if you complain about a personal attack, you probably shouldn't follow it up by calling someone a coward and weak.

[pettie4sox]

I thought in the buster, it's no holds barred? I think it's easy to get super passionate in this section of Soxtalk. I think a lot of good points are being made too.

[Y2HH]

I thought in the buster, it's no holds barred? I think it's easy to get super passionate in this section of Soxtalk. I think a lot of good points are being made too.

 

There are still rules to follow in the buster, of which I'm an expert on.

 

Reddy is always crying foul here trying to get people banned as if the mods cannot read, though. He should probably just not be here with his thin skin...if/when someone does something against the rules, there is no need to cry about it, Reddy. They can read/see, and if necessary, they'll take care of it without you crying like a girl every time.

 

See that personal attack, Reddy? I called you a girl.

[pettie4sox]

I use personal attacks all the time and don't get banned.

[DukeNukeEm]

You do realize the "police" are a form of government right?

 

Again, this is nothing but a crappy "slippery slope" argument, and it's really a terrible one too. Cars kill a lot of people, know what we do? We enact laws requiring manufactures to make them safer even if they increase some costs because they save lives. We then require significant amounts of training, licensing, regular testing of capabilities, insurance, and even keep a registry of everyone who owns a car in each state. Garage door openers are killing people? We don't ignore that fact and yell "freedom!", we figure out what it is about that door opener that keeps killing people and either legislate it away or the manufacturer is bankrupted because they're making a product that keeps killing people.The idea that being able to carry a loaded gun down the streets makes life worth living is something I'll never understand. You call me a state worshipping shilll...I think that "life isn't worth living if I can't have my guns" makes you much more gun-worshipping than anything.

Police happen to be one of the handful of functions you need the government to perform.

 

And the legislation and regulation that has set automakers back further and further has saved how many lives? Please, go pull out you crash statistics and tell me what ounce of good those BS laws have done other than force larger, heavier and less efficient cars onto the market. The UK, oddly has about 1/4 the regulations regarding car safety features but they have many fewer accidents and fatalities. Also, they basically hand out Class D licenses to anyone here, I spend 11 hours a day driving and I'll tell you the reason people get killed out there isn't because their car isn't safe.

 

By the way you kinda slipped saying that people won't buy deathtraps and companies making them will go under. So why regulate them? I mean other than forcing companies who make safe machines to add some gizmo doesn't solve anything the market already takes care of.

 

Still, after all this time you've never said at what point enough will be enough. An earlier post insinuated you think there will never be an end to this stomping on our rights in the name of safety. I think I know the answer as to why.

 

You know there will always be human suffering. Something bad is always going to happen to someone and there's little reason to it. You've been sufficiently brainwashed by academia and the government to think this mechanism of human existence is preventable or at least mitigatable. So as long as there's suffering (and there always will be) there will be you, the loyal servant to the state who agrees that "Yes! Feeding the government massive sums of money will fix it!" And the problems will go unfixed, and we'll lose more of our freedoms, and they'll ask for more money because the first batch wasn't quite enough, and they'll get that money and eventually youll be mired in an existence of wage slavery--because you're much more useful to the state as a compliant serf than a free individual. And all the people that could stand up to it? Well you took their guns away.

 

You could say this reality is all but upon us right now.

 

[Balta1701]

And you will continue to look away from the pile of corpses and tell yourself there is nothing that can be done because you know in your heart how important that feeling of power is when you feel that cold steel in your hands. And that feeling is more important to you than any pile of dead kids ever could be.

[DukeNukeEm]

And you will continue to look away from the pile of corpses and tell yourself there is nothing that can be done because you know in your heart how important that feeling of power is when you feel that cold steel in your hands. And that feeling is more important to you than any pile of dead kids ever could be.

Yea I when I used to look out over my old hometown I'd hear about all the murdering but think "At least we can have guns in Chicago.'

 

And you know what? I do love that feeling. To not love it means you're either a massive puss or you're so politically self conscious you refuse to indulge yourself in your own humanity. Are 50 or so dead people a year (on the very high side annually) out of 300 million worth the right for every American to enjoy it?

 

I think yes. And I'm not even scratching the surface on the true intent of our 2A rights.

Edited September 18, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[Jake]

I'm interested in your support of police, Duke, since many people I know to have largely similar political beliefs to you generally are highly ANTI-police and see them as being used as part of a general police state. They seem to both dislike the institution and the people in it (I know their beliefs so well because I have several friends who are constantly posting examples of cop-induced violence on my Facebook news feed).

 

On a totally unrelated note, you should be aware that "the true intent" as basis for legal or political thought regarding the Constitution is a hotly debated subject. There are endless discussions about this; whether it should be considered, if it should supercede "the text" or only apply when the text is unclear, etc. The founders were addressing a completely different set of problems (ie, the need for a huge expansion of federal power at the time) and could not have foreseen many of the different things that would affect us politically and otherwise. It's always funny how scholars/judges/laymen will agree on the previous point but not on how that should inform our interpretation of the Constitution.

[DukeNukeEm]

Its pretty simple, government's primary job is to protect its people's civil and property rights from enemies foreign and domestic. For foreign enemies you keep a military (federal) and for domestic enemies you have police (state/local). Yay, add in courts, mail, fire protrction and some large scale civil engineering projects (dams mostly) and that's it. That's the extent of the governments involvement in our lives.

 

Personally I don't very much like police because they are intent on making my already difficult job more difficult but I understand they are something we do need

[Reddy]

There are still rules to follow in the buster, of which I'm an expert on.

 

Reddy is always crying foul here trying to get people banned as if the mods cannot read, though. He should probably just not be here with his thin skin...if/when someone does something against the rules, there is no need to cry about it, Reddy. They can read/see, and if necessary, they'll take care of it without you crying like a girl every time.

 

See that personal attack, Reddy? I called you a girl.

 

 

i dont care if anyone else throws out personal attacks, but I have beef with Duke.

[Balta1701]

Police happen to be one of the handful of functions you need the government to perform.

 

And the legislation and regulation that has set automakers back further and further has saved how many lives? Please, go pull out you crash statistics and tell me what ounce of good those BS laws have done other than force larger, heavier and less efficient cars onto the market. The UK, oddly has about 1/4 the regulations regarding car safety features but they have many fewer accidents and fatalities. Also, they basically hand out Class D licenses to anyone here, I spend 11 hours a day driving and I'll tell you the reason people get killed out there isn't because their car isn't safe.

 

By the way you kinda slipped saying that people won't buy deathtraps and companies making them will go under. So why regulate them? I mean other than forcing companies who make safe machines to add some gizmo doesn't solve anything the market already takes care of.

 

Still, after all this time you've never said at what point enough will be enough. An earlier post insinuated you think there will never be an end to this stomping on our rights in the name of safety. I think I know the answer as to why.

 

You know there will always be human suffering. Something bad is always going to happen to someone and there's little reason to it. You've been sufficiently brainwashed by academia and the government to think this mechanism of human existence is preventable or at least mitigatable. So as long as there's suffering (and there always will be) there will be you, the loyal servant to the state who agrees that "Yes! Feeding the government massive sums of money will fix it!" And the problems will go unfixed, and we'll lose more of our freedoms, and they'll ask for more money because the first batch wasn't quite enough, and they'll get that money and eventually youll be mired in an existence of wage slavery--because you're much more useful to the state as a compliant serf than a free individual. And all the people that could stand up to it? Well you took their guns away.

 

You could say this reality is all but upon us right now.

So now I actually have a moment to deal with this.

 

Let's actually take a look at how the UK gets a much lower fatality rate on their roads. First of all they're stricter on who actually gets a license. The entire country has 2 year mandatory provisional licences. In Northern Ireland, people on provisional licences are actually limited to 45 mph. Substantially more strict than here in the US, although some areas are starting to move that way through government regulation because it works.

 

The UK also has much lower rates of car ownership than the U.S., about 40% lower per capita. That translates to fewer people on the roads and presumably more people taking public transportation, thus lowering the rates of fatalities. To make sure this happens, there is a nationwide vehicle ownership tax, which is scaled to the carbon emissions of the vehicle. This tax costs ~$250-500 a year depending on the vehicle size, and SUV's are clearly disadvantaged, which of course makes the roads safer by getting the larger vehicles off of them.

 

The average US Driver also drives about 25% more miles per year. This is likely also a consequence of government regulations as the tax on petrol in the UK makes vehicle fuel cost 2 to 3 times as much as it costs in the U.S. Thus, people have a government-driven economic incentive to be more limited in their use of the roads and to avoid choosing excessively large vehicles.

 

The main reason why the fatality rate per mile winds up being lower in the UK according to a 2003 US Highway Transportation Study is that the U.K. has significantly lower numbers of large SUV's on the road which translates to increased safety on the roads, as a direct consequence of successful government policies.

 

They also institute smart policies to prevent the creation of hazardous conditions, like the congestion pricing in London which causes an uproar every time someone suggests it in the U.S.

 

So yeah, lots of successful government interventions saving lives. and of course, that's on top of having a vastly better and more affordable health care system, run by the government entirely.

 

And of course, we should all be stunned at these results, because based on your comments I just figured most of the people in the UK would be ramming their cars into brick walls as life isn't worth living there because they've had the most important freedom imaginable taken away from them. It is extremely difficult to own a gun. Handguns are effectively banned. Assault rifles are banned. Locked storage of several types of guns is required.

 

Obviously therefore life isn't worth living in the UK because they've given up the most important freedom of all.

[southsider2k5]

So now I actually have a moment to deal with this.

 

Let's actually take a look at how the UK gets a much lower fatality rate on their roads. First of all they're stricter on who actually gets a license. The entire country has 2 year mandatory provisional licences. In Northern Ireland, people on provisional licences are actually limited to 45 mph. Substantially more strict than here in the US, although some areas are starting to move that way through government regulation because it works.

 

The UK also has much lower rates of car ownership than the U.S., about 40% lower per capita. That translates to fewer people on the roads and presumably more people taking public transportation, thus lowering the rates of fatalities. To make sure this happens, there is a nationwide vehicle ownership tax, which is scaled to the carbon emissions of the vehicle. This tax costs ~$250-500 a year depending on the vehicle size, and SUV's are clearly disadvantaged, which of course makes the roads safer by getting the larger vehicles off of them.

 

The average US Driver also drives about 25% more miles per year. This is likely also a consequence of government regulations as the tax on petrol in the UK makes vehicle fuel cost 2 to 3 times as much as it costs in the U.S. Thus, people have a government-driven economic incentive to be more limited in their use of the roads and to avoid choosing excessively large vehicles.

 

The main reason why the fatality rate per mile winds up being lower in the UK according to a 2003 US Highway Transportation Study is that the U.K. has significantly lower numbers of large SUV's on the road which translates to increased safety on the roads, as a direct consequence of successful government policies.

 

They also institute smart policies to prevent the creation of hazardous conditions, like the congestion pricing in London which causes an uproar every time someone suggests it in the U.S.

 

So yeah, lots of successful government interventions saving lives. and of course, that's on top of having a vastly better and more affordable health care system, run by the government entirely.

 

And of course, we should all be stunned at these results, because based on your comments I just figured most of the people in the UK would be ramming their cars into brick walls as life isn't worth living there because they've had the most important freedom imaginable taken away from them. It is extremely difficult to own a gun. Handguns are effectively banned. Assault rifles are banned. Locked storage of several types of guns is required.

 

Obviously therefore life isn't worth living in the UK because they've given up the most important freedom of all.

 

I think you are missing the "big" picture here. The US is huge in terms of size. Britain isn't. There are more cars in the US because it is bigger, and there is more empty space that can't be/isn't covered by mass transit. It also means less demand for cars, less cars on the road, there etc.

[DukeNukeEm]

Deal with what? One line of my post? And then, instead of agreeing that maybe manufacturer requirements don't work you turn into a raving maniac for UK idiocy. You said cars are made safer because if they weren't hordes of people would die, but elsewhere they don't have those laws and everything is fine. The UK also has speed cameras, want to copy that one? A nice $75 fine for going 5 over? Car insurance is also ludicrous over there, more than a car payment. And you can't honestly be advocating a VAT tax, you're warped and brainwashed but you aren't stupid enough to think that's a good idea.

 

The USA is also made up of 50 states, many of which are much larger than Great Britain. So making cars insanely expensive to own is going to do some serious damage to the economy.

 

 

But, as usual, were supposed to put up with it because SAVING LIVES IS GUD CHANGE HAS COME 2 AMERICA

[Balta1701]

I think you are missing the "big" picture here. The US is huge in terms of size. Britain isn't. There are more cars in the US because it is bigger, and there is more empty space that can't be/isn't covered by mass transit. It also means less demand for cars, less cars on the road, there etc.

The U.K. has a similar population density to Ohio or Illinois and substantially less than california or anything in New England. However, those states have 50% greater automobile ownership per capita than the UK.