England vs. U.S. murder rate

[Markle]

Never.

Foreign nations have a lot of things superior to what we have here and vice-versa.

Their superior systems of laws is just one aspect. We have half the nation that thinks more needless deaths is preferable; we cannot lecture anyone.

Hmmm....

PARIS IS BURNING
by Eric Margolis
December 8, 2018

France is under siege. Some 90,000 security forces are being deployed across France with particular attention to always combustible Paris and Marseilles. Armored vehicles are moving into the capital. Certain military units are on high alert.

The storm that is hitting France came out of what looked like a clear blue sky. The angry demonstrators, known as ‘gilets jaunes’ (yellow jackets), for the warning vests all motorists must keep in their cars, inundated Paris last weekend in peaceful protests over the government’s planned increases in fuel prices, which were already among Europe’s highest.

As too often in France, violent vandals known as ‘the breakers,’ infiltrated the demonstrators and sought to put the most beautiful parts of Paris to the sack. I watched with horror as the magnificent Arc de Triomphe, France’s premier war memorial, was befouled by spray-can graffiti. The majestic Champs Élysée was ravaged by hoodlums, who smashed showroom windows, burned cars, looted luxury stores and set scores of fires.
[...]
PARIS IS BURNING

###

Over 1,000 cars torched across France as New Year's Eve arrests rise

Police on patrol in Paris on New Year's Eve. Photo: Guillaume Souvant/AFP

AFP/The Local
ben.mcpartland
2 January 2018
09:48 CET+01:00

France saw a jump in arrests on New Year's Eve as well as an increase in the number of cars torched by vandals, a ritual among revellers in the country's high-rise suburbs.

The number of vehicles set alight on the night of December 31st climbed from 935 a year ago to 1,031, while arrests rose from 456 to 510, the interior ministry said on Monday.

Violence also marred celebrations in the Paris suburb of Champigny-sur-Marne, where two police officers were attacked by a large group of people at a party.

French President Emmanuel Macron took to Twitter to denounce the "cowardly and criminal lynching of police officers doing their duty" and warned that the culprits would be "found and arrested".
[...]
Over 1,000 cars torched across France as New Year's Eve arrests rise
###

France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities
by Yves Mamou
May 23, 2017 at 4:00 a
France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities

• "There are several hundred square meters of pavement abandoned to men alone; women are no longer considered entitled to be there. Cafés, bars and restaurants are prohibited to them, as are the sidewalks, the subway station and the public squares." – Le Parisien.
  
  
• "For more than a year, the Chapelle-Pajol district (10th-18th arrondissements) has completely changed its face: groups of dozens of lone men, street vendors, aliens, migrants and smugglers harass women and hold the streets." – Le Parisien.
  
  
• In the heart of Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Grenoble, Avignon, districts here and there have been "privatized" by a mix of drug traffickers, Salafist zealots and Islamic youth gangs. The main victims are women. They are – Muslim and non-Muslim -- sexually harassed; some are sexually assaulted. The politicians, as usual, are fully informed of the situation imposed upon women.
  

In January, 2015, a week after the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the American television channel Fox News created a scandal in France by claiming that Islamic "no-go zones" were established in the heart of Paris. For the French media, the existence of no-go zones -- where non-Muslims are unwelcome and Islamic law, sharia, holds sway -- in the heart of the capital was pure nonsense and horrifying "fake news." Paris's mayor, Anne Hidalgo, said she planned to sue Fox News and that the "honor of Paris" was at stake.

By May 2017, however, the tone had changed. The French daily, Le Parisien,disclosed that, in fact, no-go zones are in the heart of the capital. It seems that the district of Chapelle-Pajol, in the east of Paris, has become very much a no-go zone. Hundreds of Muslim migrants and drug dealers crowd the streets, and harass women for wearing what many of these migrants apparently regard as immodest clothing:

"Women in this part of eastern Paris complain that they cannot move about without being subjected to comments and insults from men.

"There are several hundred square meters of pavement abandoned to men alone; women are no longer considered entitled to be there. Cafés, bars and restaurants are prohibited to them, as are the sidewalks, the subway station and the public squares. For more than a year, the Chapelle-Pajol district (10th-18th arrondissements) has completely changed its face: groups of dozens of lone men, street vendors, aliens, migrants and smugglers harass women and hold the streets."

Natalie, a 50-year-old resident of the area said: "The atmosphere is agonizing, to the point of having to modify our routes and our clothing. Some [women] even gave up going out."

Aurélie, 38, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said that the café-bar below her apartment had been a pleasant place, but has turned into an exclusively male establishment. "I have to listen to a lot of remarks when I pass by, especially since they drink a lot," she said. A local 80-year-old woman is reported to have totally stopped leaving her apartment after being sexually assaulted one day as she was returning home. Another woman is said to suffer a flood of insults simply by standing at her window.

Mayor Hidalgo is not talking about suing the media for defaming the honor of Paris anymore. She even said that this security issue has been "identified for several weeks", and proposed launching an "exploratory process" to combat discrimination against women and a "local delinquency treatment group". It was slightly hollow, Orwellian "newspeak," and aroused mockery and indignation on social networks.

Mentioning no-go zones in France was, until recently, taboo. It was regarded as "racist" or "Islamophobic" -- most of the time both -- to talk about that. In May 2016, Patrick Kanner, France's Minister for Urban Areas, harassed by journalists, finally acknowledged the truth : "There are today, we know, a hundred neighborhoods in France that present potential similarities with what has happened in Molenbeek." He was referring to the infamous neighborhood in Brussels, under Salafist control, which has become the epicenter of jihad in Europe.

What is new, is that no-go zones are no longer relegated to the suburbs, where migrants and Muslims have usually been concentrated.

No-go zones, through mass migration, have been emerging in the heart of Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Grenoble, Avignon -- districts "privatized" here and there by a mix of drug traffickers, Salafist zealots and Islamic youth gangs. The main victims are women. They are -- both Muslim and non-Muslim -- sexually harassed; some are sexually assaulted.
[...]
France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities

My highlight above.

Once again about the superior laws of Europe.

 

[candycorn]

Never.

Foreign nations have a lot of things superior to what we have here and vice-versa.

Their superior systems of laws is just one aspect. We have half the nation that thinks more needless deaths is preferable; we cannot lecture anyone.

Hmmm....

PARIS IS BURNING
by Eric Margolis
December 8, 2018

France is under siege. Some 90,000 security forces are being deployed across France with particular attention to always combustible Paris and Marseilles. Armored vehicles are moving into the capital. Certain military units are on high alert.

The storm that is hitting France came out of what looked like a clear blue sky. The angry demonstrators, known as ‘gilets jaunes’ (yellow jackets), for the warning vests all motorists must keep in their cars, inundated Paris last weekend in peaceful protests over the government’s planned increases in fuel prices, which were already among Europe’s highest.

As too often in France, violent vandals known as ‘the breakers,’ infiltrated the demonstrators and sought to put the most beautiful parts of Paris to the sack. I watched with horror as the magnificent Arc de Triomphe, France’s premier war memorial, was befouled by spray-can graffiti. The majestic Champs Élysée was ravaged by hoodlums, who smashed showroom windows, burned cars, looted luxury stores and set scores of fires.
[...]
PARIS IS BURNING

###

Over 1,000 cars torched across France as New Year's Eve arrests rise

Police on patrol in Paris on New Year's Eve. Photo: Guillaume Souvant/AFP

AFP/The Local
ben.mcpartland
2 January 2018
09:48 CET+01:00

France saw a jump in arrests on New Year's Eve as well as an increase in the number of cars torched by vandals, a ritual among revellers in the country's high-rise suburbs.

The number of vehicles set alight on the night of December 31st climbed from 935 a year ago to 1,031, while arrests rose from 456 to 510, the interior ministry said on Monday.

Violence also marred celebrations in the Paris suburb of Champigny-sur-Marne, where two police officers were attacked by a large group of people at a party.

French President Emmanuel Macron took to Twitter to denounce the "cowardly and criminal lynching of police officers doing their duty" and warned that the culprits would be "found and arrested".
[...]
Over 1,000 cars torched across France as New Year's Eve arrests rise
###

France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities
by Yves Mamou
May 23, 2017 at 4:00 a
France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities

• "There are several hundred square meters of pavement abandoned to men alone; women are no longer considered entitled to be there. Cafés, bars and restaurants are prohibited to them, as are the sidewalks, the subway station and the public squares." – Le Parisien.
  
  
• "For more than a year, the Chapelle-Pajol district (10th-18th arrondissements) has completely changed its face: groups of dozens of lone men, street vendors, aliens, migrants and smugglers harass women and hold the streets." – Le Parisien.
  
  
• In the heart of Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Grenoble, Avignon, districts here and there have been "privatized" by a mix of drug traffickers, Salafist zealots and Islamic youth gangs. The main victims are women. They are – Muslim and non-Muslim -- sexually harassed; some are sexually assaulted. The politicians, as usual, are fully informed of the situation imposed upon women.

In January, 2015, a week after the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the American television channel Fox News created a scandal in France by claiming that Islamic "no-go zones" were established in the heart of Paris. For the French media, the existence of no-go zones -- where non-Muslims are unwelcome and Islamic law, sharia, holds sway -- in the heart of the capital was pure nonsense and horrifying "fake news." Paris's mayor, Anne Hidalgo, said she planned to sue Fox News and that the "honor of Paris" was at stake.

By May 2017, however, the tone had changed. The French daily, Le Parisien,disclosed that, in fact, no-go zones are in the heart of the capital. It seems that the district of Chapelle-Pajol, in the east of Paris, has become very much a no-go zone. Hundreds of Muslim migrants and drug dealers crowd the streets, and harass women for wearing what many of these migrants apparently regard as immodest clothing:

"Women in this part of eastern Paris complain that they cannot move about without being subjected to comments and insults from men.

"There are several hundred square meters of pavement abandoned to men alone; women are no longer considered entitled to be there. Cafés, bars and restaurants are prohibited to them, as are the sidewalks, the subway station and the public squares. For more than a year, the Chapelle-Pajol district (10th-18th arrondissements) has completely changed its face: groups of dozens of lone men, street vendors, aliens, migrants and smugglers harass women and hold the streets."

Natalie, a 50-year-old resident of the area said: "The atmosphere is agonizing, to the point of having to modify our routes and our clothing. Some [women] even gave up going out."

Aurélie, 38, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said that the café-bar below her apartment had been a pleasant place, but has turned into an exclusively male establishment. "I have to listen to a lot of remarks when I pass by, especially since they drink a lot," she said. A local 80-year-old woman is reported to have totally stopped leaving her apartment after being sexually assaulted one day as she was returning home. Another woman is said to suffer a flood of insults simply by standing at her window.

Mayor Hidalgo is not talking about suing the media for defaming the honor of Paris anymore. She even said that this security issue has been "identified for several weeks", and proposed launching an "exploratory process" to combat discrimination against women and a "local delinquency treatment group". It was slightly hollow, Orwellian "newspeak," and aroused mockery and indignation on social networks.

Mentioning no-go zones in France was, until recently, taboo. It was regarded as "racist" or "Islamophobic" -- most of the time both -- to talk about that. In May 2016, Patrick Kanner, France's Minister for Urban Areas, harassed by journalists, finally acknowledged the truth : "There are today, we know, a hundred neighborhoods in France that present potential similarities with what has happened in Molenbeek." He was referring to the infamous neighborhood in Brussels, under Salafist control, which has become the epicenter of jihad in Europe.

What is new, is that no-go zones are no longer relegated to the suburbs, where migrants and Muslims have usually been concentrated.

No-go zones, through mass migration, have been emerging in the heart of Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Grenoble, Avignon -- districts "privatized" here and there by a mix of drug traffickers, Salafist zealots and Islamic youth gangs. The main victims are women. They are -- both Muslim and non-Muslim -- sexually harassed; some are sexually assaulted.
[...]
France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities

My highlight above.

Once again about the superior laws of Europe.

Call me when they have 30K gun deaths a year

 

[hadit]

A guy gets pissed in Paris Texas, he goes out and buys a gun at any of the dozens of stores that sell them within a mile of his house and kills whoever pissed him off.

A guy gets pissed in Paris France, he can't buy a gun because nobody sells them. He gets over it and everybody wakes up alive tomorrow.

The same scenario plays out 10,000 times a year (in different localities of course). Except while our guy in Paris Texas is killing someone, thousands of pissed off dudes across the face of the globe remain just that; pissed off. They don't become murderers.

How does that relate to the OP?

It highlights the superiority of their system and the weakness in ours.

So you're moving there when?

Never.

Foreign nations have a lot of things superior to what we have here and vice-versa.

Their superior systems of laws is just one aspect. We have half the nation that thinks more needless deaths is preferable; we cannot lecture anyone.

Needless death? Society has always placed value judgements on human life, so don't pretend otherwise. Just one example, we deem tens of thousands of deaths on our highways every year as an acceptable cost so we can drive fast. I see no one who complains about guns being willing to accept cars being physically restricted to moving at less than say 45 km/hr. So why do we want to drive fast? Freedom. And why do people own guns? Freedom.

Freedom is messy, chaotic, dangerous, and requires adults to be responsible. It's also preferable to the alternative.

 

[candycorn]

A guy gets pissed in Paris Texas, he goes out and buys a gun at any of the dozens of stores that sell them within a mile of his house and kills whoever pissed him off.

A guy gets pissed in Paris France, he can't buy a gun because nobody sells them. He gets over it and everybody wakes up alive tomorrow.

The same scenario plays out 10,000 times a year (in different localities of course). Except while our guy in Paris Texas is killing someone, thousands of pissed off dudes across the face of the globe remain just that; pissed off. They don't become murderers.

How does that relate to the OP?

It highlights the superiority of their system and the weakness in ours.

So you're moving there when?

Never.

Foreign nations have a lot of things superior to what we have here and vice-versa.

Their superior systems of laws is just one aspect. We have half the nation that thinks more needless deaths is preferable; we cannot lecture anyone.

Needless death? Society has always placed value judgements on human life, so don't pretend otherwise. Just one example, we deem tens of thousands of deaths on our highways every year as an acceptable cost so we can drive fast. I see no one who complains about guns being willing to accept cars being physically restricted to moving at less than say 45 km/hr. So why do we want to drive fast? Freedom. And why do people own guns? Freedom.

Freedom is messy, chaotic, dangerous, and requires adults to be responsible. It's also preferable to the alternative.

We build in almost every conceivable obstacle to mitigate the consequences of automobiles. Licenses. Inspections. Requirements for insurance. Speed limits.

Can we do that for guns too? Are you in favor? Or will you now unleash an avalanche of bullshit trying to bury the analogy you just made?

I’m guessing the latter.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

A guy gets pissed in Paris Texas, he goes out and buys a gun at any of the dozens of stores that sell them within a mile of his house and kills whoever pissed him off.

A guy gets pissed in Paris France, he can't buy a gun because nobody sells them. He gets over it and everybody wakes up alive tomorrow.

The same scenario plays out 10,000 times a year (in different localities of course). Except while our guy in Paris Texas is killing someone, thousands of pissed off dudes across the face of the globe remain just that; pissed off. They don't become murderers.

Hey Candybrain, why doesn’t your logic work in Chicago? The reason- your not using logic.
Strict Gun Laws in Chicago Can’t Stem Fatal Shots
CHICAGO — Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.

And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Take certain neighborhoods out of the equation and the United States is as safe as any other Western country.

This!

 

[Brain357]

A guy gets pissed in Paris Texas, he goes out and buys a gun at any of the dozens of stores that sell them within a mile of his house and kills whoever pissed him off.

A guy gets pissed in Paris France, he can't buy a gun because nobody sells them. He gets over it and everybody wakes up alive tomorrow.

The same scenario plays out 10,000 times a year (in different localities of course). Except while our guy in Paris Texas is killing someone, thousands of pissed off dudes across the face of the globe remain just that; pissed off. They don't become murderers.

Hey Candybrain, why doesn’t your logic work in Chicago? The reason- your not using logic.
Strict Gun Laws in Chicago Can’t Stem Fatal Shots
CHICAGO — Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.

And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.

Yes so strict they have concealed carry. Also, they are surrounded by weak gun laws and don't have walls....

 

[Brain357]

Take certain neighborhoods out of the equation and the United States is as safe as any other Western country.

This!

Until you also remove the worst from those Western countries, then we are higher again. What a childish idea. We have great crime rates if you remove all the high crime areas....

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Take certain neighborhoods out of the equation and the United States is as safe as any other Western country.

Four of the top fifty most dangerous cities in the world are in the U.S. which are New Orleans, Baltimore, Detroit and St. Louis.

Then you have TJ and CJ just across the border from San Diego and El Paso and they are ranked in the Top Ten which will cause spillage over on our side.

So my point?

Simple the Cities I listed from our Country are Progressive havens where they preach guns are bad but have high murder rates that rank them in the Top of the most Dangerous Cities in the WORLD, where as Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin which are in Texas is not and Texas is gun friendly and Minority-Majority State.

So it is bad policies for the States with cities that are dangerous and the the firearm itself!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Take certain neighborhoods out of the equation and the United States is as safe as any other Western country.

This!

Until you also remove the worst from those Western countries, then we are higher again. What a childish idea. We have great crime rates if you remove all the high crime areas....

A handful of shitty crime ridden inner cities do not represent our nation anymore than a trailer park full of meth heads does.

When you consider most of the murders are against criminals by criminals is it really that big a deal?

 

[hadit]

How does that relate to the OP?

It highlights the superiority of their system and the weakness in ours.

So you're moving there when?

Never.

Foreign nations have a lot of things superior to what we have here and vice-versa.

Their superior systems of laws is just one aspect. We have half the nation that thinks more needless deaths is preferable; we cannot lecture anyone.

Needless death? Society has always placed value judgements on human life, so don't pretend otherwise. Just one example, we deem tens of thousands of deaths on our highways every year as an acceptable cost so we can drive fast. I see no one who complains about guns being willing to accept cars being physically restricted to moving at less than say 45 km/hr. So why do we want to drive fast? Freedom. And why do people own guns? Freedom.

Freedom is messy, chaotic, dangerous, and requires adults to be responsible. It's also preferable to the alternative.

We build in almost every conceivable obstacle to mitigate the consequences of automobiles. Licenses. Inspections. Requirements for insurance. Speed limits.

Can we do that for guns too? Are you in favor? Or will you now unleash an avalanche of bullshit trying to bury the analogy you just made?

I’m guessing the latter.

Sure, require licenses and registration, etc, then allow anyone who does all that to have as many weapons and as much ammo as they want, to carry wherever they want, and to modify their guns in any way they wish. Let them squeeze the maximum per our of their guns. Then, to complete the analogy, for those who don't want to own their own weapons, set up public rental sites that throughout cities where anyone can rent a full government provided gun for the evening, and private citizens can rent out the their guns for personal use.

Further, just as vehicle ownership has not been further eroded since those measures were put in place, gun ownership is not either.

Good with that?

 

[candycorn]

It highlights the superiority of their system and the weakness in ours.

So you're moving there when?

Never.

Foreign nations have a lot of things superior to what we have here and vice-versa.

Their superior systems of laws is just one aspect. We have half the nation that thinks more needless deaths is preferable; we cannot lecture anyone.

Needless death? Society has always placed value judgements on human life, so don't pretend otherwise. Just one example, we deem tens of thousands of deaths on our highways every year as an acceptable cost so we can drive fast. I see no one who complains about guns being willing to accept cars being physically restricted to moving at less than say 45 km/hr. So why do we want to drive fast? Freedom. And why do people own guns? Freedom.

Freedom is messy, chaotic, dangerous, and requires adults to be responsible. It's also preferable to the alternative.

We build in almost every conceivable obstacle to mitigate the consequences of automobiles. Licenses. Inspections. Requirements for insurance. Speed limits.

Can we do that for guns too? Are you in favor? Or will you now unleash an avalanche of bullshit trying to bury the analogy you just made?

I’m guessing the latter.

Sure, require licenses and registration, etc, then allow anyone who does all that to have as many weapons and as much ammo as they want, to carry wherever they want, and to modify their guns in any way they wish. Let them squeeze the maximum per our of their guns. Then, to complete the analogy, for those who don't want to own their own weapons, set up public rental sites that throughout cities where anyone can rent a full government provided gun for the evening, and private citizens can rent out the their guns for personal use.

Further, just as vehicle ownership has not been further eroded since those measures were put in place, gun ownership is not either.

Good with that?

What about liability insurance? So folks like the families of Sandy Hook can get some much needed monetary compensation. Just like cars.

Also...you can’t modify your car any way you like so We can’t let folks, according to your analogy, modify their firearms any way they wish.

 

[BluesLegend]

Take certain neighborhoods out of the equation and the United States is as safe as any other Western country.

Yeah, Dem run neighborhoods.

 

[candycorn]

A guy gets pissed in Paris Texas, he goes out and buys a gun at any of the dozens of stores that sell them within a mile of his house and kills whoever pissed him off.

A guy gets pissed in Paris France, he can't buy a gun because nobody sells them. He gets over it and everybody wakes up alive tomorrow.

The same scenario plays out 10,000 times a year (in different localities of course). Except while our guy in Paris Texas is killing someone, thousands of pissed off dudes across the face of the globe remain just that; pissed off. They don't become murderers.

Hey Candybrain, why doesn’t your logic work in Chicago? The reason- your not using logic.
Strict Gun Laws in Chicago Can’t Stem Fatal Shots
CHICAGO — Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.

And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.

People likely go outside the city

 

[hadit]

So you're moving there when?

Never.

Foreign nations have a lot of things superior to what we have here and vice-versa.

Their superior systems of laws is just one aspect. We have half the nation that thinks more needless deaths is preferable; we cannot lecture anyone.

Needless death? Society has always placed value judgements on human life, so don't pretend otherwise. Just one example, we deem tens of thousands of deaths on our highways every year as an acceptable cost so we can drive fast. I see no one who complains about guns being willing to accept cars being physically restricted to moving at less than say 45 km/hr. So why do we want to drive fast? Freedom. And why do people own guns? Freedom.

Freedom is messy, chaotic, dangerous, and requires adults to be responsible. It's also preferable to the alternative.

We build in almost every conceivable obstacle to mitigate the consequences of automobiles. Licenses. Inspections. Requirements for insurance. Speed limits.

Can we do that for guns too? Are you in favor? Or will you now unleash an avalanche of bullshit trying to bury the analogy you just made?

I’m guessing the latter.

Sure, require licenses and registration, etc, then allow anyone who does all that to have as many weapons and as much ammo as they want, to carry wherever they want, and to modify their guns in any way they wish. Let them squeeze the maximum per our of their guns. Then, to complete the analogy, for those who don't want to own their own weapons, set up public rental sites that throughout cities where anyone can rent a full government provided gun for the evening, and private citizens can rent out the their guns for personal use.

Further, just as vehicle ownership has not been further eroded since those measures were put in place, gun ownership is not either.

Good with that?

What about liability insurance? So folks like the families of Sandy Hook can get some much needed monetary compensation. Just like cars.

Also...you can’t modify your car any way you like so We can’t let folks, according to your analogy, modify their firearms any way they wish.

I can own a car, and as long as I don't drive it in the road, don't need insurance, so you should only need insurance if you carry a gun outside the home.

 

[Brain357]

Take certain neighborhoods out of the equation and the United States is as safe as any other Western country.

This!

Until you also remove the worst from those Western countries, then we are higher again. What a childish idea. We have great crime rates if you remove all the high crime areas....

A handful of shitty crime ridden inner cities do not represent our nation anymore than a trailer park full of meth heads does.

When you consider most of the murders are against criminals by criminals is it really that big a deal?

Yes that is most of them. But our gun culture also gives us mass killings, law enforcement is killed weekly, cops kill far more people than they do in any other country, hundreds of accidental deaths.... We have lots of problems that are unique to a country with too many guns. Criminals in other countries kill mostly criminals. But there is still far les killing with strong gun control. Heck we have the fullest jails in the world and still a homicide rate 4-5X greater than countries with strong gun control. Guns empower criminals. They get the same gun courage our gun nuts have.

 

[candycorn]

Never.

Foreign nations have a lot of things superior to what we have here and vice-versa.

Their superior systems of laws is just one aspect. We have half the nation that thinks more needless deaths is preferable; we cannot lecture anyone.

Needless death? Society has always placed value judgements on human life, so don't pretend otherwise. Just one example, we deem tens of thousands of deaths on our highways every year as an acceptable cost so we can drive fast. I see no one who complains about guns being willing to accept cars being physically restricted to moving at less than say 45 km/hr. So why do we want to drive fast? Freedom. And why do people own guns? Freedom.

Freedom is messy, chaotic, dangerous, and requires adults to be responsible. It's also preferable to the alternative.

We build in almost every conceivable obstacle to mitigate the consequences of automobiles. Licenses. Inspections. Requirements for insurance. Speed limits.

Can we do that for guns too? Are you in favor? Or will you now unleash an avalanche of bullshit trying to bury the analogy you just made?

I’m guessing the latter.

Sure, require licenses and registration, etc, then allow anyone who does all that to have as many weapons and as much ammo as they want, to carry wherever they want, and to modify their guns in any way they wish. Let them squeeze the maximum per our of their guns. Then, to complete the analogy, for those who don't want to own their own weapons, set up public rental sites that throughout cities where anyone can rent a full government provided gun for the evening, and private citizens can rent out the their guns for personal use.

Further, just as vehicle ownership has not been further eroded since those measures were put in place, gun ownership is not either.

Good with that?

What about liability insurance? So folks like the families of Sandy Hook can get some much needed monetary compensation. Just like cars.

Also...you can’t modify your car any way you like so We can’t let folks, according to your analogy, modify their firearms any way they wish.

I can own a car, and as long as I don't drive it in the road, don't need insurance, so you should only need insurance if you carry a gun outside the home.

In some places, you have to taje the car in for yearly inspections so you will have to drive it and have the liability insurance...

 

[hadit]

Needless death? Society has always placed value judgements on human life, so don't pretend otherwise. Just one example, we deem tens of thousands of deaths on our highways every year as an acceptable cost so we can drive fast. I see no one who complains about guns being willing to accept cars being physically restricted to moving at less than say 45 km/hr. So why do we want to drive fast? Freedom. And why do people own guns? Freedom.

Freedom is messy, chaotic, dangerous, and requires adults to be responsible. It's also preferable to the alternative.

We build in almost every conceivable obstacle to mitigate the consequences of automobiles. Licenses. Inspections. Requirements for insurance. Speed limits.

Can we do that for guns too? Are you in favor? Or will you now unleash an avalanche of bullshit trying to bury the analogy you just made?

I’m guessing the latter.

Sure, require licenses and registration, etc, then allow anyone who does all that to have as many weapons and as much ammo as they want, to carry wherever they want, and to modify their guns in any way they wish. Let them squeeze the maximum per our of their guns. Then, to complete the analogy, for those who don't want to own their own weapons, set up public rental sites that throughout cities where anyone can rent a full government provided gun for the evening, and private citizens can rent out the their guns for personal use.

Further, just as vehicle ownership has not been further eroded since those measures were put in place, gun ownership is not either.

Good with that?

What about liability insurance? So folks like the families of Sandy Hook can get some much needed monetary compensation. Just like cars.

Also...you can’t modify your car any way you like so We can’t let folks, according to your analogy, modify their firearms any way they wish.

I can own a car, and as long as I don't drive it in the road, don't need insurance, so you should only need insurance if you carry a gun outside the home.

In some places, you have to taje the car in for yearly inspections so you will have to drive it and have the liability insurance...

If you drive a car only on your property and park it there, you don't have to do anything. No licensing, registering, inspecting, etc. Let's do the same thing for guns. As long as you leave it in your house and use it on your property, you don't need to register it, license it or insure it. You would only need to do that if you carried it off your property. Treating guns like cars might get more support than you'd think.

 

[candycorn]

We build in almost every conceivable obstacle to mitigate the consequences of automobiles. Licenses. Inspections. Requirements for insurance. Speed limits.

Can we do that for guns too? Are you in favor? Or will you now unleash an avalanche of bullshit trying to bury the analogy you just made?

I’m guessing the latter.

Sure, require licenses and registration, etc, then allow anyone who does all that to have as many weapons and as much ammo as they want, to carry wherever they want, and to modify their guns in any way they wish. Let them squeeze the maximum per our of their guns. Then, to complete the analogy, for those who don't want to own their own weapons, set up public rental sites that throughout cities where anyone can rent a full government provided gun for the evening, and private citizens can rent out the their guns for personal use.

Further, just as vehicle ownership has not been further eroded since those measures were put in place, gun ownership is not either.

Good with that?

What about liability insurance? So folks like the families of Sandy Hook can get some much needed monetary compensation. Just like cars.

Also...you can’t modify your car any way you like so We can’t let folks, according to your analogy, modify their firearms any way they wish.

I can own a car, and as long as I don't drive it in the road, don't need insurance, so you should only need insurance if you carry a gun outside the home.

In some places, you have to taje the car in for yearly inspections so you will have to drive it and have the liability insurance...

If you drive a car only on your property and park it there, you don't have to do anything. No licensing, registering, inspecting, etc. Let's do the same thing for guns. As long as you leave it in your house and use it on your property, you don't need to register it, license it or insure it. You would only need to do that if you carried it off your property. Treating guns like cars might get more support than you'd think.

Ok. The avalanche option.

How does it get from the store to your home?

Bingo. You have to have insurance, registration of some sort, license tags....

 

[hadit]

Sure, require licenses and registration, etc, then allow anyone who does all that to have as many weapons and as much ammo as they want, to carry wherever they want, and to modify their guns in any way they wish. Let them squeeze the maximum per our of their guns. Then, to complete the analogy, for those who don't want to own their own weapons, set up public rental sites that throughout cities where anyone can rent a full government provided gun for the evening, and private citizens can rent out the their guns for personal use.

Further, just as vehicle ownership has not been further eroded since those measures were put in place, gun ownership is not either.

Good with that?

What about liability insurance? So folks like the families of Sandy Hook can get some much needed monetary compensation. Just like cars.

Also...you can’t modify your car any way you like so We can’t let folks, according to your analogy, modify their firearms any way they wish.

I can own a car, and as long as I don't drive it in the road, don't need insurance, so you should only need insurance if you carry a gun outside the home.

In some places, you have to taje the car in for yearly inspections so you will have to drive it and have the liability insurance...

If you drive a car only on your property and park it there, you don't have to do anything. No licensing, registering, inspecting, etc. Let's do the same thing for guns. As long as you leave it in your house and use it on your property, you don't need to register it, license it or insure it. You would only need to do that if you carried it off your property. Treating guns like cars might get more support than you'd think.

Ok. The avalanche option.

How does it get from the store to your home?

Bingo. You have to have insurance, registration of some sort, license tags....

1. Delivery.
2. You leave the firearm in its original packaging until you get it home.
3. Temporary dealer registration.

I mean, come on. So many ways to make it work.