Hystery

I personally can't help you as, just like I stated in the original post, this guide is to replace cars only, and not to add cars to the game. If you're lucky someone else with better understanding will pass by and answer your question.

Donny Youngblood of the Kern County Sheriff's Department said "This is the new normal, if you look across the country," describing the incident as a mass shooting. (source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45505610) When even the cops consider this a new normal, you know it's a fucked up normality.

I pretty much agree with you, but I believe this is really a european view on things. A saying I heard some time ago was like this: "Yes, if someone killed my wife, my mother, my son or my friend, I'd want them dead, very much so. But I would not like nor want to live in a state that helps me achieving this." Sums up what many people think here in Europe.

The thing is, no one here talked about banning guns on this thread, but you. No one. You can scroll up, you'll see for yourself. You're so obsessively stuck up on it, that the moment a shooting happens, you feel the need to justify the right to bear arms, even though no one has questioned it so far on this thread. If that's not an unconscious feeling of guilt, I don't what is. Point is, bla bla guns, bla bla can't compare, bla bla "murica best gimme muh gunz", already been discussed billion times. You don't want people to question your 2nd amendment? Don't bring it yourself on the table to begin with, problem solved. Not even gonna say a word on the "natural right to self-defense" that I seemingly don't care about because it's pure demagogic bullshit that makes no sense whatsoever.

They couldn't do that either if they didn't have access to those firearms in the first place, since they'd have to use other kinds of weapons, like knives, that require more strength, stamina, skill on top of having to go in melee range (which would already be a deterrent, as well as forcing them having to run after their potential victims rather than standing from afar and shooting them like ducks), and offer the victims more chances to defend themselves as well as survive if they get hurt, on the contrary of firearms that require no strength, no stamina and pretty much no skill if shooting at point blank range, offering the victims almost no chance to survive if they get shot. But yes, of course, they're not the issue.

No one talked about banning guns. Don't feel so defensive about your precious, deadly toys.

Inb4 everyone says "ViDeO gAmEs MaKe PeOpLe ViOlEnT" and decide to regulate them or tournaments.

To be fair, you'd have to be one poorly trained officer to let a 87 years old woman have the upper hand on you, with a knife or not. Even more so if there are 3 of them on scene. Not saying old people are harmless, but damn, still. They're old. Especially past 80.

I like the fact you say it comes from a REAL twitter post from some police division in the UK, but instead of putting the link to said twitter post, you just quote it, with the complete impossibility for us to check if that's actually true or not. Typical alternate news propaganda. But don't you worry, police in Europe doesn't get "beaten up". Not more than the US police. On the other side though, our officers don't get shot dead, on the contrary of US police officers. But hey, you do you.

As a grand Darth once said on Korriban: "Apathy is death".

At least they didn't shoot her down. At least.

Oh yes, it's totally an invasion. A real repeat of Normandy landings, only here boats are filled with migrants and not soldiers. They're all there to invade and replace us to make us become part of the Western Emirates. It's 100% true, I've heard it on Fox News and read it on Info Wars, trust me. /s

So just because they admit they're biased, it makes them better or more trustworthy? Nah. You think they're better and more trustworthy simply because they comfort you in your ideas and opinions, nothing more, while every other news source isn't trustworthy because they contradict you. Now that's sounding more like it. Riiiiight.

You forgot Fox News.

Internal Security Agency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agencja_Bezpieczeństwa_Wewnętrznego - no mention of the word federal anywhere. Government Protection Bureau - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Protection_Bureau - no mention of the word federal anywhere. Central Anticorruption Bureau - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Anticorruption_Bureau - no mention of the word federal anywhere. Customs Service - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs_Service_(Poland) - no mention of the word federal anywhere. Border Guard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Guard_(Poland) - no mention of the word federal anywhere. Why, would you ask? Because they're not federal agencies. For an agency to be considered federal, they need to be functioning in a country that is built around a federal infrastructure, like the US. Poland is like most countries in Europe, a "unitary semi-presidential representative democratic republic, whereby the President is the head of state and the Prime Minister is the head of government". Aka, not federal. Those agencies don't operate "federally" as you say, they operate "nationally", as in within Poland's borders. You're welcome.

"Most journalists are biased" >Proceeds to post some random Youtube video from an international broadcast company that shows a news coverage, aka journalists. I see what you did there. I think what you meant was "Most journalists are biased, only the ones that actually back up my point are the true journalists speaking the truth". Either way, you make no sense.

And I've seen 3 red cars on the road today, therefore all cars must be red. But now that you're starting to throw some random 3rd Reich stuff that's completely unrelated I'll assume you're just a troll and move on. Ben's already having a handful.

That's the most random and inacurrate assumption I've read on this topic so far.

Oh yeah I wasn't really arguing your point, I just quoted you for the prison break part and the one that occurred here.

One occurred pretty recently here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44673753 But I still believe that life sentence is preferable over death penalty. First because it shouldn't be our right to decide who can live or die, second because mistakes can happen, both when it comes to convict someone and when executing someone (how many executions have been botchered?), and third because dying sounds a lot more like an easy way out than a life behind bars. It wouldn't take too much effort to make a prison-break-proof facility, would someone be really willing to build one.

That's actually a pretty """common""" method of execution throughout the world. Here we kept using the guillotine up until 1977, and then used the same as Japanese up until 1981, date at which when we abolished death penalty altogether.

Some are coming from Youtube videos so I doubt so.

Chemical castration is a thing.

It's a fact that has happened, not an pseudo-analysis on an event with a political agenda behind it, I don't see why I'd question the legitimacy of this. Stop being so obsessed, it's getting tiring after a while.