Do you mean facts like:
Cars purify the air.
Whilst a car running in, say, pure Antarctic air might produce axhust less clean than the air it is taking in:
In typical cities, with their air typically heavily polluted by tram and train powering power stations, train and bus exhausts, plus anti car protesters setting off to their latest anti-road action in clapped out 2CVs, VW Dormobiles and the like, the modern car's exhaust will actually clean up the crap it takes in, and puts back less than it took out.
Therefore, quite clearly, cars purify the air.
Higher speeds means greater safety
You really must learn to read (perhaps Mummy might help?).
There is an optimum speed to set the limit at for any road for optimum conditions.
For the majority of drivers travelling faster than this speed increases danger.
But travelling slower is equally dangerous.
Forcing drivers to adhere to a limit lower than the optimum speed increases danger.
Increasing a too low limit to the optimum speed limit increases safety.
Note that, left to their own devices, nearly all drivers will drive at or within a few miles per hour below the optimum speed for the road, adjusted for the conditions.
And the best drivers (eg Police Class 1, etc) will drive a little above that optimum speed.
Which is why speed limits need to be policed with discretion.
The really dangerous drivers will typically drive well above,
And well below the optimum speed.
I've lost count of how many times I've explained this.
Please try and remember it this time.
Speed cameras kill
Clearly, given the above, if the cameras are policing a too low limit.
And enforcing compliance with it:
They will increase the danger, accidents and fatalities.
Further, they add a distraction to, if the hype is to be believed, accident black spots.
Or divert drivers onto less suitable roads.
Making them even more dangerous.
Which is why there are around 5,000 extra deaths between the extrapolation of the pre sCamera fatality trend.
And the actual trend since they were introduced.
Is this too complicated for you to follow?
More guns means fewer shootings
More guns for the law, abiding, yes.
All things being equal.
Of course, you have never been able to handle the concept that different societies have different cultures, and different levels of violence, including using guns.
But, for example, a century ago gun ownership was commonplace in the UK.
Violent crime rare.
As ownership by the law abiding citizen has declined, use by the criminal has increased.
Of course, you like to bring up the US.
The US is a very violent society (check out the historic non firearms homicide rates).
But, for example, what we think of as the gun capitals of the US have actually had severe restrictions on citizens owning firearms for a century.
In comparison, areas where ownership by the law abiding citizen is widespread, or even compulsory, all crime, not just firearms crime is very low.
To put the cultural aspect in perspective:
Japanese immigrants to the US have firearms crime rates similar to those in Japan (where there are severe restrictions on firearms ownership) and not of the areas in which they reside.
So, clearly, apparent discrepancies to the rule more legally owned guns - less crime are down to cultural differences, not firearms ownership.
I was left by the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
I can well believe that.
Either that, or you are a blinkered, sanctimonious, opinionated, ignorant, brainwashed, ill informed, closed minded, hysterically emotional, shroud-waving, grauniad-reading, muesli-crunching, lentil-munching, namby-pamby, arty-farty, right-on, sandal-knitting, trendy-lefty, nanny state, politicall-correct, do-gooding, tree-hugging, touchy-feely, bleeding-heart, contol freak, pinky-greeny, woolly-"liberal", neo-Lab environ-Mentalist.