You can stop all vehicle deaths by making all speed limits 10 mph. Let me know when you care enough about life to do that.
You forgot to mention about the benefits from relative speed. Wouldn't it be great if gun control was also treated in cost-benefit terms?
Assimilate what you have and only when that is done look at further immigration from these war torn areas.
Nothing is being missed. The government for the nation of France is doing nothing more than committing a meaningless, symbolic gesture that is ultimately devoid of actual substance, and designed entirely to appease the "do something" crowd that demands responses within minutes of something happening. It is to make it appear that they are doing something, when in fact they are doing nothing at all. Except it is not new regulations for motor vehicles, it is simply a reduction in the allowed speed limit on public right of ways. The motor vehicles that are available are still quite capable of traveling in excess of this arbitrarily set speed limit, so truly nothing has been done on the matter, as nothing truly can be done on the matter.
First, everybody hate this law. Second : there is no studies which show clearly that lowering the speed will reduce the number of deaths, most death are done by people under drugs, alcohol, overspeeding. Third : the real reason the government do that is so we use the private highways moreand so pay huge amount of money to some private companies. It's a terrible example.
That's would a very wrong assumption, people oppose gun laws because they are an infringement on our rights, that are not supposed to be infringed upon...
Completely separate issue, the well regulated pertains to militias, not individual private ownership...
I've asked Americans who the militia are, they claim all Americans who can legally vote and carry a gun. Are you telling me Americans are wrong?
If you do not understand the basics of the US Constitution, it might not be the topic to chime in on for you...
Sounds like many Americans don't either unless you believe they lied. James Madison: “A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” 1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789 Looks like James Madison got it wrong too. Having properly defined “militia” as used in the vernacular of the Founders, and establishing the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” as it was used at the time the Second Amendment was written, it seems the “well regulated militia” was meant to be “the whole people”, all citizens, who, at need, could work together, and as effectively as a professional army, with the armament they provide themselves. In order to do that the arms and equipment in their possession, part of their “regulation”, would be arms and equipment equal to that of any army they may face. None of this seems to support the interpretation that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, or a state sponsored, organized militia.
You would then understand that Madison makes but one portion of the argument, he is not the end all be all on the topic nor are the Annals of Congress complete, many of the speeches were paraphrased, some of the information is taken from newspaper articles and the like. The only definitions that would matter in this case would be those found in the Constitution itself, US Code, or court rulings...
There is already significant regulation on firearms in the united states. But no amount of regulation, legislation, or restrictions, will prevent or otherwise deter individuals from engaging in reckless and illegal behavior.
You realize that your claim above is readily disproven, and that the UK has violent crime rates far in excess of the US, don't you?
