Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#82
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
can a gun in a drawer shoot on it's own?
No, a gun in a drawer cannot shoot on its own. Firearms require an external force to operate, typically a human pulling the trigger, which initiates the firing mechanism. For a gun to discharge, several conditions must be met:
Loaded Chamber: The gun must have a round in the chamber.
Trigger Activation: The trigger must be pulled with sufficient force to engage the firing mechanism (e.g., releasing the hammer or striker to strike the primer of the cartridge).
Mechanical Failure or External Force: In extremely rare cases, a malfunction (e.g., a faulty sear or drop safety failure) combined with a significant external force—like a strong impact—could theoretically cause a discharge. However, modern firearms are designed with safety mechanisms (e.g., drop safeties, trigger safeties) to prevent accidental firing even if dropped or jarred.
A gun simply sitting in a drawer lacks the energy or mechanism to spontaneously fire. Environmental factors like heat, vibration, or magnets cannot activate a trigger or ignite ammunition under normal conditions. Ammunition requires a precise strike to the primer, which only the gun’s firing mechanism can deliver.
If a gun is stored unloaded (no round in the chamber) and with proper safety measures (e.g., trigger lock or safe storage), the risk of accidental discharge is effectively zero. Even in cases of mechanical defects, spontaneous firing without human intervention or extreme external force is virtually impossible.
"Hey Grok, Can a depressed man, who doesn't own a gun and doesn't have one near him, shoot his brains out on a whim?"
"No, a depressed man who doesn’t own a gun and doesn’t have one near him cannot shoot himself on a whim. Without access to a firearm, it’s physically impossible to carry out such an act impulsively. If you or someone you know is struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts, reaching out to a trusted person or a professional resource like a crisis hotline (e.g., 988 in the U.S.) can provide immediate support."
"Thanks Grok! How about pills? This guy on the internet took my will to live, with his
brain-dead nonsense..."
"I’m really sorry to hear you’re feeling this way—internet nonsense can be exhausting, can’t it? To answer your question, a depressed person without access to pills (like prescription or over-the-counter drugs in sufficient quantity) couldn’t impulsively overdose, just as they couldn’t use a gun without one nearby. It requires having the means readily available, and even then, it’s not a simple or inevitable act.
More importantly, it sounds like you’re hurting, and I want to help. If someone online is dragging you down, it might help to step away from the screen for a bit or talk it out with someone you trust. Those brain-dead comments don’t define your worth. If you’re feeling overwhelmed, a hotline like 988 (in the U.S.) or a similar service in your area can offer a listening ear, no judgment. Want to share more about what’s got you feeling this way?
I’m here to listen."
you would have to nail his door shut
That would be the last thing that I would do. However, I can't imagine any of it.
It also leaves some time to come to your senses. Picking up a gun and blowing your brains out can be done in seconds, AKA 'on a whim'. Finding a good spot to run under
a truck or train takes longer, maybe hours. The walk alone good help settle emotions.
That suicide can also hurt other people. Many people still care about that, when they
are killing themselves. It's something that survivors of suicides say they struggled with. Obviously, we can't ask the ones who were successful.
There are many ways to kill yourself and many ways to kill someone else, but none are so convenient and effective as using a gun.
I was surprised that only 55% of suicides in the US involved guns though.
Personally, I would prefer it over the other popular methods.
Suffocation / Hanging: ~27%
Poisoning (including drugs/overdose, chemicals, gases): ~11%
Other methods (jumping, cutting, etc.): ~7%
Damn, we're going down a very dark hole now. See what you did.
slitting the wrist is the next up thing women do, if they cut it in line with the blood vessel,it is more difficult to stop the bleeding, she tried that a year before the last attempt,2 inch cut along the main vessel, just a few more minutes and she woulda bled dry.
and here is the part you won't believe, she had access to guns of all sorts, and chose a knife and pills instead.
when she slit her wrist, she did it alone,and had cussed me out and told me to go away and stay gone. the neighbor came over to borrow a movie to watch and saw her in a pool of blood. i think she was done with life. she is now in the care of the state and is usually tied to the bed because she is so violent if they try to get her off meds
whats the gain in that?
only registered users can see external links
since the police ruined the car, they should have to replace it in my opinion. the thieves would have eventually stopped to get gas or food or whatever, and the car could have been retrieved for the most part intact and usable. this is a case of emergency services just assuming everyone has insurance so fuck it, it don't matter.
i had to share this 1. funny!
i hope it will show up soon.
she is going to get arrested again.
didn't learn a damn thing. she should keep her ass out of a war zone. can you imagine the hoopla if she got caught by hamas and was a hostage? we would never hear the end of it.
only registered users can see external links
those hamas freaks are probably thinking, " um some nice young ass is coming,all we gota do is grab her " i mean really, what else would hamas gather from her presence?
humanity who is dependent on it, and people who are mass murdered?
Damn, that's dumb.
The author is Stephen Pollard. From 2008 until December 2021, he was the editor
of The Jewish Chronicle and he remains a senior advisor, and writer on the paper.
You're literally parroting Israeli propaganda.
why is it parroting if it is fact?
Should she 'learn' something from getting arrested for protesting?
Protesting is a right. The law should not be abused to 'teach' people
to not use their democratic rights.
Propaganda isn't 100% untrue, it's about flipping the truth to serve a goal.
The propaganda is trying to make it about her, by calling her narcissist,
instead of addressing the reason why she is protesting; a genocide.
I wouldn't call it propaganda, if it was just a statement of facts.
I'm calling it propaganda, because he's creating a narrative to attack her character.
She is a protester. She has shown herself to be consistent in her principles.
She's not in it for herself. Even you questioned her sanity for spending all her time
and risking life and limb on these issues. She does it, because it attracts interest
to the problem that she is protesting against. That's the goal of literally all protests.
She's not there to get admiration from people, she's there only for the purpose.
People who don't like that, because of their political agenda, try to discredit her,
instead of honestly discussing their differences of opinion. That's a dishonest tactic,
but you seem to like that, or you just don't perceive it.
You better learn to perceive it, because that's how they hack your mind.
it would be much safer to stay away , but she is going willingly, and should she be captured, no effort should be made to retrieve her moreso than folks taken hostage by no fault of their own.
She does put herself in dangerous situations, true.
Are only men allowed to do that, in your opinion?
Getting bombed by Israel is the biggest risk there.
/ˈnärsəsəst/
noun
noun: narcissist; plural noun: narcissists
a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves.
"narcissists who think the world revolves around them"
so yea, i would say the word describes her well,
if all things were equal as you and many others claim you want it to be, women and men would be treated the same way if they were in danger. but it's not that way. people tend to be more upset about a woman being a hostage or in danger than a man. why?,i don't know.
It's like on Memorial Day 2017, President Trump visited Arlington National Cemetery, accompanied by then–Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly.
Kelly’s son, Robert, a 29-year-old Marine killed in Afghanistan in 2010, was buried
in Section 60 of the cemetery. While standing by his son’s grave, Trump reportedly turned to Kelly and said: “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”.
what are they floating in, rafts? what's a little storm?
--------------------------------------- added after 10 hours
cushy freebies from the rich
only registered users can see external links
she has autism
Does Greta Thunberg have ADHD?
Greta Thunberg is a young climate activist who attributes her passion for preventing climate change to her autism.
How rich is Greta Thunberg?
Greta Thunberg has an estimated net worth of $100,000 in 2025. Her net worth in 2025 consists of modest earnings from book royalties, most of which she donates to environmental causes. She also earns income from documentary rights and receives publicly disclosed support for basic living expenses.
so where does this basic living expense come from??? taxes?
-
not all that hot either but i bet hamas would still love to get ahold of her
only registered users can see external links
The Madleen carried essential supplies like baby formula, flour, rice, diapers, water-desalination kits, medical supplies, crutches, and children’s prosthetics.
The Tesla wasn't a permanent gift, but she did use it during her 2019 North American tour.
There’s no evidence she has ADHD. Greta Thunberg has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, which is part of the autism spectrum. I know exactly what it is, because one of my best friends has Asperger’s. He has some problems making decisions and standing up for himself, but people with Asperger’s are in no way narcissists.
That she donates her earnings, is showing the exact opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate.
She could be rich of her book royalties & publications, speaking engagements, awards and prize money, which would have added up to millions by now, but instead she does not keep any of the income personally. All proceeds go into the Greta Thunberg Foundation, which redistributes them to climate and social sustainability efforts. Greta leads a minimalist lifestyle. She avoids luxury and flies only when absolutely necessary. Instead, she favors trains, electric transport, or sailboats. For practical needs like travel and lodging, Greta’s family covers those expenses rather than relying on income from her activism.
It's all evidence that calling her a narcissists is rediculous, she's the opposite.
To you Hamas are some evil idiots, but they do understand when people support their cause of freedom for the Palestinian people. They would not hurt her.
It's sad that you can only think in black and white.
of any higher thinking than just primitive mocking?
1) She should be prepared to get taken hostage by Hamas.
2) She is a bitch for Hamas!
Claims 1 and 2 are contradictory.
People who think Hamas is cool, don't care about the freedom of Palestinians.
Protesting against the genocide of Palestinians and wanting freedom for Palestinians, is the opposite of 'being a bitch for Hamas'.
only registered users can see external links
and there will be no justice for the family,unless there is a chance a company hired this idiot and the family can sue them. but for the illegal, he aint got anything, all he has to do is run for the border once he is out on parole or bail
just look at this guy, has the most evil look in his eyes, as if it was a deliberate act to kill people.
only registered users can see external links
He didn't even do it on purpose. It's reckless and he caused the death of 3 people.
That's bad, but according to you, all illegals are drugdealers, murderers and r@pists.
The only thing you come up with, in months, is some truck driver who fucked up.
By the way, he's NOT officially an illegal immigrant. That's a false statement.
He claimed asylum, which can take years to resolve. His case is still pending in immigration court. He paid a $5,000 immigration bond. While waiting, he was granted
a federal work permit, which allowed him to lawfully remain and work in the U.S..
That enabled him to lawfully acquire a commercial driver’s license in California.
From Jan 1 till July 31, 2025, there have been 268 mass shootings in the U.S.
Total casualties include 262 people killed (including perpetrators) and 1,161 wounded.
NONE of the perpetrators have been identified as illegal immigrants.
The US is mostly deporting hard working people. Where are all those drugdealers, murderers and r@pists that Trump keeps talking about?
of course he cried for asylum, that's how the terrorist get in here and hang out in plain site.
i call this a terrorist attack although it only killed 3,it has harmed alot of lives, you know family.
A terrorist attack is an act of mass violence for political reasons.
You're now twisting definitions to fit your political agenda.
Where are all the real drugdealers, murderers, r@pists and terrorists?
You're only deporting fruit-pickers, roof-workers and hairdressers.
You’re braggadocious
Self centered
Obnoxious
Highly opinionated and a bit of a know it all to name a few
People don’t like that I bet you got beat up a lot in school
1.6 million people so far here in the US have signed a penton asking for the indians release, "it was just a accident". are you fucking kidding me? he watched 3 people die and didn't even as much as wince.
a cold heartless motherfucker is all he is.
only registered users can see external links
Did he know then that he caused the death of 3 people?
You watch him knowing the result, thinking he knew it too.
Understand that this idea puts your brain in a certain state.
I agree that he was being incredibly stupid, but I see no INTENT of killing anyone
and I don't think that you can determine his emotions from a few seconds of video,
that is cut short and likely shows an angle of the accident that he couldn't see.
That camera is much more to the front and higher, than his line of sight.
Why do they pause, or end, or loop the video, at his expressionless face?
I have searched for more video, but I cannot find it. Did you?
Do we have any video or reports about what he did when he found out?
Maybe he starts crying like a baby, directly after they cut it.
Can we believe any media reporting, if they all cut the video short?
Show me real evidence of him being that horrible person, and I'm with you.
Just a tiny thing about that turban, do you who wear turbans like that?
that you hear "immigrant involved in crash". If I don't agree with phart calling it a "terrorist attack", you find me to be a horrible person. I have standards for terms:
"Intentional, directed violence, against civilians to instill fear and achieve political, religious, or ideological goals."
Meanwhile, you lot have been making fun about driving over protesters, when you don't agree with those protesters. You agree with intentionally killing protesters,
that you don't agree with, politically. That does fit the definition of terrorism.
You lot have made a hero from a 17 y.o. kid who went to a protest carrying an AR-15, 'definitely not looking for trouble', but finding it, and killing 2 people, wounding a 3th.
If you do agree with protesters, you will cry for years, when one of them is killed.
I find you two horrible people, for your bigotry.
I'm here discussing opinions, you just drop them on people
and then chicken out for talking about them. (not you phart)
You're just belittling everyone who doesn't agree with you.
How about that, for being 'Self centered' and 'Obnoxious'?
Take a look in the mirror!
What the hell does Amsterdam have to do with it?
That's the weirdest change of subject (Red Herring fallacy) ever.
See, you're chickening out from the actual subject again.
My country, and even Amsterdam, has less problems with drugs, than the US.
only registered users can see external links
The US has such a horrible opioids problem that it's central to you border security policies and pointed out by Trump as the reason for the tariffs with Mexico and Canada.
In 2023, the US had 105,000 people dying from overdoses.
80,000 of those deaths involved opioids.
(population: 334.9 million) -> 31.4 o.d. deaths/100,000 people
23.9 opioid o.d. deaths/100,000 people
In 2023, the Netherlands had 338 people dying from overdoses.
178 of those deaths involved opioids.
(population 17.88 million) -> 1.9 o.d. deaths/100,000
1.00 opioid o.d. deaths/100,000 people
With all due respect, you are very opinionated with regard to the United States of America, from our government, our governmental policies, all the way down to how you perceive how Americans raise their children. Just sayin’…..
I stand for my opinions, I always provide a justification or at least a reason for why I have them. I am here to discuss them. I don't just drop a zinger of an opinion and then just bugger off.
Show that I'm wrong, and I'll accept that I'm wrong. Those guys just cower off,
when they cannot defend their position any longer. You can see it for yourself
in all the abandoned discussions.
When other people have an opinion that I disagree with, I don't just belittle them,
I always try to explain why I don't agree with them or why they are wrong.
I only call them dumb, when they keep repeating the same tired old nonsense over and over.
By the way the standing tall was about seniority 10 years a piece but I guess that went right over your head
In relation to seniority and 'standing tall', are you talking about your dick?
Congratulations!
So put that in your opinionated pipe and smoke it
a conscious decision to run over protesters, not an accident.
If a white right-winger killed 10 black gay-rights protesters, while it is clear that
the driver was not in any danger, you would defend the driver, because you think those protesters are wrong on principle.
You can disagree with protesters blocking a road, but that's not a capital offense.
It's an inconvenience, not a violent attack, no reason for the driver to use lethal force to defend themselves.
What you include in that argument, could be an argument, if it was true, but that's no argument to allow driving over people, when it is NOT true.
It doesn't require new laws to allow people to defend themselves, when they are in danger. Your self defense laws are already taking the position of the one defending themselves, accepting their claim of being at risk much too easily.
I would never blame the people in the black car. They are innocent victims.
I don't know who those 3 million people are, and I don't agree with them.
The guy still made a very irresponsible and illegal move, causing 3 deaths.
I just don't see that as a reason to call him a terrorist, or an evil person.
Can you understand that morality is a scale, not binary?
a commercial drivers license is difficult to get for people that can read and speak english as a first language,not to mention the health card and such, and this fool makes a illegal u turn and kills 3 people and all folks can whine about is he is not illegal he is a asylum seeker. no he is a son of a bitch and he killed 3 people. death penalty and that way no one has to keep him up.
only registered users can see external links
He will be punished according the law.
--------------------------------------- added after 133 hours
only registered users can see external links
here is the kind of shit i was referring to when i ask if the democrats would let him be punished, they want him to be made to do community service?!!!!!!! sheesh, that is not justice.
He will likely be judged guilty of either:
1. Vehicular Manslaughter (U.S., U.K., other common law countries)
Definition: Causing the death of another person due to negligent or reckless driving.
Examples: Running a red light and hitting another car.
Driving under the influence and causing a fatal crash.
2. Dangerous Driving Causing Death (Used in many countries, including Canada, Australia, and parts of the EU) - Focuses specifically on reckless or dangerous conduct behind the wheel. The "dangerous" part refers to behavior that a competent and careful driver would clearly recognize as risky.
3. Involuntary Manslaughter (broader term in some systems) - Used when a person kills someone unintentionally, but due to unlawful or reckless actions.
He can expect to be in jail for at least a few years.
He's very likely not getting his asylum anymore either.
If he was a MAGA-hat wearing white guy, causing the death of 3 immigrants,
Trump would pardon him the day after his sentence.
only registered users can see external links
another 1 that is not professional but explains it, no remorse,even said um, a smurk,
only registered users can see external links
She talks about a serious systematic problem with companies respecting safety standards, and you completely ignore it all. You're only talking about the things that fit your agenda. She talks 10 seconds about his facial expression, and that's the only thing you got out of it.
She's also making a judgement mistake by blaming that the truck was overweight on the driver. It's the company's responsibility to respect safety regulations. If they don't do that, they are most likely forcing all their drivers to drive overweight containers. Do you think he was in the position to demand anything from his employer?
She does point out correctly that there are lots of drivers on your roads who are unqualified to do so. This guy was obviously unqualified. Have you ever seen how they drive trucks in India? They have some of the most lethal roads on the planet. Maybe that's why he was afraid to go back to India. Most truckers don't survive to make it to retirement.
Instead of your government fixing the system, so you don't have Indian Mad Max drivers, the Trump administration, with the help of Elon Musk, has destroyed most agencies that need to investigate companies that violate the rules. And now your media is distracting you from that, by blaming the driver. Now you dumb-asses want to lynch him, without giving a shit about the systemic problems, that were already going on,
and which Trump/Musk have made even worse.
So go ahead, burn him at the stake! Do you think that will solve ANYTHING?
and the tickets are not cheap. the dmv will give you a 2000 pound leway, but if you are 2001 pounds over, you get ticketed for the whole amount.
here is a google result
Yes, the truck driver can be held responsible if their vehicle is overweight, especially if it leads to an accident. While the trucking company and other parties may also share liability, the driver has a duty to operate the vehicle safely and within legal weight limits. Failing to do so, such as by ignoring weight restrictions or not verifying the load's weight, can be considered negligence and make the driver liable for resulting damages.
It's likely that they forced him to break rules, because this company has a record
of multiple violations. If he can provide evidence that they forced him, that's called
"defense of duress". With their record, that's a credible defense.
“Coercion” under FMCSA rules:
Since 2016, the FMCSA “driver coercion rule” (49 CFR § 390.6) explicitly prohibits motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or brokers from coercing drivers into violating safety regulations (like hours of service, vehicle condition, or weight rules).
If the cargo's documentation is NOT showing that it's over weight,
then that's probably "fraud". He will certainly not be responsible then.
In any case, that's not applicable now, to his illegal U-turn,
but if he can show that they are consistently scamming him with his hours,
and overworking him, that is a legitimate defense.
He doesn't look tired in the dashcam footage, but he also doesn't look lively.
You said yourself that he looks mentally numb. That's a sign too.
ok, so he looses a job or he drives and hopes like hell shit don't hit the fan.
How about not making drivers responsible for making sure that companies
follow the law and respect safety?
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is the primary federal agency tasked with regulating the trucking industry. Its mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses through regulations, enforcement, education, and research.
Under the Trump administration (and reportedly DOGE’s influence), enforcement actions and staffing took hits:
Enforcement dropped sharply. Enforcement actions by FMCSA declined nearly 60% in early 2025 compared to the same period under the previous administration.
This slowdown began soon after Trump took office, as new procedural requirements (like requiring legal review of cases) delayed enforcement. Cases of dangerous companies were left unaddressed, with some dropped entirely, even those involved in fatal crashes.
Staff reductions occurred in NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a sister agency under the U.S. Department of Transportation that sets safety standards for vehicles. NHTSA saw its workforce trimmed by more than 25%, dropping from 772 to 555 employees, which critics warn undermines safety oversight.
DOGE’s role (Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency): DOGE reportedly terminated staff at NHTSA, part of broader layoffs and reorganizations, and thereby could have weakened safety oversight.
I'm not saying this accident was a (direct) result of Trump's or DOGE's actions,
but they WILL cause accidents.
Are white American drivers never making illegal moves in traffic?
Can white Americans drive trucks from birth? No need to train and test them?
Can white Americans drive as long as the employers wants them to, without
ever getting tired?
Or will you just feel a lot better about it, when a white American does the exact same thing, causing the exact same number or more deaths?
didn't know but 1 of 4 signs he was shown, using a interpreter and had 2 not 1,but 2 cdl license issued to him from democrat states. see a pattern? democrat run dmvs issue people that can't speak or read english a license to operate a 40 ton metal object among us. so dangerous.
It's ALWAYS Republicans who cut funds for oversight and safety, not Democrats.
You yourself are a big fan of that "deregulation".
How about regulation that keeps unqualified drivers from getting drivers licenses?
⚖️ Framing & Politics
Republicans: Typically frame these moves as “cutting red tape” and helping small trucking businesses survive.
Democrats: More likely to prioritize strict enforcement and stronger safety requirements, often aligning with labor unions and safety advocacy groups.
Safety Advocates’ View: Many Republican-led changes (especially delays/rollbacks of Obama-era rules) were seen as increasing risks of fatigue, speeding, or poorly trained drivers on the road.
Obama/Democrats/Biden introduced training improvements: MAP-21
(Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, 2012).
It was a surface transportation reauthorization law that:
- Funded highways and transit for FY2013–2014,
- Reauthorized highway safety programs,
- Included permanent provisions like the Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) mandate and the Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse requirement.
Republican-Led Deregulation Affecting Road Safety NEGATIVELY:
1. Hours of Service (HOS) Rules
HOS rules limit how long truck drivers can drive before resting.
Under the Obama administration, FMCSA tightened these rules (e.g., requiring two overnight periods in the 34-hour restart).
Under Trump (2017), Republicans suspended and rolled back some of those rest requirements, giving drivers more “flexibility.”
Criticism: Safety advocates argued this could increase fatigue-related crashes.
Industry supported it as easing unnecessary burdens.
2. Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs)
ELDs automatically record driving hours, making it harder to falsify logs.
Mandated under Obama (final rule in 2015).
Some Republicans tried to delay or repeal the mandate (Rep. Brian Babin of Texas introduced bills).
Trump administration implemented the rule but signaled openness to exemptions.
Criticism: Rolling back ELDs would reduce compliance with fatigue laws.
3. Speed Limiters
Obama-era FMCSA proposed requiring electronic speed limiters on trucks.
The Trump DOT (Republican-led) withdrew the rule in 2017.
Criticism: Safety groups say this killed a measure that could have reduced crash severity.
4. Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) Rule Delays Mandated by MAP-21 (2012).
Finalized under Obama in 2016.
The Trump administration delayed compliance twice (from 2020 to 2022), citing industry readiness.
Criticism: Delaying left gaps in training standards, potentially putting less-prepared drivers on the road.
5. Enforcement Slowdown
As I mentioned earlier, FMCSA enforcement actions dropped ~60% after Trump took office, partly due to new procedural hurdles and a general deregulatory stance.
Criticism: Allowed unsafe carriers to operate longer without penalties.
SEE A PATTERN?
only registered users can see external links
They also blamed the driver, and he was certainly not innocent.
No matter if he caused the deaths of 100 people, by driving into a truck transporting nitroglycerin (just an example), an accident is still an accident. A judge should weigh the responsibility for the accident and the likelihood of what can be expected resulting from the risk, less what actually happened. That's why a drunk driver is also getting pretty severely punished, if they didn't cause any accident. They can be expected
to cause deaths. Judges shouldn't act on "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
"Over the past decade (2012–2021), Canada experienced a decline in commercial vehicle collisions and fatalities. In 2012, there were 400 fatalities resulting from commercial vehicle collisions, which decreased to 343 by 2021, a reduction of
over 14%."
"Regarding the involvement of immigrants in fatal truck accidents, specific data is not readily available. However, a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal indicates that recent immigrants are less likely to be involved in serious motor vehicle crashes compared to the general population. The study found a 45% relative reduction in the incidence of crashes among recent immigrants, suggesting they are less prone to being drivers in serious motor vehicle crashes."
only registered users can see external links
Now why is that?
When a 'native' gets into an accident, there are not immediately millions of people pointing at the driver. They will wait until the legal process results in a conclusion.
An immigrant driver is immediately blamed, and when they are found guilty, they don't just get punished like the 'native', they also often get deported. That's why they are
in general more careful. They have more to lose.
Still, an immigrant from a country like India with driving experience of the lethal roads of India, might not be the best suited for a driving job in a western country.
They should get extensive training and go through strict tests, before they are
accepted as qualified.
That's not what your regime is doing. You want to disqualify all immigrant by default and deport them without a chance, purely out of prejudices, while closing your eyes
to companies that cause accidents on the roads.
"Reports indicate that he had been driving for approximately 13 hours on the day of the crash, which is within the legal driving limits for commercial truck drivers in Canada. However, there have been discussions about the broader issues of driver fatigue and working conditions in the trucking industry."
I once drove back from Denmark, with friends, after our vacation together. It took 11 hours, because of traffic jams. We switched driving position several times, so I had probably driven about half of the hours. When we came home, I was beat.
Driving 13 hour on end is brutal. Why do we allow that to happen on our roads?
In my country, there are not enough resting places either. The difference is that
you can drive from the most Northern end to the most Southern end in 4 hours,
if there are no traffic jams. It's mostly international truckers who have a hard time finding a resting place in my country. So, how should it be solved?
Either the government invests in resting places, or the companies that operate international truckers should be forced to invest in resting places on their properties. Just waiting until the problem fixes itself, is never a solution.
only registered users can see external links
The report itself says that he is capable of using translation devices.
Does the fact that he uses translation devices in court, tell you something?
The communication in court is a lot more complex than the communication
with a traffic cop. He came over very polite, by the way.
In the EU, drivers are constantly driving in countries that they don't speak
the language of. That doesn't necessarily make them worse drivers.
only registered users can see external links
I'm indeed calling that racism. Are those emotions genuine? Probably, but not admirable.
When was it ever an Indian guy shooting up kids?
terrorist
as for the indians, i have always thought they were a rather peaceful people except when it came to buying all the 7-11's and making a dollar.
if they (there were a few female school shooters) act out of a political or religious or dogmatic ideology. If they are just crazy, even if they are without conscience and wanting to do harm, that's not 'terrorism', by definition.
Indians are mostly a peaceful people, especially the ones wearing turbans,
who are Sikh. The Sikh religion is the most peaceful religion on Earth.
They do have emotions, but they are taught to act from reason and divine remembrance rather than raw impulse. It's about balance: don’t let emotions dominate you, but also don’t bury them. Instead, integrate them with reason, remembrance of the Divine, and ethical living.
Sikhism teaches that one should act from a place of Naam Simran (remembrance of God) and Gurmat (the Guru’s wisdom) rather than from impulsive emotional reactions.
The aim is not suppression of feelings, but recognition and transformation—channeling emotions toward constructive, spiritual, and ethical action.
Example: Anger itself isn’t always condemned—righteous indignation against injustice is encouraged—but uncontrolled personal anger is discouraged.
The more 'extreme' a Sikh becomes, the less likely they are to even hurt a fly.
That's why I berated your use of the term 'terrorism' in his case. He fucked up,
he made his move intentionally, but I very sure that he didn't intend to hurt anyone. However, your first impulse is always to assume evil intent, when any person is doing something that results in a negative outcome, or just something that you don't like. You do that, because it's part of the ideology that you support. They are learned mental processes, which they teach you intentionally. It's so you can tell yourself
that you are 'morally correct' and everyone else is 'immoral'. It's a very effective strategy to discourage ethical and critical thinking.
New Comment Go to top