Quantcast
Car-cam bad drivers thread - Page 109 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 109 of 161 FirstFirst ... 99 108 109 110 119 ... LastLast
Results 2,161 to 2,180 of 3203

Thread: Car-cam bad drivers thread

  1. #2161
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    143
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Hey, just thought a few of you would enjoy this 7 channel dash camera install.


  2. #2162
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    630
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Ducks!

    A family of ducks almost cause a 4 car pile-up on Macleod Trail south of 22x.

    Volume warning as the Blackvue 600 is terrible for sound. Skip the first 10 seconds if you want.

    You can hear me saying 21 seconds in "Dont slam on the brakes for F*** sakes" lol

    People should really put their hazards on and slow down and try to avoid rather than slamming the brakes - especially since there are always people tailgating on that road trying to get to the Walden 194 Ave SE turnoff on the left as quickly as possible from Sundance.

    Last edited by avishal26; 05-27-2015 at 09:18 AM.

  3. #2163
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    FT86
    Posts
    71
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The person driving the black GMC either wasn't paying attention to the road or has the reflexes of a mule.

  4. #2164
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    Has either 2 or 4 wheels
    Posts
    437
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by D88
    The person driving the black GMC either wasn't paying attention to the road or has the reflexes of a mule.
    Had they been texting for a second or 2 more they would have pushed right through the 3 cars in front, and probably spilled into the center lane as well causing an accident there.

    Wonder why their reaction was to drift towards the center lane rather then the wide open fucking shoulder next to them....
    Signature..... I ate it!!

  5. #2165
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    D40/ED9/R6
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Another cyclist doing what he does best.

    "Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."

  6. #2166
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    630
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally posted by quick_scar


    Had they been texting for a second or 2 more they would have pushed right through the 3 cars in front, and probably spilled into the center lane as well causing an accident there.

    Wonder why their reaction was to drift towards the center lane rather then the wide open fucking shoulder next to them....
    Yeah - most people don't realize the dangers of taking a quick look at your phone or even texting / talking on the phone unless you have had a close call...

    I was talking to my wife while driving but even then I was able to see those ducks from a ways back before those cars started braking - the only difference is I didn't know they were ducks lol

  7. #2167
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    C
    Posts
    2,659
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Feel-good video of the day:


  8. #2168
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    2002 jeep tj
    Posts
    173
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    lol I was wondering what really happen after that guy was dropped on his ass lol

  9. #2169
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Tundra, Z1000
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Ducks!

    Originally posted by avishal26
    A family of ducks almost cause a 4 car pile-up on Macleod Trail south of 22x.

    Volume warning as the Blackvue 600 is terrible for sound. Skip the first 10 seconds if you want.

    You can hear me saying 21 seconds in "Dont slam on the brakes for F*** sakes" lol

    People should really put their hazards on and slow down and try to avoid rather than slamming the brakes - especially since there are always people tailgating on that road trying to get to the Walden 194 Ave SE turnoff on the left as quickly as possible from Sundance.

    You realize that you were on your brakes too though....

    They are ducks... if the choice is causing an accident or smushing some ducks... SMUSH!

    Not saying I would have ran them all down, but if there was someone coming up behind me quickly, I likely would have just kept going... not gonna cause an accident because of some animals. Cycle of life and some such stuff....
    Tundra, Z1000

  10. #2170
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Tundra, Z1000
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by 01RedDX
    Feel-good video of the day:

    They should have stomped that guy after he was on the ground. What a cock biter.

    Though I'm sure there was a backstory.... people don't generally try to run a bike off the road.... and he was talking about his kids and whatnot. Quite likely the biker was being an asshole before hand (though that, of course, doesn't justify running him off the road).
    Tundra, Z1000

  11. #2171
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    630
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Re: Ducks!

    Originally posted by krprice84


    You realize that you were on your brakes too though....

    They are ducks... if the choice is causing an accident or smushing some ducks... SMUSH!

    Not saying I would have ran them all down, but if there was someone coming up behind me quickly, I likely would have just kept going... not gonna cause an accident because of some animals. Cycle of life and some such stuff....
    Yes I braked too but

    1. You can see me slowing down way before because I was paying attention
    2. There was no one right behind me
    3. I turned on my hazards

    It's a hard choice to make though when you see a small family of ducks and you have decide what to do without causing an accident.

  12. #2172
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Cochrane, AB
    My Ride
    '14 Dodge Crew Cab, '08 WRX
    Posts
    1,378
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally posted by krprice84


    They should have stomped that guy after he was on the ground. What a cock biter.

    Though I'm sure there was a backstory.... people don't generally try to run a bike off the road.... and he was talking about his kids and whatnot. Quite likely the biker was being an asshole before hand (though that, of course, doesn't justify running him off the road).
    I thought they generally just would pull out guns and shoot at each other. Isn't that why most carry firearms, for revenge/anger, I mean self-defence.

  13. #2173
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Tundra, Z1000
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Darell_n


    I thought they generally just would pull out guns and shoot at each other. Isn't that why most carry firearms, for revenge/anger, I mean self-defence.
    what a stupid inane comment... unless you were being sarcastic.

    most carry firearms because they realize that, in this day and age, society has allowed criminals to become an "accepted" part of society - instead of punishing criminals harshly, dealing with them in a way that will deter or at least remove them, and raising our children with good morals so that they do not have as much temptation to turn to criminal ways, we coddle criminals, we assume that all criminals can be rehabilitated, we give them short sentences for serious crimes, then we wonder why they reoffend.

    I, for one, would absolutely own and carry a gun if I lived in a place that actually respected my human rights (yes Wendy, personal security and a right to safety IS a human right. No Wendy, the police are not legally required, nor mandated, to protect individuals - their mandate is to uphold the law, protect the society as a whole, and, where possible, stop crime - the higher courts have ruled that police are NOT responsible for individuals safety). I would not carry a gun so that I could shoot someone because they made me angry, or even shoot someone who tried to scare me off the road.

    Using a carried firearm is ONLY reasonable and permitable in situations where your safety or your property is at risk. And even with property, some states (and certainly canada) don't allow that - they have some bullsh*t false notion that the life of a criminal is more important than a law-abiding citizens property (if that was the case, why do we even put people in jail for stealing? after all, their life is all but taken from them if they are put in jail.....).

    Something I am sure you are not aware of is the fact that concealed carry permit holders in the states are among the MOST law abiding people in the entire country. Yes, there are bad apples, but they are highly uncommon. For the most part, people who go to the effort to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm are the type of people who are not going to break the law, and who are going to have enough self control not to shoot someone because they made them a little angry.

    Something I'm also sure you're probably not aware of is the fact that, in Canada, licensed firearms owners (PAL and RPAL holders) are THREE TIMES LESS likely to commit a crime than a REGULAR CITIZEN! That means that someone who doesn't have a license, even if they are normally a mostly law abiding person (i.e. not a criminal, no criminal record), is THREE TIMES more likely to commit a crime than someone who's got a firearms license. Interesting isn't it.....

    If you were being sarcastic, and taking a jab at nut job liberals who think that the US is so bad because of their guns, then my bad. I misinterpreted. If so, I'll apologize, just to throw that out there.

    (Oh, and funny thing, if you don't take into account the cities which have brought in the strictest firearms laws, the states is safer than canada. And yes Wendy, the stricter firearms laws generally came into force BEFORE violent crime got way out of hand.... if you compared the states before these laws were brought in, way back, canada and the us would have been fairly similar in their violent crime rate).

    Oh, and home invasions and robberies are higher in Canada.... how safe do we look now?
    Tundra, Z1000

  14. #2174
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    C
    Posts
    2,659
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    ^^^ Oh well that's a relief. So the lax gun regulation, as well as the sheer number of guns in the US, have nothing to do with that country's extremely high rate of gun violence?

    Good to know.

  15. #2175
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Tundra, Z1000
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Re: Re: Ducks!

    Originally posted by avishal26


    Yes I braked too but

    1. You can see me slowing down way before because I was paying attention
    2. There was no one right behind me
    3. I turned on my hazards

    It's a hard choice to make though when you see a small family of ducks and you have decide what to do without causing an accident.
    To be honest, I wasn't trying to give you too hard of a time. I was more pointing out that you said people stopped for the ducks, and were giving them sh*t for it, but you stopped too.

    My opinion is that no one should have stopped... it's a busy road with lots of cars on it. Things happen, it's not like ducks are an endangered species. Even if the whole family of ducks got wiped out, it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket. Animals get hit on the road all the time.

    Not only that, but to be honest, the mentality that animals are somehow some revered and worshiped thing drives me mental.... animals are animals, they do not have feelings, they are here for us to eat, and to maintain the natural balance of nature. If a couple of animals die on the road, that's part of life - nature is what we have made it, humans are at the top of the food chain, and the dominant species on earth.

    Not saying we shouldn't respect animals and nature, not at all saying that. Just saying that people need to stop crying over an animal getting killed by accident (not saying you're crying over it... just saying the mentality of society has become that way).

    It's different if you're on a very low traffic road, or in a rural area where there's rarely anyone else, then sure slow down and let them pass - it's silly to just try to kill some animals on the road. I'm just saying it's never worth risking an accident. I don't see the difficulty of the decision - there are cars behind and beside you, the only option is to keep moving forward.
    Tundra, Z1000

  16. #2176
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Tundra, Z1000
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by 01RedDX
    ^^^ Oh well that's a relief. So the lax gun regulation, as well as the sheer number of guns in the US, have nothing to do with that country's extremely high rate of gun violence?

    Good to know.
    Sadly, it doesn't. Not directly for sure.

    Look at the Czech republic or Switzerland - also extremely high rates of gun ownership, and comparatively lax gun laws, and no real violent crime problem.

    Look at most places in the US which have freer gun laws, including concealed carry - most of them have fairly low rates of violent crime.

    Look at virtually every town that openly supports concealed or open carry in ALL areas of the town - extremely low violent crime rates.

    In fact, look at Canada before 1977 or even before 1996 - our crime rates were right in line with what we expected based on demographics and the crack cocaine boom. Our violent crime rate did not change significantly right after the Firearms Act was brought into law - in fact the rate continued it's exact same trend. There was no good reason to bring in the more restrictive laws we have now - no massive gun violence problem, etc.

    And even if there was a real problem with violent crime (gun crime specifically) before Canada's draconian gun laws were brought in, it's been clearly shown that restrictive gun laws do NOT have an impact on gun crime - why is that? Because criminals don't follow the law. Gun control laws are directed at people who already follow the law. Did you know that the Firearms Act does not reference, not even once, any actual criminal use of a gun? It simply creates crimes for people that are doing things that, before the Firearms Act, were normal for gun owners to do (take a handgun out to your farm and shoot some targets, or take your AR-15 out to the bush to get a deer, or own a magazine with more than 5 rounds for a semi auto rifle, or own certain guns without a special license, or go to a shooting range with your handguns without having anything more than your firearms license, which already shows you are trusted to own those guns......). There is NOTHING in the firearms act that is directed at the criminal use of guns.

    Oh, and how about the UK? They brought in a handgun ban after the Dunblane massacre... what happened to their violent crime rate? Well, their gun crime rate went up significantly, though now it's started to fall somewhat, and their "other" violent crimes rates went way up, and continue to rise. Even if the laws did slow gun crime (they didn't, it's been proven), who cares if the slowdown is offset by other types of violent crime such as knife violence etc? Does it accomplish something if you push a criminal from using a gun to using a knife to kill someone? No, it just looks good. But the truth is, their laws didn't have any real effect on crime rates....

    Look at Australia, the one place where some people will claim the gun laws worked - the only thing that they have seen accomplished is that there haven't been any mass murders with guns since their draconian gun bans came into place. The problem there is that they define a mass murder as a single event where a shooter kills 5 or more people they do not know (i.e. domestic murders are not included in that, and the shooter moving to a new location is not included in that). If we included events that would be considered a mass shooting by any reasonable person, then they have occured since the gun bans. Oh, and the arson rate has increased significantly - could it be that some people who would have committed a mass shooting have moved over to arson, which is much more effective at terrorizing people and at killing them?

    Let's look at Jamaica, which had something of a violence problem, and guns were used in many of those cases. They brought in harsh, draconian gun laws. What happened? The law abiding citizens had no choice - they had to give up their guns, because they are law abiding people. The criminals laughed and said "why would we do that?". Now there are towns that are essentially run by criminal gangs, and who are heavily armed. The citizens now have no way to deal with, or defend against, these criminals. And of course the gun laws haven't stopped the criminals from owning guns....

    EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where a country has brought in severely restrictive gun laws has resulted in no significant benefit for public safety. It has, however, empowered criminals to know their victims will be unarmed.

    In addition, disarmament by governments has been used many, many times in the past as a precursor to slavery or tyrannical leaders. You can't take over a people when they can resist you.

    Now lets look at concealed carry laws. Every single state that has brought in concealed carry laws has seen at least some reduction in most types of crime. Non-violent (property) crime has increased in some - this is suspected to be because criminals now realize that they are at risk of being shot if they attack someone or someone's home/business while they are inside, so instead they plan their crime when no one is occupying the residence/business - is this not a good thing? In many states, the robberies went down significantly, in others the effect was less significant but still there.

    In no case did the rate of intentional and malicious/illegal murder go up due to the introduction of concealed carry (i.e. concealed carry holders did not create a problem of gun violence). The guns they owned already existed in the state, so it did not bring in any more guns than would normally have come in - it just allowed people to use them to protect themselves. Would more guns come in after concealed carry is allowed? Probably, but that doesn't mean that criminals will simply have more guns too.... criminals will ALWAYS get guns - look at britain again - guns are SEVERELY restricted, yet criminals still have them. In fact, look at EVERY SINGLE PLACE where guns are severely restricted, and you'll find that in almost every one of them, criminals still have guns, only the law abiding people do not.

    Let's also look at concealed carry in this light - before it was brought in in many states, police, sherrifs, women's rights activists, judges, and some politicians were up in arms, screaming about how there will be blood in the streets, shootings over parking spots and drive thru lines, murders in family neighborhoods over small trivial issues. The laws passed anyways, much to most of these people's chagrin. A year later, after the law was in place and people had an opportunity to start carrying, many of those same people were interviewed. Most of them said something to the effect of "Our fears were completely misplaced and unfounded. We have not seen the types of shootings that were predicted. In fact, we've found that concealed carry permit holders have been, generally, incredibly law abiding and well behaved." In very few states have there been cases of a concealed carry permit holder shooting someone out of malice.

    Did the rate of homicides drop? No, it didn't. But that is also because criminals were getting shot instead of victims. Again, a good thing.

    If you're going to try to comment on gun laws and gun control, get the facts (get them from an unbiased source, too). You can't look at the Coalition for Gun Control or any of those super-biased gun control Nazi's. You also shouldn't look at places like the NRA, because you're obviously not going to believe what they say. Do your own research - look at crime statistics and laws that were brought in regarding firearms. Make your own decision. If you have any sort of logic in your mind, you'll have no choice but to conclude that restrictive gun laws have had no effect on gun crime in Canada (and in the United States), or in almost every other place in the world. You'll have no choice but to conclude that making gun laws less restrictive has NOT increased violent gun related crime at all, and in many cases, violent crime was lowered coincident with relaxed gun laws.

    If you HONESTLY have any interest in the truth, instead of spewing nonsense and lies about the USA, do some research. But again, my theory here is that you have no interest in doing research, and you have no interest in knowing the truth. If you did, you wouldn't spout nonsense that isn't backed up by fact.


    If you truly want more info on it, let me know, I'm happy to oblige.
    Tundra, Z1000

  17. #2177
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    C
    Posts
    2,659
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    I see. So while I'm learning stuff here, what about the sweeping gun regulation in Australia? Massive drop in gun deaths, including homicides and suicides, with no corresponding rise in other methods of killing. You're saying this is just a coincidence?

    This is a rhetorical question because I noticed that all your talking points are lifted either directly from the NRA (ie not credible) or other pro-gun sources and have been widely discredited. If you want real answers then follow your own advice and search up some of your own talking points to see how easily they are debunked.

    I can very quickly and easily debunk most of the points you've made but don't want derail this thread. You can find all your points addressed in previous gun control threads in the current events section. This thread is for car cams only.

    Thanks.

  18. #2178
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Tundra, Z1000
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by 01RedDX
    I see. So while I'm learning stuff here, what about the sweeping gun regulation in Australia? Massive drop in gun deaths, including homicides and suicides, with no corresponding rise in other methods of killing. You're saying this is just a coincidence?

    This is a rhetorical question because I noticed that all your talking points are lifted either directly from the NRA (ie not credible) or other pro-gun sources and have been widely discredited. If you want real answers then follow your own advice and search up some of your own talking points to see how easily they are debunked.

    I can very quickly and easily debunk most of the points you've made but don't want derail this thread. You can find all your points addressed in previous gun control threads in the current events section. This thread is for car cams only.

    Thanks.
    Interestingly, like I said, Australia is one place where there have been minor claims of success. Do I believe it's all because of the gun laws? No, I don't at all. But I also can't deny that they have seen a drop in gun crime.

    And no, I actually have never looked at the NRA website. Of course I've looked at pro-gun sources, but I've also looked at anti gun sources.

    How can you say all pro-gun sources are invalid? Would you not also agree that anti-gun sources are invalid then?

    Much of my information actually comes directly from statistics released by governments - not from pro-gun websites or sources. Stats canada releases a whole ton of info about this. The US releases a good amount too, but because of the way their states are separated from the federal government, it is much harder to actually see trends nationwide.

    But again, how can you accuse only pro-gun sources of being biased and invalid? How could you not also agree that anti-gun sources are biased and invalid?

    What evidence have you looked at to support your position? Or is it just a casual glance at the evening news, you see news of another shooting in the states, you've heard about how (apparently) relaxed the US gun laws seem to be (they actually aren't as relaxed as you might think), you hear liberals screaming about how guns are killing our children all over the place, and you decide "guns are bad"?

    If we TRULY cared about saving lives, guns would not be very high on our list. Making bathtubs and swimming pools safer, making cars safer, truly rooting out and ending drunk driving, regulating and educating on cigarettes and alcohol (and ending any and all public health support for people who use cigarettes or abuse alcohol would be high on the list), and many other things, would ALL be more important to these anti-gun advocates, if they truly cared about making our world safer and keeping more people alive. The truth is, they have a personal agenda and a vendetta against guns. In Canada, men are killed by circulatory system disease, cancer, respiratory system diseases, digestive system diseases, suicide (all causes), motor vehicle collisions, substance abuse, suicide (non-firearm), mental disorders, and HIV, all more than suicide by firearm. After suicide by firearm (which, honestly, does not matter when it comes to laws - if someone wants to kill themselves and they cannot get a gun, there are a great many other ways they can do it - regulating firearms has been proven not to reduce suicides overall, they just move to other methods), there's accidental falls, accidental poisoning, homicides (all causes), homicides (non-firearm), and finally, homicide by firearm (these numbers are all from 1992 - the homicide rate has decreased slightly from 1992, but not by much, and the rate was trending downwards after the peak of the crack cocaine boom anyways. Homicide by stabbing is still, on average, a more common method of homicide than by firearm - should we ban knives and all pointy objects? Or should we focus on putting away people who would commit these crimes (while still understanding that you cannot prevent all crime no matter what)? Should we ban guns, in the vain hope that we will stop people from killing other people simply because they can't get a gun (but they can still get a sharp object, they still have hands, can still get ropes, can still start fires, and can still do other things to kill people)?

    Or should we admit that we cannot stop people from killing other people, and that the only two options are to either offer complete police protection for all individuals (obviously this is never going to happen), or we allow people to take personal responsibility for their own safety and security?

    I'm sure you'll agree, police cannot stop all murders (otherwise we wouldn't have murders), right? And you would agree that if someone cannot get a gun, it is highly unlikely to stop them from killing the person they want to kill (making the choice to kill someone is obviously a pretty big choice, knowing or finding out you can't get a gun is not likely to be a major obstacle, considering that the threat of life in jail is already not an obstacle)?

    As I've said, banning all guns has proven not to reduce violent crime significantly in almost every case. Look at the UK - after they banned guns in 1997, the rate of homicides went up in EVERY SINGLE YEAR except for one (and even that one year was not drastically lower than the rest) - and the year after that lower year, it went right back to trending upwards.

    In australia, look at the whole picture. The rate of homicides was already decreasing long before 1996 and 2002 when they made huge restrictions on various types of guns. Just because it continued that trend, does not mean that the gun control was successful. Why would the homicide rate be decreasing before the gun control laws were enacted? Clearly they weren't decreasing because of gun control, because gun control wasn't brought in yet - so why? And how can you say that the gun control is the cause for the decrease afterwards, when it was already following that trend?

    That would be like the following situation:

    A driver is on the road, and driving erratically. They are totally sober, for the meantime. They are hitting cars randomly, nearly going off the road, and generally driving like an idiot. Then they reach into the glovebox and grab a bottle of booze, and start drinking it. Within a few minutes, they run down a pedestrian. How could you ever say that the booze caused the accident, when they were already causing accidents? Clearly the booze wasn't causal to the accident, it was coincident to it.

    Back to Australia - we can clearly see that from about 1975 to 1985, the average rate of firearm homicide was anywhere between 0.6 up to 0.80 per 100,000 people. We then see, in 1989 (no new gun laws introduced in, or around, 1985), that rate fell to 0.5, then in 1992 peaked again at 0.6, then went right back down to 0.33, 0.27, and 0.32 in the following years. 1996 brought a rise to 0.54 (the year the law was introduced), and it has gradually gone down from there. How on earth can you say that the firearms laws had anything to do with the decrease in firearms homicide, when it was already trending downwards from 1975????

    Similarly, we look at the non-firearm related homicide rates. In the 1970's, they were around 1.15 to 1.3 per 100,000 people, with a a few outliers on each side. the 1980's brought much higher rates of 1.2 to 1.7 (!). 1990's averaged around 1.3-1.4. The 2000's (to 2004) were similar, 1.33-1.4, with only 2004 being lower at 1.14. So we can see here, just like with firearms homicides, that the rates were gradually decreasing from the 1980's peak.

    So did the australian firearms laws have an effect? It sure doesn't look like it was a significant effect - of course we can never know for sure, because we can't go back in time and try again without the laws. But the statistics clearly show that the rate for firearms and non-firearms related homicides were already dropping. Firearms related homicides in particular were already dropping. (These numbers are not from a "pro gun" site, they are australian government numbers).

    Statistics don't lie, even when they are posted on a pro-gun website. I will even admit that the analysis of statistics can be biased, either pro- or anti-gun, but the numbers themselves are simply numbers, given out by the government. So unless you think that the government was fudging it's numbers to try to keep the public from wanting gun control laws brought in (which no government would ever have a reason to do - why would they lie to the people so that they could keep their guns....). Furthermore, these numbers are pretty easy for a statistician to verify.

    It's interesting that you claim to be able to debunk my numbers, but then of course don't want to talk about it. Send me a PM if you want to talk about it - I'd love to hear how you can debunk raw numbers..... I'd love how you can show, somehow, that the rise, or lack of a drop, in violent crimes compared to previous trends in almost every nation or state that's enacted gun laws is false. Please, enlighten me.

    /back to the regularly scheduled thread.....
    Tundra, Z1000

  19. #2179
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    13 Scion FR-S, 11 Mitsu Outlander
    Posts
    1,563
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Originally posted by krprice84

    Though I'm sure there was a backstory.... people don't generally try to run a bike off the road.... and he was talking about his kids and whatnot. Quite likely the biker was being an asshole before hand (though that, of course, doesn't justify running him off the road).
    The bikers were running up and down the street right in front of their houses/trailers at 175mph, repeatedly.

    Personally I would have tempted to put spike strips/speed bumps or laid out chains (with warning signs).

    Both sides are idiots.
    That's not sweat. It's your fat, crying.


  20. #2180
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Tundra, Z1000
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Khyron


    The bikers were running up and down the street right in front of their houses/trailers at 175mph, repeatedly.

    Personally I would have tempted to put spike strips/speed bumps or laid out chains (with warning signs).

    Both sides are idiots.
    See, then I get it. But first, go out there, flag them down, and say "hey guys, I've got kids that play outside here, and other people do too. Do you mind going somewhere else to do that?"

    Maybe they realize that the guy is not being a dick, he just honestly wants to have his kids safe?

    Then if the bikers are dicks about it, go grab a shovel and throw some gravel out on the road, while they can easily see you doing it. A few shovels full in front of your house, and they'll stop, but if you let them see it, then no one's gonna get hurt. Won't hurt cars either, and if a biker hits it at the speed limit, he'll be just fine.
    Tundra, Z1000

Page 109 of 161 FirstFirst ... 99 108 109 110 119 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Heads & cam swap..minus the cam

    By Hallowed_point in forum Performance Modifications
    Replies: 9
    Latest Threads: 02-20-2014, 01:42 PM
  2. FS: 360 vision cam and PS3 eyetoy cam

    By copynpaste in forum Video Games / Consoles
    Replies: 5
    Latest Threads: 03-18-2009, 12:42 AM
  3. Trade DVD cam for DV cam?

    By neely in forum Miscellaneous Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 03-12-2005, 09:00 PM
  4. fs-canon digital video cam/still cam

    By djpacman in forum Miscellaneous Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 17
    Latest Threads: 10-06-2003, 04:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •