woody14010 wrote:
One spiked drink isn't going to "hook" anyone who doesn't mess with risky behaviour.
You appear, then, to specialise in that
field of substance abuse.
My mistake. You must be correct from
experience in that line of work.
bangbangclub wrote:
If that is perspective it is rather skewed.
The difference between drugs and guns is that people have a choice whether to take drugs or not - legal or illegal.
I would suggest that as a rule people do not choose to get shot.
Why can people not see the correlation between a country with lots of guns and lots of people getting shot and a country that has has very few guns and very few people getting shot?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
So having someone's drink spiked to hook
them on drugs is the victims choice ??
bangbangclub wrote:
If that is perspective it is rather skewed.
The difference between drugs and guns is that people have a choice whether to take drugs or not - legal or illegal.
I would suggest that as a rule people do not choose to get shot.
Why can people not see the correlation between a country with lots of guns and lots of people getting shot and a country that has has very few guns and very few people getting shot?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
So having someone's drink spiked to hook
them on drugs is the victims choice ??
mossgate wrote:
I don't know how many UHH'rs use backpacks in urban settings, but I find that having a sling style backpack is quite advantageous for urban settings (i.e. traveling to other countries, for example) where pick pocketing is a problem. Having it in front is good for keeping an eye on your possessions as well as quicker access (for YOU) to get at things without taking the backpack off.
I use both.
A sling-type can give you back problems
if it's heavy.
Whereas the two shoulder straps
distribute the load.
And on a train, I just pull it in front of
me on one strap so to keep an eye on it.
amehta wrote:
Most parks do have signs asking people to pick up their litter. Having it in this condition list means that they can revoke the permit if the person leaves the place a mess. And they're even implying that it's okay to move signs for photographs, just put them back.
But they don't have other visitors sign
to adhering to picking up litter.
They should just state
"Adhere to signposted rules and conditions
at entry" areas.
[quote=Wall-E]Amateur stops at P&S and phone cameras.
MAYBE a bridge.
The major cities have done this for a long time.
If you make money doing it, we need our cut.
And, if you think that's bad, there are parks where you need the permit whether you're a pro or not.
http://www.glendaleaz.com/ParksandRecreation/SRPHAphotopermit.cfm
I wonder if they ask others to pick up
their rubbish.
Obviously we litter and no one else.
Mummy, my head's sore.
💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤
TucsonCoyote wrote:
Looks to me you are saying the arsehole with
the phone is now the one laughing!
Hard to do when you are in a grave it would seem to me !
If that is not what you meant then I would suggest you
read what you write before posting !
You obviously don't see the point of it all.
Pictxterowner wrote:
:shock:
Is the humour because there is no fence, only
a gate ??
If so, maybe it's an Irish security gate !!
Freeride wrote:
I am not taking sides on this issue per se..but the accused is a retired police officer right? When I was taking Martial Arts my instructor said to use what ever was available for a weapon.If no weapon available throw something in his face to avert his attention. Then use your training. Okay this retired police officer was probably trained in a similar manner. When the victim threw popcorn at him (which is reported what happened) he (the accused) would have thought something was coming after that, and acted accordingly. Not saying he was right or he was wrong. If the media and politicians don't misrepresent everything that happened maybe a fair and impartial jury will come to a just verdict. Whatever that might be.
I am not taking sides on this issue per se..but th... (
show quote)
Well, if he cannot see anything after popcorn,
then he cannot blindly shoot at someone.
If that's the case, then he has no legal
protection.
Simply calling the staff would've solved the
situation and they probably would've given
him a complimentary pass.
Now he's facing prison, just over some
arsehole with a phone.
Yes, he's really now the one laughing!
Some people have to be taught to solve
issues without resorting to violence.
And movies and games, et cetera, do
nothing to solve this ongoing problem.
JoboX wrote:
Tampa Florida
2 couples argue then the gun shot ends the argument..For texting his 13 year old daughter.. Lone Survivor.... how poetic and a good advert for taking guns away from civilians.... The accused a retired officer??
Kids around aswell
It baffles me why a rational person needs to carry a gun to go to a picture show..... Time to lock them guns away
Well done. You should work at the ABC
studios.
You subtracted (maybe) the fact that there
were obscenities and other items being
thrown around, heating up the situation
before the gunshot.