flank
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2013
- Messages
- 1,726
- Reaction score
- 836
- Location
- California
- Country
- United States
- Dash Cam
- VIOFO A119S
Last edited:
I couldn't watch it at all. The video was taken down.I couldn't watch it all
I don't think "sad" is the right word.So sad even for a person like me advocating a thinning of the heard.
I don't really see the difference, you and us have chosen to live with those vehicles on our roads, it is inevitable that some people will die as a result. The only difference to the USA's guns is that our vehicles are useful devices while the usefulness of the USA's machine guns is questionable!Yeah we non armed people could argue that the Americans have chosen to live on a edge, that's why i think its sad when some guy cant handle that level of trust armed people after all must have in each other. ( MAD )
Off course one could argue we non armed people then drive in what could be used as a weapon, and it is equally sad when a person cant handle that trust, but i dont feel that scenario are equally sad.
We don't have the death penalty either, however after every recent terrorist attack the terrorists that attacked have all ended up dead!It do bother me with all the concrete bollards popping up due to the possibility of some one using a car or truck as a weapon, not least since the term vehicular manslaughter dont exist here in Denmark.
Also make me wonder other things, we dont have death penalty,,,, or rather we do if we are in war, and then it confuse me people here can travel to Syria and fight with ISIS against us their home land and then return "home"
And other can finance ISIS and similar organizations with sales tax fraud in the xxx billions on EU basis, and these animals pretty much go free.
I feel ( we Danes at least ) should grow a pair and at least start to use the laws we have.
Personally i feel if some one commit a act of terror here, that's a act of war, and so that person should be given the penalty that is in effect in times of war.
After all the same persons that will commit "war" here also say what we do in their countries are a act of war, and they have no problem killing us trial or not.
I don't think "sad" is the right word.
The people of the USA have chosen to live with easy and cheap access to weapons designed specifically for the mass killing of humans and unlimited access to ammunition, the result is inevitable and expected. It was their choice, why feel sad about the result?
Your country claims to be a democracy, so if the people actually want to end the mass killings then they could do so.The "sad" truth of the matter is that the "people of the USA" are not the ones to have chosen widespread availability of assault weapons. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the major gun manufacturers who supply these mass killing machines have our politicians in their back pockets after spending enormous sums of money in campaign contributions and employing highly aggressive lobbyists to promoted their interests. They are one of the most powerful and rabid lobbying organizations on the planet. Sadly, our government is now almost entirely controlled by special interests to the detriment of our nation, and it's not just guns. And we have a president in office who has no concern for the welfare of his people and who would rather enable the gun lobby's crazier factions. In March, Trump quietly signed a resolution blocking an Obama-era rule that would have prevented an estimated 75,000 people with mental disorders from buying guns. The rule was part of former President Barack Obama's push to strengthen the federal background check system in the wake of the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut shooting. And now, there is a movement to pass a new law allowing the widespread public availability of suppressors (silencers), a pet project of his son Donald Trump Jr. who characterizes this use of silencers as a "health issue" because loud gunfire can cause hearing loss. This is insane!... and we can only expect this horrific situation we are saddled with to get even worse, if that is even imaginable.
As for the "people of the USA", there are a great many like me, a life long gun owner, sportsman and outdoorsman. As a young boy I was an award winning small bore rifle marksman and I was taught in the strictest terms about the responsibilities of gun ownership. I am a hunter, I shoot trap, skeet, sporting clays and have been involved in competitive target shooting. And I would defend my life and limb along with my loved ones from any serious threat to our physical safety with the last round but I have never had the slightest interest in owning military assault rifles which are nothing more than machines for mass killing. That's why they are called "assault rifles".
Guns have been around for a long time in this country but something has changed. Time was, - this one's good for ducks and this one's good for target and this one's good for deer and this one's good for police work. Now it all about killing and aggression somehow, along with some imaginary, politically expedient notion of our second amendment seized upon by opportunists, big business and a certain class of fanatics. Our founding fathers wrote our Constitution at a time when the highest technology in firearms was the flintlock rifle. They could not possibly conceive of a rifle that could discharge 500-650 high powered rounds a minute.
After the last mass killing in the UK the people spoke and we banned all automatic weapons. That ban had almost no impact on use of guns for sports, just means that after firing you need to reload manually, and if you decide to use the weapon against people then you are unlikely to manage to kill more than one, the rest will either escape or attack you while you are reloading. That was last century, we don't have mass shootings any more.Between 2001 and 2013, 406,496 people died as a result of gun violence in America according to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.
Your country claims to be a democracy, so if the people actually want to end the mass killings then they could do so.
After the last mass killing in the UK the people spoke and we banned all automatic weapons. That ban had almost no impact on use of guns for sports, just means that after firing you need to reload manually, and if you decide to use the weapon against people then you are unlikely to manage to kill more than one, the rest will either escape or attack you while you are reloading. That was last century, we don't have mass shootings any more.
How do you work that out, you have nearly twice the police numbers that we do relative to population!Also, FWIW, many here don't wish to end up like the UK which in numerous aspects is now a de facto police and surveillance state.
Perfect example of using statistics out of context to prove 'something'. Without knowing the specifics this is absolutely meaningless on it's own. It's even more suspect given the author of this tidbit is a special interest activist using this type of 'statistical analysis' to promote his biased viewpoint.
That's all a bit out of date!
Fears that the UK would "sleep-walk into a surveillance society" have become a reality, the government's information commissioner has said. (2006)
One surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain, says CCTV survey
Britain has more CCTV cameras than China (2009) - now in 2017 vastly increased number and sophistication of surveillance devices along with draconian anti-privacy laws
Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, has warned that the fear of terrorism is being exploited by the Government to erode civil liberties and risks creating a police state.
Is the UK a Police State?