Hystery

Have you read the link Sam posted? From what is said in there, it's clear this was not a good anti-gang unit. Yeah, maybe crime rate decreased, but at what cost? The end doesn't justify the means.

So you're condemning them for something they didn't commit, just because they are muslims. That's the definition of discrimination.

As mentioned before, Islam has ~1.8 billion believers across the world. How many Syria and Afghanistan have? A couple millions? Integrists for the most part, meaning -they- are the violent minority, and not the other way around.

You're telling me "They follow the precepts of the book". Which tells them to kill non-believers. Alright, let's put that in practice. I'm not believing in Allah (or any god for that matter), yet no muslim has come to slaughter me. You're a believer of the christian god I suppose, yet no muslim has come to slaughter you. The church of my town has a mass every sunday, I haven't seen any muslim going there to slaughter the people there. How do you explain that exactly, if it's not them not following every word of their book? And don't tell me it's a minority.

No, it's called showing your double standards by comparing two similar things that share common points you're against and proving that you're discriminating one over the other, therefore it's perfectly relevant. Whether you personally think it's relevant or not is up to you, but it'd just prove the point I'll make right below. Both Islam AND Christianity have verses about slaughtering non-believers, you can check those above, I posted them. So, both Islam and Christianity prone violence against non-believers. Now, you say you're against all form of violence. Fine by me, so am I. So technically you should be against Christianity as well, since the Bible prones violence against non-believers just like Islam ( or any religion really ). But, unsurprisingly so, you don't, and focus only on Islam. Why? Because you purposefully choose to discriminate one religion over the other even though both share common characteristics when it comes to violence. That's called having double standards. And when you have double standards, you can't discrimate a religion and think people will take you seriously, because all the arguments you can make will be by definition null and void. The fundamentals are. But over time people grew away from many of them, understandably so. And it's easy to prove. Qu'ran says to kill non-believers. Have you been killed by a muslim for not being one? I don't think so. And me neither, even though Islam is the second most common religion here right behind Catholicism. So, could it be that muslims don't follow every single precept of a book? No, that'd be preposterous... You've to understand that a religion is much more than the book it originated from. Things have evolved and changed. You can say whatever you want about Islam, the Islam religion is no more violent than all the other religions around the globe. So if you want to cleanse Islam, you gotta cleanse all religions without discrimination. But again, that won't happen, because double standards.

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB) 1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) 2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT) They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB) Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.(Zechariah 13:3 NAB) Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.(Leviticus 20:27 NAB) All those come from the Bible. They're commanded to slaughter non-believers, gays, etc. Does that mean religions using the Bible as their holy book have their ideology flawed and should be eradicated? Should I keep going or do you catch the drift? Stop shouting "QURAN!" everytime a discussion is about religion and its adepts, a religion is much more than a thousands years old book.

Dunno what to tell you mate. For everyone else this guide was enough for them to mod their game with vehicle models. If it doesn't work for you, I can only suggest to reinstall your game and start over again, there must be something you installed beforehand that seems to override this.

Wouldn't you agree that a good middle ground solution would be to have stricter gun regulations, like having much tougher conditions to obtain a gun, or having the obligation to register your weapon at the nearest police department or townhall for the officers to know who owns a gun (and therefore at least having an idea of what to expect when they arrive at a scene), while reducing the budget given to, let's say, your army, which is already monstruously gigantic (more than 500 billion $ in 2016), of just a couple billions and redirect that money to the different police departments to allow them to hire more officers or having better equipment? That way, the guns in circulation would be less (which would logically mean less chances of having random idiots shoot people for no reason), you'd still be able to get a gun if you were judged fit to have one, while having a better protection from a larger police force or better equipped one at least, to cover your back if you need it, making it safer for everyone?

I hear your words, but I just want to address two arguments you used that I see coming back on the table every single time something about gun control is mentioned. Let's be honest. What's the main provider for the black market? It's the legal market. Guns can't be manufactured from scraps. And they don't appear out of thin air, nor can they be grown and harvested like a drug would. And importing guns from abroad costs money, a price that is reflected on the price tag when said guns are sold, making them more expensive. The great majority of the guns you could find on the black market are directly coming from the legal market. Be it guns sold from one person to the other, to the next, and the next, or stolen and then sold to someone else. And because there are so many circulating, their prices are low (the good ol' law of supply and demand). The good point in all this is that the black market, like any other market, follows the laws of economy. What I mean by that is that if you put much stricter regulations on guns, or outright get rid of them, less and less guns will be in circulation. Meaning that ultimately less and less guns will be stolen or sold around. Meaning that once the product becomes more rare, prices will skyrocket (same good ol' law of supply and demand). And with skyrocketed prices, most people getting their guns from the black market won't be able to afford them anymore, drastically reducing the amount of guns available for criminals. The black market argument is a smokescreen to me that would be directly impacted by gun regulations, would they become stricter, contrary to popular belief. This is the other analogy/comparison I read or hear a lot when discussing this kind of issue. Although kudos to you for not using the "Someone can use a car to ram people, does that mean we should get rid of cars and driver licenses?", this one irritates me the most. The thing is, for your example, words weren't initially made or meant to hurt someone, they were meant to communicate with others, people just happen to twist them in order to use them to hurt or spread hatred. Same for cars, cars were never designed to hurt people, but to transport something or someone from point A to point B in the most efficient way possible, but people twist them in order to turn them into deadly rides. And I could continue like that for anything you'd like to compare guns to. Because guns, on the contrary of anything else, were designed with only one single purpose in mind: fire a projectile, to hurt or kill someone, in the most efficient way possible. That, is what makes the difference and why particular restrictions are needed for those compared to free speech, or cars, or anything else really.

At this rate they should have made the ceremony in a gun shop, would have been faster and more practical.

How is it clickbait-y, it's pretty obvious that the title is a joke. I mean, if someone takes the title seriously, the issue lies with them, not the title.

Oh yeah, they definitely do. You'll never see a cop get fined (on or off-duty). Which is irritating, especially when you see them doing stuff you as a citizen would get a hefty fine for.

Let's be honest though, people don't lose their shit when a cop breaks the law or makes an error, people lose their shit when a cop breaks the law or makes an error AND is not held accountable for it. That, is what people actually lose their shit (and understandably so). When you get into a traffic accident, you can say "I'm human, I'm subjectable to making errors" all you want, if you're in the wrong, you're in the wrong, and you pay the consequences. Cops aren't escaping this just because they carry a badge. When cops actually break the law (I mean that as in when they're not in intervention or answering a call), it's also irritating, because the people who scold and lecture you about respecting the law end up not respecting it themselves, and we fall into a "Do what I say, not what I do" situation which is incredibly frustrating. Just like when I see cops around my area speeding at 110+km/h on normal roads when the speed limit is 90, and all that without answering a call or anything that would require them to be in a hurry (they just feel like speeding, or not using their turning signals, or park anywhere they want, but they'll give you a hefty ticket if you do any of those).

Please note that I didn't say "all cops are corrupt, triggerhappy and careless". Nor did I say that the police was such. I didn't judge cops as a whole at all. I said that, because there are such individuals, in fair numbers at that, present within the police ranks, it's difficult, or even impossible for some people, to support the police as a whole and view the police as a whole as a good entity. There's a fine difference between supporting the "good" police officers, which are a majority I'm not denying that, and supporting the police as a whole, which also includes the "bad" cops with it.

He does have a point. While I wouldn't be as resolute on the matter, it's difficult, even impossible to support either a government, or a huge entity as the police as a whole because of the many individuals in both, a fair bunch of them being corrupted or not doing their jobs like they should. Doesn't mean we can't support the ones actually doing great things for people though, but when it comes to actually support either a government or the police as a whole... Kinda difficult.

There's a middle-ground between supporting police no matter what happens and being anti-police. That middle-ground being supporting officers actually doing their job properly and not supporting the ones being dicks, corrupted, abusive or triggerhappy. Finding this video bad or cringy doesn't mean someone is anti-police. It means this video isn't to their liking, for plenty of reasons. Like the overly present patriotism (which has nothing to do with the police profession to begin with, you can be a police officer without being patriotic), the overly cinematrographic look of the video (which makes it feel like every cop is a hero figthing hordes of antifas, outnumbered during riots), the weird message it conveys (like it's cool and badass to beat people up with a baton, considering how the shot was taken). I could continue on and on. I don't judge the profession, I judge the video, and this video is bad in my opinion. A much better video would have been to, like Hastings said, show officers in their everyday, working with the community for a better environment for everyone. That, would have been a good commercial.

Cringe.

I'd say it highly depends on the intents behind the joke. Being in couple with a man, I don't mind gay jokes, as long as the intent behind it was indeed just to joke around, but it's hard to tell online, and many people use humor to hide their malicious intent to hurt or mock the concerned people. So yeah, if the intent is to just have a bit of fun without truly wanting to mock or belittle or hurt the concerned people, it's alright and I'm alright with it.

And I'm not responsible for you not being clear enough on your stance. We can keep going like that for days. As for the rest, yes, I do feel safe knowing that no one has the right to own a gun designed to kill people. No need to put quotes on that, because that's exactly what a gun is. It's an object designed to fire a projectile at someone in order to injure them, possibly in a fatal way. Crazy that the "MUH GUNZ" people can't admit that fact. I'm not afraid of terrorists, and I don't need a gun to feel safer. Because we learned to live without them. And while we, on very extended periods of time, occasionally have one or two maniacs trying to kill people in the name of whatever they believe in, you, on the other hand, have psychos shooting crowds every few weeks or so. Sorry, but between one place where no one owns guns, but we don't have use for them, and another place where everyone can have guns and shootings happen so often, my choice is made, in the blink of an eye. I've not lost anything mate. The point of an argument is to exchange, not to win. And yes, there's been confusion, because some talk about mass shooters, some others talk about invaders, and in the thread of discussion, the things got mixed up, hence I cleared the two from my point of view. Nah, it's your right to fight it off. You've no right to take a life, whatever your state says. I mean, you quote God, isn't the church against abortion because it takes a life away or something? Because everyone has a right to live? You see, that's the issue. Most 'muricans who own guns or are favorable to guns don't value life as it is. It's just that thing you can take away if you feel like it has to. Except it's not. It's a life we're talking about. It's not something casual you can disregard with a shrug. If someone invades my home, I grab my baseball bat and shove it into their head to knock them out, and I won't be afraid of being shot while fighting off : because here, home robbers don't have guns. Convenient.

Then explicitly state you don't plan on owning a gun or don't own a gun if you don't want people to assume you do by the way you defend the "MUH GUNZ" thing. It'd help people determine what is your stance in a clearer way. I still wouldn't want you as a neighbor still, I'm fine with friendly people who don't have the rights to own tools designed to kill people. Feels a lot safer. Nah, you didn't. I said that a criminal should be judged by competent people who know their job, you think I said "Let's see a judge to see if you can steal from me", which are to entirely different things. What are we talking about here, a home invader or a mass shooter? Because the two things got entwined there. Mass shooter here only to kill as many people as possible? Yes, they have to be taken out the quickest possible, and if they can't be taken alive, then there's only one issue left. A home invader that most likely is here only to rob you? A good dog and you're fine, no need for guns or to kill anyone for that, and you certainly don't have the right to make the call of if this invader has the right to live or die just because you think you do. That's not how a civilized society works. That's nice and all, but when someone is eager to go to war, when someone goes abroad to slaughter people with glee, they're bloodthirsty to me, and I don't want people like that fighting for me. This world is enough of a shithole already with all the damn violence all over the place, we don't need more people eager to unleash even more violence.

And why, in your mind, taking out automatically equals to killing them in cold blood without a second thought? There's no alternative, like, ever? Yes, if someone attacked me, or my family, or my husband, I'd like them taken out. Possibly dead. But I wouldn't want to live in a country that allows me to, or helps me to do that because first, it opens the door to anarchy, and second, it's not up to us, citizens to know whether a man should have his life taken away or not, without any form of trial. That's the difference. I'm fine with normal men needed in order to protect my comfort, thank you very much. I don't need bloodthirsty psychopaths for that. Dude, the judiciary system isn't the one deciding of the laws and max or min sentences. The laws are made by the lawmakers. The judiciary system just works to apply them, they can't do more. If you want to not trust something, don't trust the lawmakers. You seem to have barely read what I said and, as a result, reply to something I've never said. Good job, good sir. Also, yes, an anti-individual mindset, what an atrocity. How can people be ANTI-INDIVIDUAL in a SOCIETY where we live in GROUPS, that's preposterous right? (I put the important words in capital letters and bolded so you don't miss the correlation between them this time) But don't worry, I personally wouldn't want you to move out of the US either. I wouldn't want a neighbor who'd be ready to shoot me dead would I just ask if I can borrow some sugar, just because he feels like a manly man with his guns and thinks he can be judge, jury and executioner all at once.

No. I said that it's not up to civilians to know if their assaulter should die or not, but up to the judiciary system to decide whether or not he has to be punished for what he's done. Anyone going to war with glee has serious mental issues in my eyes. War isn't funny. Killing people isn't funny.

I actually remember a veteran interviewed on US TV during some riots explaining that the army teaches to de-escalate situations rather than escalating them to have better relations with locals during operations. Guess that's not taught anymore.

And obviously a soldier has a mind of steel. All those veterans coming back from war with PTSD must be wussies then.

Unfortunately that's not up to you to decide that. The judiciary system exists for a reason.