Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, 67% of the accidents that happened on the autobahn... specifically... happened in the zone with no speed limit... and 5 times more happened in places WITH speed limits, those being rural roads. You're only proving that you didn't read this before showing me.Don't believe everything you read on the internet, little girl.Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.
When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
As of 2009, Germany had the most automobile accidents in Europe, having more than Spain for the second year in a row.
Autobahn Accident
Although that number seems alarming, the fact remains that overall traffic fatalities in almost every European nation have been being reduced over the past decade. The one exception to this is Switzerland, but their road deaths hover barely above 0 most years. Despite these decreases, however, the Autobahn is still seen as a dangerous place to be.
17 Fascinating Autobahn Accident Statistics | BrandonGaille.com
- 67% of the accidents that occurred on the Autobahn happened in sections where there was no posted speed limit.
- Rural road deaths accounted for 5 times more people dying in automobile accidents than people who were killed in the Autobahn.
- There is mounting data that shows imposing speed limits on highways has a direct impact on the amount of accidents and fatalities that occur.
I know you won't understand this, but yes, I would feel better if he had been forced to buy it illegally. I have learned enough from the gun advocates here to realize that at the same time gun controls are instituted, serious efforts to disrupt the illegal trafficking in firearms need to be instituted as well.I'm sure you'd feel much better had he bought the gun illegally. Which he would have done, had there been a ban on assault weapons, or any weapons for that matter. Pretending the black market doesn't exist doesn't prevent that.it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law.Laws are for people that follow them, and for consequences on those that don't. No, by my logic, you shouldn't make laws for criminals, when it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law. I really like when a Liberal tries to take your comment to the extreme, so they can try to avoid debating you with actual facts, it shows they have nothing to work with, and are grasping at straws.No matter what you call me and no matter how badly you misrepresent the people in our government, you will never convince me that we cannot try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would hurt us. Yes, criminals do not follow laws. According to that logic, we should have no laws at all, since we know criminals will not follow them.Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
A good example is during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln passed a law that only effected 'criminals', those being the southern states. Said law did absolutely nothing, because the target wasn't following their laws to start with. He actually passed this law twice and accomplished nothing either time.
It would have stopped the Orlando shooter from buying the gun used in the attack, which would at least be a bit of a load off my conscience. For him to have freely and legally bought that rifle after being investigated by the FBI for terrorist activities twice.....it's humiliating that we are so bound up in debate over gun ownership that we allow that in this country.
Germany has the highest # of accidents in Europe. If 67% happened in the zone with no speed limits, it does indeed make my point.So, 67% of the accidents that happened on the autobahn... specifically... happened in the zone with no speed limit... and 5 times more happened in places WITH speed limits, those being rural roads. You're only proving that you didn't read this before showing me.Don't believe everything you read on the internet, little girl.Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
As of 2009, Germany had the most automobile accidents in Europe, having more than Spain for the second year in a row.
Autobahn Accident
Although that number seems alarming, the fact remains that overall traffic fatalities in almost every European nation have been being reduced over the past decade. The one exception to this is Switzerland, but their road deaths hover barely above 0 most years. Despite these decreases, however, the Autobahn is still seen as a dangerous place to be.
17 Fascinating Autobahn Accident Statistics | BrandonGaille.com
- 67% of the accidents that occurred on the Autobahn happened in sections where there was no posted speed limit.
- Rural road deaths accounted for 5 times more people dying in automobile accidents than people who were killed in the Autobahn.
- There is mounting data that shows imposing speed limits on highways has a direct impact on the amount of accidents and fatalities that occur.
Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.
When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
Again, that basically gives the criminals better weapons than the people needing to be protected from said criminals.I know you won't understand this, but yes, I would feel better if he had been forced to buy it illegally. I have learned enough from the gun advocates here to realize that at the same time gun controls are instituted, serious efforts to disrupt the illegal trafficking in firearms need to be instituted as well.I'm sure you'd feel much better had he bought the gun illegally. Which he would have done, had there been a ban on assault weapons, or any weapons for that matter. Pretending the black market doesn't exist doesn't prevent that.it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law.Laws are for people that follow them, and for consequences on those that don't. No, by my logic, you shouldn't make laws for criminals, when it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law. I really like when a Liberal tries to take your comment to the extreme, so they can try to avoid debating you with actual facts, it shows they have nothing to work with, and are grasping at straws.No matter what you call me and no matter how badly you misrepresent the people in our government, you will never convince me that we cannot try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would hurt us. Yes, criminals do not follow laws. According to that logic, we should have no laws at all, since we know criminals will not follow them.Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.
When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
A good example is during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln passed a law that only effected 'criminals', those being the southern states. Said law did absolutely nothing, because the target wasn't following their laws to start with. He actually passed this law twice and accomplished nothing either time.
It would have stopped the Orlando shooter from buying the gun used in the attack, which would at least be a bit of a load off my conscience. For him to have freely and legally bought that rifle after being investigated by the FBI for terrorist activities twice.....it's humiliating that we are so bound up in debate over gun ownership that we allow that in this country.
TRANSLATION: Democrats are still trying to fool people into thinking that more laws will reduce the number of crimes that criminals would commit with a gun, despite clear and repeated evidence that demonstrates otherwise.Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.
You misread. 67% of accidents on the Autobahn happened in zones with no speed limit. It then says that Rural Areas have 5 times more accidents.Germany has the highest # of accidents in Europe. If 67% happened in the zone with no speed limits, it does indeed make my point.So, 67% of the accidents that happened on the autobahn... specifically... happened in the zone with no speed limit... and 5 times more happened in places WITH speed limits, those being rural roads. You're only proving that you didn't read this before showing me.Don't believe everything you read on the internet, little girl.Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.
So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
As of 2009, Germany had the most automobile accidents in Europe, having more than Spain for the second year in a row.
Autobahn Accident
Although that number seems alarming, the fact remains that overall traffic fatalities in almost every European nation have been being reduced over the past decade. The one exception to this is Switzerland, but their road deaths hover barely above 0 most years. Despite these decreases, however, the Autobahn is still seen as a dangerous place to be.
17 Fascinating Autobahn Accident Statistics | BrandonGaille.com
- 67% of the accidents that occurred on the Autobahn happened in sections where there was no posted speed limit.
- Rural road deaths accounted for 5 times more people dying in automobile accidents than people who were killed in the Autobahn.
- There is mounting data that shows imposing speed limits on highways has a direct impact on the amount of accidents and fatalities that occur.
As I explained earlier, laws are for people that follow them. I never said do away with all laws, I'm pointing out that it's inherently stupid to enforce a law that disarms law abiding citizens, while ignoring that it won't disarm criminals.Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.
When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
Oh, so now you're talking about Germany? Well, maybe we should just do away with all laws and regulations - and adopt an "honor" system. Would you prefer that?
I would give you a little credit if you didn't support the open boarder which is letting more of the people that will do more killing.Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?
WASHINGTON — Advocates praised a group of House Democrats for staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control Thursday. Some representatives gave moving accounts of how they nearly died because of gun violence. Yet House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed their desperate attempt to prevent more deaths from gun violence as a “publicity stunt.”
Several news articles have pointed out that Republicans staged their own sit-in in 2008. But there’s a key difference between the 2016 sit-in and the 2008 edition: Republicans were demanding a vote on offshore oil drilling. Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.
The 2008 sit-in came as gas prices hit historic highs and a long-standing congressional moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was about to expire. Republicans were turning up the pressure to open up new areas to drilling. Former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared he was “not leaving until we call this Congress back into session and vote for energy independence.” Others compared the sit-in to the Boston Tea Party. They concluded their protest by singing “God Bless America.”
In some of ways, the two sit-ins are similar. The party in power cut the lights and microphones and adjourned. They dismissed it as political theater. Both protests are timed just months before a contentious presidential election. Each sought to capitalize on public sentiment.
More: Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.
I suspect many Republicans have conveniently forgotten about the oil sit-in in 2008.
As I explained earlier, laws are for people that follow them. I never said do away with all laws, I'm pointing out that it's inherently stupid to enforce a law that disarms law abiding citizens, while ignoring that it won't disarm criminals.Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...
So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
Oh, so now you're talking about Germany? Well, maybe we should just do away with all laws and regulations - and adopt an "honor" system. Would you prefer that?
I would give you a little credit if you didn't support the open boarder which is letting more of the people that will do more killing.Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?
WASHINGTON — Advocates praised a group of House Democrats for staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control Thursday. Some representatives gave moving accounts of how they nearly died because of gun violence. Yet House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed their desperate attempt to prevent more deaths from gun violence as a “publicity stunt.”
Several news articles have pointed out that Republicans staged their own sit-in in 2008. But there’s a key difference between the 2016 sit-in and the 2008 edition: Republicans were demanding a vote on offshore oil drilling. Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.
The 2008 sit-in came as gas prices hit historic highs and a long-standing congressional moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was about to expire. Republicans were turning up the pressure to open up new areas to drilling. Former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared he was “not leaving until we call this Congress back into session and vote for energy independence.” Others compared the sit-in to the Boston Tea Party. They concluded their protest by singing “God Bless America.”
In some of ways, the two sit-ins are similar. The party in power cut the lights and microphones and adjourned. They dismissed it as political theater. Both protests are timed just months before a contentious presidential election. Each sought to capitalize on public sentiment.
More: Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.
I suspect many Republicans have conveniently forgotten about the oil sit-in in 2008.
You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to use simple words. Laws are for those that follow them. For example, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to saw their arms off, then you'll make a law that says not to do that. Criminals will still do it, but the majority of people, the law abiding citizens will not. That's what laws are for. However, there comes a difference when talking about self defense laws. If you make a law banning guns, law-abiding citizens will follow that law, criminals will not. you've effectively made law-abiding citizens easy targets.As I explained earlier, laws are for people that follow them. I never said do away with all laws, I'm pointing out that it's inherently stupid to enforce a law that disarms law abiding citizens, while ignoring that it won't disarm criminals.Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.
So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
Oh, so now you're talking about Germany? Well, maybe we should just do away with all laws and regulations - and adopt an "honor" system. Would you prefer that?
Then why have speed limits?
No matter what you call me and no matter how badly you misrepresent the people in our government, you will never convince me that we cannot try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would hurt us. Yes, criminals do not follow laws. According to that logic, we should have no laws at all, since we know criminals will not follow them.Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?
Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?
Indeed.
How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.
When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.
Your an Obama puppet that's why.I would give you a little credit if you didn't support the open boarder which is letting more of the people that will do more killing.Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?
WASHINGTON — Advocates praised a group of House Democrats for staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control Thursday. Some representatives gave moving accounts of how they nearly died because of gun violence. Yet House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed their desperate attempt to prevent more deaths from gun violence as a “publicity stunt.”
Several news articles have pointed out that Republicans staged their own sit-in in 2008. But there’s a key difference between the 2016 sit-in and the 2008 edition: Republicans were demanding a vote on offshore oil drilling. Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.
The 2008 sit-in came as gas prices hit historic highs and a long-standing congressional moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was about to expire. Republicans were turning up the pressure to open up new areas to drilling. Former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared he was “not leaving until we call this Congress back into session and vote for energy independence.” Others compared the sit-in to the Boston Tea Party. They concluded their protest by singing “God Bless America.”
In some of ways, the two sit-ins are similar. The party in power cut the lights and microphones and adjourned. They dismissed it as political theater. Both protests are timed just months before a contentious presidential election. Each sought to capitalize on public sentiment.
More: Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.
I suspect many Republicans have conveniently forgotten about the oil sit-in in 2008.
Oh, so now you're talking about "borders"...? Who said I support open borders?
Your an Obama puppet that's why.I would give you a little credit if you didn't support the open boarder which is letting more of the people that will do more killing.Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?
WASHINGTON — Advocates praised a group of House Democrats for staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control Thursday. Some representatives gave moving accounts of how they nearly died because of gun violence. Yet House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed their desperate attempt to prevent more deaths from gun violence as a “publicity stunt.”
Several news articles have pointed out that Republicans staged their own sit-in in 2008. But there’s a key difference between the 2016 sit-in and the 2008 edition: Republicans were demanding a vote on offshore oil drilling. Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.
The 2008 sit-in came as gas prices hit historic highs and a long-standing congressional moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was about to expire. Republicans were turning up the pressure to open up new areas to drilling. Former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared he was “not leaving until we call this Congress back into session and vote for energy independence.” Others compared the sit-in to the Boston Tea Party. They concluded their protest by singing “God Bless America.”
In some of ways, the two sit-ins are similar. The party in power cut the lights and microphones and adjourned. They dismissed it as political theater. Both protests are timed just months before a contentious presidential election. Each sought to capitalize on public sentiment.
More: Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.
I suspect many Republicans have conveniently forgotten about the oil sit-in in 2008.
Oh, so now you're talking about "borders"...? Who said I support open borders?
You basically just said that you want criminals to have more effective weapons than law-abiding citizens. Assault weapons are most effective for self protection. Besides, government background checks are worthless. The Orlando shooter was investigated twice, and no doubt got a background check during his purchase.You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to use simple words. Laws are for those that follow them. For example, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to saw their arms off, then you'll make a law that says not to do that. Criminals will still do it, but the majority of people, the law abiding citizens will not. That's what laws are for. However, there comes a difference when talking about self defense laws. If you make a law banning guns, law-abiding citizens will follow that law, criminals will not. you've effectively made law-abiding citizens easy targets.As I explained earlier, laws are for people that follow them. I never said do away with all laws, I'm pointing out that it's inherently stupid to enforce a law that disarms law abiding citizens, while ignoring that it won't disarm criminals.Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.
Oh, so now you're talking about Germany? Well, maybe we should just do away with all laws and regulations - and adopt an "honor" system. Would you prefer that?
Then why have speed limits?
Another matter entirely, I think we only need speed limits in areas like towns, and places with housing.
You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case. Responsible gun owners simply want responsible gun laws: universal background checks, ban on assault-style weapons, a limit on clip/magazine capacities - along with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, being fed accurate and current information including mental health and domestic abuse data.
You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to use simple words. Laws are for those that follow them. For example, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to saw their arms off, then you'll make a law that says not to do that. Criminals will still do it, but the majority of people, the law abiding citizens will not. That's what laws are for. However, there comes a difference when talking about self defense laws. If you make a law banning guns, law-abiding citizens will follow that law, criminals will not. you've effectively made law-abiding citizens easy targets.As I explained earlier, laws are for people that follow them. I never said do away with all laws, I'm pointing out that it's inherently stupid to enforce a law that disarms law abiding citizens, while ignoring that it won't disarm criminals.Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...
Oh, so now you're talking about Germany? Well, maybe we should just do away with all laws and regulations - and adopt an "honor" system. Would you prefer that?
Then why have speed limits?
Another matter entirely, I think we only need speed limits in areas like towns, and places with housing.
You basically just said that you want criminals to have more effective weapons than law-abiding citizens. Assault weapons are most effective for self protection. Besides, government background checks are worthless. The Orlando shooter was investigated twice, and no doubt got a background check during his purchase.You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to use simple words. Laws are for those that follow them. For example, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to saw their arms off, then you'll make a law that says not to do that. Criminals will still do it, but the majority of people, the law abiding citizens will not. That's what laws are for. However, there comes a difference when talking about self defense laws. If you make a law banning guns, law-abiding citizens will follow that law, criminals will not. you've effectively made law-abiding citizens easy targets.As I explained earlier, laws are for people that follow them. I never said do away with all laws, I'm pointing out that it's inherently stupid to enforce a law that disarms law abiding citizens, while ignoring that it won't disarm criminals.Oh, so now you're talking about Germany? Well, maybe we should just do away with all laws and regulations - and adopt an "honor" system. Would you prefer that?
Then why have speed limits?
Another matter entirely, I think we only need speed limits in areas like towns, and places with housing.
You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case. Responsible gun owners simply want responsible gun laws: universal background checks, ban on assault-style weapons, a limit on clip/magazine capacities - along with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, being fed accurate and current information including mental health and domestic abuse data.
They are trying to disarm citizens, that's exactly what you're advocating, and I just explained why that is. Not only does every citizen have a right to arms, but again, banning any type of weapon makes another weapon criminals have to attack people with, and another weapon citizens don't have to defend themselves with. Not only that, but background checks are worthless, because most mass shooters are first time offenders. If they had done it before, they'd have been in jail or dead already. It doesn't stop shootings.You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to use simple words. Laws are for those that follow them. For example, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to saw their arms off, then you'll make a law that says not to do that. Criminals will still do it, but the majority of people, the law abiding citizens will not. That's what laws are for. However, there comes a difference when talking about self defense laws. If you make a law banning guns, law-abiding citizens will follow that law, criminals will not. you've effectively made law-abiding citizens easy targets.As I explained earlier, laws are for people that follow them. I never said do away with all laws, I'm pointing out that it's inherently stupid to enforce a law that disarms law abiding citizens, while ignoring that it won't disarm criminals.Yes, it actually is. There's a road in Germany called the "Autobahn", it has no speed limit. It has the fewest accidents of any road in the world.
Oh, so now you're talking about Germany? Well, maybe we should just do away with all laws and regulations - and adopt an "honor" system. Would you prefer that?
Then why have speed limits?
Another matter entirely, I think we only need speed limits in areas like towns, and places with housing.
You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case. Responsible gun owners simply want responsible gun laws: universal background checks, ban on assault-style weapons, a limit on clip/magazine capacities - along with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, being fed accurate and current information including mental health and domestic abuse data.
Lack of data makes it hard for background checks system to work properly
