You say you’re not a “danger.” Who are you to decide ? Drunk drivers don’t seem to think they’re a danger either. The fact is you’re an increased risk to the public should you do your drugs and decide to drive or operate heavy machinery.
Until you drug users can completely isolate yourselves from non users I’ll have an issue with drugs.
You know im not talking about caffeine dude…
Alright… What about drunk people? Perfectly legal, yet frequently hostile and aggressive in public. I’ve never gotten behind the wheel of a vehicle under the influence of operated heavy machijery. Nor was I agressive/hostile towards anyone… I was minding my own business the whole night aside from talking to friends. Tell me why I’m so dangerous in this scenario?
As a matter of fact, I make it a point that I won’t drive for at least 24hr if I’m going to drink (rare, but I do sometimes drink). A hangover still impairs visuospacial awareness, reaction time etc. My motto is so long as my actions have no risk to anyone else besides myself… All is good
I despise drunk drivers. They should have their licenses revoked.
Extreme measures would work wonders.
That’s exactly what they do here. First offence = six months driver’s license disqualification… After which I believe a breathalyzer is attached to you’re car for a number of years, to unlock the car you’ve got to blow under the legal limit
I agree with you, there is no excuse for driving drunk… It puts others at risk, and is thus incredibly selfish and unacceptable.
Must switch back to the topic at hand though.
Statistically speaking… They dont work as well as you’d hope… And as a result you’ve now got problems with human rights violations, rampant corruption (the phillipines have been using political activists as scapegoats during their war on drugs…)
Taking you’re license away for driving drunk isn’t an extreme measure. It’s justified, if you’re getting behind the wheel drunk you’re a threat to the safety of others
Cutting off a foot for driving drunk would be an extreme measure
They’ve never been tried here.
Drug traffickers = public dismemberment
Is Naples as a whole dangerous or are only specific neighborhoods particuarly dangerous. I recall people telling me Philadelphia was dangerous, but the majority of the violent crime present was allocated to certain suburbs/neighborhoods within Philadelphia
Define dangerous. Robbery is common, relatively speaking. Even in this case one could argue it wasn’t dangerous as the kid’s gun was not real. People who lived in Palermo in the late 70s and 80s would probably laugh at Naples and think they were a bunch of gay clowns. The criminals from Corleone were some real savages.
In the US there was an actual gang war between the Sicilian mob and Naples mob. The Sicilian mob won.
I’m aware of the legalities of owning automatic weapons in certain US states. The average citizen where I live (Australia) can’t even own a semi automatic hunting rifle, even if licensed to own general firearms.
I have never heard of anyone in the States using one of these licensed machineguns to commit a crime. Do you think this is because of the high cost of the tax stamp for a purchase/transfer of a machine gun? Does the tax stamp work as de facto gun registry for automatic weapons?
You are a liberal
I’ve never understood how liberal is an insult… It merely dictates “left wing”, and one shouldn’t be insulted for harbouring political ideologies so long as they don’t outwardly push hate/violence towards a certain demographic.
Also, in Australia (interestingly) the “liberal” party refers to the right wing party. Our derogatory phrase for them is “libtard”. Both parties in terms of policies are almost identical aside from very slight changes (unlike the drastic difference you’ll see from far right leaning republicans vs say… Bernie Sanders). The only significant change from party to party pertains to climate action/stance on climate change. Therefore I say “labour for the win”
Maybe. But you are an idiot who can’t read well. And there is no maybe about that.
He’s a moron who thought I was giving my opinion when I was stating the opinion of others.
It happens, but it is not common.
I think it’s a combination of all of those factors. The hurdle to own one at the federal level is very high, so it already self-selects people who have both the financial means, a clean criminal history and are willing to go through the process.
Fully automatic guns have been used in crimes here, just not ones procured legally that I’m aware of. This is generally true for most crime involving firearms in the US. Many, if not most of those guns are procured outside the law.
The North Hollywood Bank Shootout comes to mind as a crime where full-auto rifles were used, and it was an influential event that saw a lot of police officers switch to carrying patrol carbines.
We had a mass murder at a workplace here about 8 years ago. Responding officers had 9mm carbines. A total fucking joke. Im on SWAT. Regular patrol STILL doesn’t have a patrol rifle program.
I could see that if you worked in Mayberry but St. Louis?
What was the perp’s loadout?
The Hollywood guys had body armor too. They were like walking tanks compared to the cops with their side-arms.
Yep. It’s disgraceful. We have Remington 870’s and *some Sgts have an AR platform. Of course we also have too many incompetent officers. Not their fault but it needs to be addressed.
Man I don’t really remember but it was no joke. Let me look it up real quick.
