NRA Does Toronto.

Lots of it. So much that posting all the links would take months. From the ACLU (you know a LIBERAL org) suing states to close asylums and let the institutionalized violent criminals back out onto the streets, to Blue cities "defunding the police", to Blue States creating "cashless bail", to cities and states releasing/commuting sentences for violent criminals.

You know, current events that you can't ever seem to have a grasp of.
 
FFS

US murder rate is (2018) 4.96 per 100k and GB is 1.2. Are you scrotes really arguing over 3 people per 100K? Idiots.

BTW... Jamaica's is 43.88. Another legacy of British Imperialism.
Or as the media would put it - The US has a murder rate four times that of the UK.

As for Jamaica? All those involved were not born when the British Empire existed. It is home-made and drug gang related, competing for the lucrative trade to the US..
 
The UK shall not be denied the NRA plague:

Christmas Eve shooting at UK pub leaves 1 dead, 3 wounded

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/apnews.com.icoAssociated Press|22 minutes ago
A Christmas Eve shooting at a pub in northwest England killed a young woman and wounded three men, police said Sunday. The Merseyside Police force said it was investigating the 11:50 p.m. Saturday shooting at the Lighthouse pub in the town of Wallasey as a murder case.
Of course you gotta have a gun when at a Christmas Eve party where drinking is involved… people got their rights don’t they? (Right Linus?)

Maybe we will hear of someone who next drives into a holiday parade while shooting into the crowd? Seems to be next on batshit crazy bingo.
 
The US has too many cars AND too many guns. That’s why I’m in favor of massive funding for mass transit, and a total ban on private ownership of firearms. Knives are fine.
 
My card has Donald Trump being shot by someone in self-defense.
You mean when he is grabbing someone by the …?

Seems like a good use of self defense.

Can’t imagine what the waiver looks like to visit mar-a-lago….
 
The US has too many cars AND too many guns. That’s why I’m in favor of massive funding for mass transit, and a total ban on private ownership of firearms. Knives are fine.
Mass transit works so well for shipping goods. And of course the plumber you call when your relatives clog the toilet will gladly ride the bus to get to your place. And the field workers who pick your food can take public transport to/from the fields on in the hinterlands outside of town.

Maybe UPS can add trailers behind their vans to haul the lumber and other things needed to build new homes?
 
Mass transit works so well for shipping goods. And of course the plumber you call when your relatives clog the toilet will gladly ride the bus to get to your place. And the field workers who pick your food can take public transport to/from the fields on in the hinterlands outside of town.

Maybe UPS can add trailers behind their vans to haul the lumber and other things needed to build new homes?
My plumber shows up in a van with hardware in the back. Do many plumbers use private cars where you live? Also I'm not aware of farmers or builders using the backseats of their cars to haul things to and from work sites. I thought they used trucks.

America has too many CARS. Getting private cars off the road reduces traffic and makes it easier for more useful vehicles like trucks, buses, and ambulances to get around.
 
Problem is that when people have invested hard cash in a car, getting them to park it at a train/bus station and paying for a ticket, then a taxi at the other end is a tough ask.

It can work in inner cities where parking and driving is a complete pita; many folks naturally don't own cars there. In London I've been told firmly to leave my job car behind and take the tube, it's quicker and easier.

I used to live 100yds from a train station but the trains didn't go to my work at the time I had to start, so never used it.
 
My plumber shows up in a van with hardware in the back. Do many plumbers use private cars where you live? Also I'm not aware of farmers or builders using the backseats of their cars to haul things to and from work sites. I thought they used trucks.

America has too many CARS. Getting private cars off the road reduces traffic and makes it easier for more useful vehicles like trucks, buses, and ambulances to get around.
Ahh, the parse what you said to avoid what you actually said defense.

You're trying to differentiate "cars" from "trucks" as if "trucks" aren't "private transportation" and then omitting "trucks" from the "mass transit" statement. Because we all know that "trucks" aren't used every single day by people to get to work. :rolleyes"

And of course your plumber's "van", which isn't a "truck" by your definition, is "privately owned" and not part of any "mass transit" system...
 
Ahh, the parse what you said to avoid what you actually said defense.

You're trying to differentiate "cars" from "trucks" as if "trucks" aren't "private transportation" and then omitting "trucks" from the "mass transit" statement. Because we all know that "trucks" aren't used every single day by people to get to work. :rolleyes"

And of course your plumber's "van", which isn't a "truck" by your definition, is "privately owned" and not part of any "mass transit" system...
I’ll make my position simple since you seem to be having trouble understanding. Historically, the United States has spent far too much subsidizing private cars, leading to bad side effects like our massive death toll from auto accidents.

I favor spending that money on mass transit instead, which is safer and more efficient. That doesn’t mean that trucks and vans and emergency vehicles aren’t useful. I just think we should provide more alternatives to private motor vehicles so people aren’t forced to drive a car everywhere simply to get around. Fewer cars on the road means fewer dead drivers.

If you prefer commuting in a pick-up truck, go right ahead. I’ll ride the train.

I do think we should ban private ownership of firearms though. They kill as many people every year as cars do without the commensurate benefits.
 
I’ll make my position simple since you seem to be having trouble understanding. Historically, the United States has spent far too much subsidizing private cars, leading to bad side effects like our massive death toll from auto accidents.

I favor spending that money on mass transit instead, which is safer and more efficient. That doesn’t mean that trucks and vans and emergency vehicles aren’t useful. I just think we should provide more alternatives to private motor vehicles so people aren’t forced to drive a car everywhere simply to get around. Fewer cars on the road means fewer dead drivers.

If you prefer commuting in a pick-up truck, go right ahead. I’ll ride the train.

I do think we should ban private ownership of firearms though. They kill as many people every year as cars do without the commensurate benefits.
Lol, a socialist reveals herself.

What you fail to understand is that what YOU want, can't be imposed by force on other people to replace what THEY want. You don't get to rule the world like a mini despot.

And that's setting aside the obvious fuckups in the way you presented the idea as well as the perpetuation of those fuckups in your subsequent "upgrades" to the idea. What you envision won't work, can't work, and isn't going to work even if implemented because, like most ideas of this nature, it fails to actually encompass reality as part of the formulation.
 
Problem is that when people have invested hard cash in a car, getting them to park it at a train/bus station and paying for a ticket, then a taxi at the other end is a tough ask.

It can work in inner cities where parking and driving is a complete pita; many folks naturally don't own cars there. In London I've been told firmly to leave my job car behind and take the tube, it's quicker and easier.

I used to live 100yds from a train station but the trains didn't go to my work at the time I had to start, so never used it.
Yes better urban design goes hand in hand with better mass transit. We have decades of bad public investment in sprawl to unwind.

Left to the free market, cities are naturally small and compact. Suburbia requires subsidies. Fortunately I live in LA which is a train city at heart. If there were more protected bike lanes in my neighborhood I’d never have to drive again.
 
Yes better urban design goes hand in hand with better mass transit. We have decades of bad public investment in sprawl to unwind.

Left to the free market, cities are naturally small and compact. Suburbia requires subsidies. Fortunately I live in LA which is a train city at heart. If there were more protected bike lanes in my neighborhood I’d never have to drive again.
Great.

What are you planning to do in rural Kansas? Or in the deep south where most roads are dirt or mud? Anyone care to inform our brilliant shiny socialist girl about the travails of getting around in Alaska even in suburban Anchorage let alone from more rural homesteads?

LA is a "train city"? Don't make me laugh, SoCal is the center of car culture.

Speaking of trains... what about the crazy train to no where? You thinking that putting a high speed rail straight through Condor country is a good thing? Or that a million ton train is going to be able to stop when the Tule Elk migrate across the tracks? And the carbon footprint in building and operating that crazy train is going to be zero?

You're daft if that's what you're thinking. You idjits can't even recommend that society go back to horses and buggies now that you've decided that methane from animal farts is killing the planet.

Like I said, when the rubber meets reality, most of the green new ideas fall apart.

And that's without even getting into your ideas about guns. Which are about as well formed as your "mass transit" and "better urban planning" crapfest.
 
Last edited:
Lol, a socialist reveals herself.

What you fail to understand is that what YOU want, can't be imposed by force on other people to replace what THEY want. You don't get to rule the world like a mini despot.

And that's setting aside the obvious fuckups in the way you presented the idea as well as the perpetuation of those fuckups in your subsequent "upgrades" to the idea. What you envision won't work, can't work, and isn't going to work even if implemented because, like most ideas of this nature, it fails to actually encompass reality as part of the formulation.
I’m not saying anyone should be forced to give up their car. Just that instead of spending public money on car infrastructure like widening freeways, we should be spending it on mass transit, like building trains and protected bike lanes.

Then let the free market do its work.
 
I’m not saying anyone should be forced to give up their car. Just that instead of spending public money on car infrastructure like widening freeways, we should be spending it on mass transit, like building trains and protected bike lanes.

Then let the free market do its work.
The free market is what brought us cars and not trains and bike lanes.

Did you know that before there was a national highway system, most roads were maintained by locals? AAA was created to help repair roads and provide signage so that people could get from A to B. Which was a product of that free market you mentioned.

Meanwhile, what you want to do is use the force of government to stymie the free market and capitalism in the name of progress. Honey, you should listen when I tell you that it ain't "progress" when you go back to feudal times and socialist mentalities.
 
Great.

What are you planning to do in rural Kansas? Or in the deep south where most roads are dirt or mud? Anyone care to inform our brilliant shiny socialist girl about the travails of getting around in Alaska even in suburban Anchorage let alone from more rural homesteads?

You idjits can't even recommend that society go back to horses and buggies now that you've decided that methane from animal farts is killing the planet.

Like I said, when the rubber meets reality, most of the green new ideas fall apart.

And that's without even getting into your ideas about guns. Which are about as well formed as your "mass transit" and "better urban planning" crapfest.
People in Kansas and Alaska can build whatever transit they want just as long as they don’t expect to use my taxes to pay for it. Urban planning means cities be definition.

Cars don’t belong in cities. We should stop forcing rural transportation on city dwellers.
 
People in Kansas and Alaska can build whatever transit they want just as long as they don’t expect to use my taxes to pay for it. Urban planning means cities be definition.

Cars don’t belong in cities. We should stop forcing rural transportation on city dwellers.
So are you're ok for taxpayers paying for giant parking lots on the edge of the city for people who live in the suburbs but work downtown to use? That should be part of your "urban planning" but you probably believe that the suburbs and rural areas should be the ones who pay for it because they're the ones who will use it, right? Except that since it's part of the city, then the city should pay for it. Unless you're going to ring the city with a mountain/wall of concrete parking structures and say they're outside the city limits. At which point you've walled yourself in completely. Not a great idea when you're dependent on those outside the city for the food/water that you need.

The thing is, what you want is great conversation at cocktail parties where everyone tries to outdo each other in being "progressive" and "modern" but, like I said, when the rubber meets reality it's unworkable.
 
Back
Top