There is always the issue of people who are not wearing seatbelts killing people in the seats in front who were. Things in cars tend to have a lot of momentum when a car stops almost instantly, people included.
Wrecks that are plenty strong enough to throw someone out of the chair can still leave the car going pretty fast. Let's say you're on the highway in the right lane. Some dumbass pulls out of a gas station and t-bones your car at about 20 mph in the back passenger side door at about a 45 degree angle. It pushes the back of the car out towards the median and turns the front of the car towards the side of the road, and now it's going straight for the ditch. The driver has been thrown out of his seat and is now huddled up with the passenger in the passenger seat, yet the car has barely slowed down at all, if any. He doesn't have control of the vehicle and it plows into the ditch at 55 mph, gets some air coming out of the other side of the ditch, and flies into the woods, killing the unbelted rear passengers, driver, and injuring the belted front passenger. The front passenger is pinned in the front seat for half and hour with 2 dead people before he can be extricated. If the driver had been belted, he might have been able to save the car from going into the ditch, and it would have just been a simple thing, with no one hurt. - - - Updated - - - I wasn't endangering anyone but myself. What does this have to do with seat belts anyway?
To me, not wearing a seatbelt is utterly retarded. There have been plenty of incidents with unbelted passengers hitting the seat in front and killing its belted occupant. The seatbelt doesn't get in your way when sitting in the car normally, it only gets in the way when crashing and its fucking supposed to then. Here's something, if you aren't seatbelted, an airbag won't help much, you'll hit it with enough force to go straight through. Oh, I'm also against prohibiting weapons. Ultimately, if an entirely normal person picks up a firearm, their first thought isn't going to be to kill somebody with it, there is nothing about the firearm which entices a person into murdering another person. If somebody does feel inclined in that way, a) they need psychiatric help, b) they can use a knife or a car or their bare hands. The implement does not cause the intent to kill, the intent to kill instead choose whichever implement is available. The intent to kill originates in response to social, economic, political and psychiatric problems (mostly 2 and 4 I think). Take Canada. Firearms ownership is on par with the US, homicide levels are at a mere fraction. United kingdom, oh we still have homicides (more so than Canada I believe) but very low firearms ownership rates, we just stab each other instead. I totally disagree with the notion that firearms, swords and other "weapons" should be banned on the basis that they were designed to kill. I do personally agree with the idea of not walking around in public with them, frankly why the hell do you need to walk down the street with a claymore strapped to your back, just silly to me. I also agree with a regulated industry rather than any old sod walking into a shop and buying a shiny accuracy international ax338 (before anybody moans cod fanboy, I knew of these rifles long before cod chose to feature the "l118" which is actually misnamed as the l118 designation refers to a light artillery piece, the accuracy international Arctic warfare magnum in British army inventory is an l115a3 and is chambered in a wildcat .338 Lapua magnum cartridge with the bullet seated deeper into the casing than conventional). If you want a rifle, you can surely wait a week. Let's face it, there are those in society that should not have firearms or swords. Drugs. Not my problem. I do not partake in recreational drug usage except the odd pint and that hardly counts to most people. Not my issue if somebody else chooses to, I can't say I do approve but who the fuck actually needs my approval? Get on with it, just as long as its not right in front of me (although I've probably left by this point). Delivering pizza to stoners is rather hilarious though, half of em are so out of it that they can't even count the change, I never shortchanged one but could have certainly gotten away with it. Interestingly, I'd expect the weed dens in particular to be in the rougher area of town, its just stereotype, there is a pretty even split though, seems the rich kids love the stuff just as much.
Yeah that's how it goes. The rich kids do love the stuff just as much, it's a pretty big problem out here, a very nice area of town. - - - Updated - - - I'm not completely retarded. Of course I made sure they were looking and had enough room to stop. And if they didn't I was ready to jump up on the hood or something. Even if I did get hit I guarantee you I wouldn't regret a thing...unless I got really badly hurt. Everyone around here (these forums) is so against doing dangerous stuff. Y'all care about your well being to much. I guess you could say I'm stupid, but I am aware of the risks, and the possible consequences, I just don't give a shit.
*Plays GTA for an hour* Welp, I better go shoot a bunch of people. There's a reason that games have age ratings. These idiots need to simply stop letting their kids play games intended for adults instead of blaming the game itself.
Pretty much. I'm not going to say that its a heinous crime to let a 14 year old play a 15 rated game, but games are issued with age ratings for a reason and usually alongside the rating it will give reasons why. Let me pick up a few games from my floor. starting off the pile with a 16, it has a little picture of a fist which I presume denotes violence and a globe for online play, but then that is old school PEGI being vague for you. But look at the cover, a dude holding a gun on the front, on the back, dudes holding guns in various pictures. Not that I'm "oh no kids can't see guns", but I'm not going to let a 5 year old play it. 15. Contains strong violence and language. Nope. 18. Contains strong bloody battle violence. Hell I wouldnt let a 12 year old play that, that would also be doing a favour for everyone in the lobbies. 18, and pegi being less vague and labelling the symbols this time, violence, language, online (oh all the evils). got some guys with guns on the back, a robot being shot at and more people with guns on the front. But its obvious comparing the 16 rated game and 18 rated game that the 18 rated one is going to have more of the violent content and bad language than the 16 rated one and should perhaps be kept away from kids. Honestly though, having played the games, I'd say the 16 rated one has more of the violence (its a bit more up close and personal) and the 18 rated one perhaps wouldnt hold a young childs interest for long. But yeah. Games have ratings for a reason. I don't so much think that kids should be cotton wool wrapped to protect them from every single evil of the world, but at the same time you don't let a 7 year old play games with "strong bloody battle violence", thats just obviously asking for trouble. The whole games cause violence thing, in a person age appropriate for the game I think thats true, but I have a 3 year old sister, she is still learning what is right and wrong to an extent (most of the time shes an angel, but of course she fights the 6 year old etc), a 3 year old perhaps stuck sat in the same room as some of this content all day every day is probably going to think thats normal because they are still young enough to be heavily influenced in that way. I don't blame the games, I blame the parents. I was in GAME once looking at the pre-owned stuff. Some woman turned around and simply said "you seem to have more of a clue about games than I do, should I let my son play this grand theft auto thing he wants" indicating to a kid that couldnt have been more than 8. Simple answer: "there are age ratings on the cases for a reason". If she then never lets her kid play games with ratings over his age, so be it, I'd rather be partially responsible for that than partially responsible for someone like my mates little brother who at age 5 would throw tantrums when he wasnt able to play battlefield and quite often his mother would give in.
This video just came out today, i found it pretty amusing. Its mildly relevant, i suggest you give it a watch.
Last time i heard a game was actually banned somewhere, is CoD:BO that got banned on Cuba because you shoot F. Castro Then there was tons of games that just got censured, like, no blood, or something like that. No sane person would let a bunch of paranoid grannies in the goverment ban games, no matter what they are.
