Upload
Login or register

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Stats
Comment Ranking:#1555
Highest Content Rank:#8779
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 80356 total,  98544 ,  18188
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 30.7% (307/1000)
Level 369 Comments: FJ Noble → Level 370 Comments: Immortal
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10934
Total Comments Made:21159
FJ Points:41121

latest user's comments

#43 - Generally, the people who like to criticize America are the sa…  [+] (9 replies) 02/14/2016 on (untitled) -5
User avatar
#46 - thatonecommunist (02/14/2016) [-]
I have never seen anyone do that. Ever.

I think you're just assuming that.

People are allowed to criticize whatever they want whenever they want, that doesn't mean they like other things more or less.
User avatar
#64 - reallifepolandball (02/14/2016) [-]
Wow this must be your first fucking day on the internet ever. America is literally the world's laughing stock, not saying I don't love muh freedoms but come on man. You don't think there's one jap out there who thinks America is shit but having to wear a face mask when you go outside is normal? I see zipper heads wear facemasks in us all the time so that right there tells me it's true
User avatar
#78 - thatonecommunist (02/14/2016) [-]
You're talking about china.

China is a country that is full of propaganda and has no actual access to the internet.

the rest of what you just said is too dumb to respond to.
User avatar
#71 - emiyashirou (02/14/2016) [-]
I wouldn't really call wearing facemasks a problem, it's actually a good idea since it hinders diseases from spreading.
User avatar
#47 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
I think we just hang out around different people and social sites. Fancy that.

That's very true; but its very phrasing implies that other countries DON'T do such things, which is clearly false

"What is it with Americans and X?" naturally implies America has a rampant example of X that other countries do not, which is more often than not just not true.
User avatar
#51 - thatonecommunist (02/14/2016) [-]
"that other countries do not" doesn't logically follow in that last thing.
User avatar
#52 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
Every country has problems, often serious. To say they don't is just idiocy. What I'm criticizing myself is that those who criticize America most often attempt to downplay the problem of other countries, from the people I've talked to about it.
User avatar
#53 - thatonecommunist (02/14/2016) [-]
"to say they don't is just idiocy" yet again, nobody said that.
User avatar
#54 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
Okay.
#51 - "The threat is contained" you say as literally the e…  [+] (4 replies) 02/14/2016 on British police -2
User avatar
#115 - testaburger (02/14/2016) [-]
This is why you have daily police shootings, and we don't.
That mentality right there.
User avatar
#120 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
I am so glad you realize that NOBODY having guns equals NOBODY getting shot; in fact, I think it would be investigated by the scientific community itself if there was a break in that pattern there, so I'm glad you notice it.

"That mentality right there" works for a place far more populated and far more dangerous than your own. The danger doesn't come from guns anymore than it does from knives, it comes from violent cultures, low-income lines, illegals, and many other things that you haven't had to worry about. You know who does? Eastern Europe. Oh, wow, look at that, shitholes. Just as well, as far as violence goes, The U.S is one of the safest places TO be, and even as far as first world countries go it's certainly not the worst.

Oh and by the way:
townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

:^)
User avatar
#137 - testaburger (02/14/2016) [-]
The US is about as safe as a prison during a riot.
I sure as hell wouldn't feel safe there, knowing every other guy I meet is a religious fanatic with easy access to guns.
The US is basically the middle east, but with christianity.

As for your link, it's no surprise that when you simply ban guns, shit will go down.
The point is to never get to the point where everyone and their dog has a shotgun lying around.
Like with drugs, you need to rehabilitate society, not just go cold turkey and expect rainbows.
User avatar
#234 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
No rehabilitation needed.

I was completely unaware that the U.S denied rights to women and regularly through acid in the faces of their wives if they left the house without their consent. My mistake.

The U.S also has a lot of problems that Northern Europe doesn't, including a very high population, multiple violent sub-cultures (gangs and ghettos), and also illegal immigration from a place with one of the MOST drugged up populations there is. Obviously shit isn't going to be too tightly screwed down, hence why cops actually carry guns, because it's not as if it would make them safer if they didn't.

If you wouldn't feel safe there, all the power to you. Personally, I don't feel quite safe with the Canadian economy being flushed down the toilet.
#42 - I don't know, the suspect here looked pretty no-nonsense and t…  [+] (6 replies) 02/14/2016 on British police -2
User avatar
#45 - alcantara (02/14/2016) [-]
The threat is literally contained, none of the officers charged the suspect because there was absolutely no need to bring the situation to a conclusion swiftly; rather than capitalise on a series of percieved half-chances, they waited until they could safely take the suspect down.

You're first three words, "I don't know", are where you should have stopped, because until that point you were correct, you don't know.
User avatar
#51 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
"The threat is contained" you say as literally the entire space behind him is open for him to run though, and even running THROUGH the officers, for the record, given how quickly they backed away from him.

Unfortunately for us, we can't depend on maybe's in a situation. Threats SHOULD be dealt with as swiftly as possible, because you never know when it gets worse, and it always can. Dig it?
User avatar
#115 - testaburger (02/14/2016) [-]
This is why you have daily police shootings, and we don't.
That mentality right there.
User avatar
#120 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
I am so glad you realize that NOBODY having guns equals NOBODY getting shot; in fact, I think it would be investigated by the scientific community itself if there was a break in that pattern there, so I'm glad you notice it.

"That mentality right there" works for a place far more populated and far more dangerous than your own. The danger doesn't come from guns anymore than it does from knives, it comes from violent cultures, low-income lines, illegals, and many other things that you haven't had to worry about. You know who does? Eastern Europe. Oh, wow, look at that, shitholes. Just as well, as far as violence goes, The U.S is one of the safest places TO be, and even as far as first world countries go it's certainly not the worst.

Oh and by the way:
townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

:^)
User avatar
#137 - testaburger (02/14/2016) [-]
The US is about as safe as a prison during a riot.
I sure as hell wouldn't feel safe there, knowing every other guy I meet is a religious fanatic with easy access to guns.
The US is basically the middle east, but with christianity.

As for your link, it's no surprise that when you simply ban guns, shit will go down.
The point is to never get to the point where everyone and their dog has a shotgun lying around.
Like with drugs, you need to rehabilitate society, not just go cold turkey and expect rainbows.
User avatar
#234 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
No rehabilitation needed.

I was completely unaware that the U.S denied rights to women and regularly through acid in the faces of their wives if they left the house without their consent. My mistake.

The U.S also has a lot of problems that Northern Europe doesn't, including a very high population, multiple violent sub-cultures (gangs and ghettos), and also illegal immigration from a place with one of the MOST drugged up populations there is. Obviously shit isn't going to be too tightly screwed down, hence why cops actually carry guns, because it's not as if it would make them safer if they didn't.

If you wouldn't feel safe there, all the power to you. Personally, I don't feel quite safe with the Canadian economy being flushed down the toilet.
#26 - >> #21 02/14/2016 on British police +1
#25 - >> #21 02/14/2016 on British police +5
#24 - >> #21 02/14/2016 on British police +3
#23 - >> #21 02/14/2016 on British police +4
#21 - >Waste of time >Waste of resources >They are …  [+] (25 replies) 02/14/2016 on British police +43
User avatar
#89 - Koreawontletmefap (02/14/2016) [-]
Someone runs through a crowded mall and hack at anyone close to them....what?
Where the fuck do you live district 6? This is England mate we keep our insane people out of the way instead of just in trailer parks where they can have access to automatic weaponry
#132 - Koreawontletmefap (02/14/2016) [-]
Pretty sure I never said all, but the situation you contrived is supremely rare in this country. Be as saccharine as you like but you should check the dates on the articles which you provided; each of them are years apart from one another. You should also have read the list of massacres you provided, between 1966 and now, (the last 15 entries) only 3 were perpetrated by British citizens, the rest of them were done by terrorist groups such as the IRA. (The IRA may operate out of Northern Ireland but they represent the ideals of the Republic of Ireland which is not a part of Great Britain.) This is in stark contrast to the huge number of violent crimes committed in the USA every single day. If you wanna talk massacre statistics then go for it but given the past few years, it might not be your best platform, considering there have been 70+ school shootings alone, since Sandy Hook.
So no, you sarcastic cunt, not all of them, but certainly more than you seem to think, and without doubt more than in the USA.
User avatar
#236 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
"Yeah, we keep all our insane people in check...no, no-no-no, I didn't mean ALL of them"
^You, desperately trying to backtrack.
#180 - anon (02/14/2016) [-]
The homicide rate in the U.S. is 3.6 per 100,000. The graph is also wrong on several of the homicide rates by year.
#175 - anon (02/14/2016) [-]
I hate that fucking graph....
Population of United Kingdom - ~64 Million
Population of United States - ~340 Million.

If you were to take the homicide rates of New York City during large influx of immigrants/refugees then it would be a lot higher. Take the homicide rate of North Dakota then it would be a lot lower. This is why you can't compare and contrast one country from EU to US as there are far more factors at play here. If you were to combine the EU countries then it would be closer in terms of results. Hell, add up the EU countries, which look about 1 per European country in 2005 and it would be close to the homicide rates in the United States at that time. Even then that is still inconsistent as, I assume, the population difference would be higher on the EU side. And if we were to move it to the present day then the graph would be even more different considering the mass fluctuation of population due to immigration in Europe today.

As for violence in the US. Keep in mind we have a lot more diversity in our population make-up. "Melting Pot" being that we are hundreds of different cultures, religions, etc. This leads to differences and then racism. Baltimore riots? Racially driven. Ferguson? Racially driven. The New York Voting riots? Racially/class driven. And crime has gone up ever since Europe has started to integrate more and more immigrants into their country, has it not? I'm genuinely asking as, everytime I try to research the subject, I get either Liberals saying everything is fine or Racists talking about how they're casting fireballs.
User avatar
#61 - closotezuka (02/14/2016) [-]
It's not a waste of time if no one was hurt in the process
It's not a waste of resources if the resources are cheap, it's not like there's always 50 crimes going on at any particular moment. It's their job, do you think, instead of helping, the other 8 officers should just drive off and leave it to one guy?
User avatar
#63 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
Well it IS a waste of time, because 9 cops taking down 1 person is a massive waste, considering the majority could be doing other things and taking down one violent criminal is maybe a 2 person job.

It IS a waste of resource because time, equipment, gas, reports, etc. all cost money.

They easily could leave it to them if the one guy had rubber bullets or some such.
User avatar
#86 - Koreawontletmefap (02/14/2016) [-]
It should probably be noted that violent crime in the UK is way lower than in the US and police here generally don't have much to do, so it's not a big deal to send a lot of police to handle one dangerous perp, because on any given day that's probably the most important thing that has happened.
User avatar
#122 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
As a general rule, violent crime is lower relative to lower population sizes.
User avatar
#65 - closotezuka (02/14/2016) [-]
As I said, it's not like there's always violent criminals about. Policemen in the UK have very little to do usually.

How the hell does equipment factor into this? Is their equipment used up after they apprehend the guy? And reporting things is their job, can you imagine how fucked the UK would be if policemen decided not to do things because they would have to write it up?
User avatar
#66 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
MOST policemen have very little to do, that's why they have regular patrols. Even most criminals are apprehended red-handed over anything; the point of most police, in terms of crime, is preventing it from happening by just BEING there and having people know they are there.

Wear and tear, obviously.

Reporting things is part of their job, yes indeed, but the more that goes on and the more that happens, the more time and money it takes to get through it all, hence why people are focusing on efficiency here.

Ideally, every crime should be solved or prevented using the least amount of people, resources, and time possible while still maintaining proper civil conduct and rights of all citizens, criminal or otherwise.
User avatar
#68 - closotezuka (02/14/2016) [-]
We can't live in a perfect world where every policeman is robo-cop and executes everything perfectly. I personally think it's much more efficient to just go quantity over quality and overwhelm the guy. Lessens the chance of anyone getting hurt. Besides, you go to funnyjunk, you should know about all this "hurr durr white policeman shoots an unarmed black boy DINDU NUFIN", treating the situation like this rather than just efficiently ending the aggressor avoids any of that.
User avatar
#70 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
The difference between your thinking and mine is that I have absolutely no concern for the well-being of the criminal.

You got me on the PC aspect though; still, it's almost WORST to be portrayed as bumbling idiots.
User avatar
#44 - cowinspace (02/14/2016) [-]
So police should be judge, jury, and executioner? America is a shithole when compared to the rest of the western world, many of them have armed police and still manage not to be so trigger happy. Hell there are eastern European nations with lower violent crime rates.

The police exist to keep the peace first, enforce the law second, and to use force only in the most extreme of circumstances. That's why officers are allowed to exercise discretion, and it is why they don't have carte blanche to execute civilians at will.
User avatar
#52 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
The Police's number one priority should be the defense of law-abiding citizens and the quick apprehending of criminals. If you must choose between the defense of either a law-abiding citizen or a criminal, you choose the citizen.

So give those countries. I'd certainly like to see which countries are less violent relative to population size.

Well lucky for us, you don't get to define what exactly the job of the police are. You cannot keep peace WITHOUT enforcing law, and who are you to decide what the most 'extreme' of circumstances are? If I am beating you to a pulp, is that extreme enough? What if I'm only using my fists when I otherwise could be just stabbing you? Does that not count?
User avatar
#39 - alcantara (02/14/2016) [-]
The police are a lot more no-nonsense when the threat is actually being carried out; a man with a machete, you'd rather just contain and then detain, but were the man with the machete to then "run through a crowded street hacking at people" you'd have multiple officers trying to tackle him - unless there happened to be an armed unit nearby, in which case we'd be getting a body bag ready instead of a cell.

That's the thing over here, we police by consent; shooting a suspect doesn't go down well in a country where we wouldn't shoot a convict. We'd still expect a shot to be taken, but really we are thinking about terrorists and the likes for such a measure, rather than a kid who stole some cigarettes.
#72 - anon (02/14/2016) [-]
Tackle the guy who is hacking people up in a crowded area? Maybe if enough cops throw themselves against his blade they will eventually subdue him from the mass of bodies covering him, but why would you defend such idiocy? With that many cops attending to what had better be the only crime in the city surely one of them could have hit the guy with a taser, or rubber bullets, mace, etc. Even a fucking rock would help.

When someone threatens the life of a cop, force must be used to de-escalate the situation immediately. Especially if they are armed, and even more so if they make any act toward fulfilling it. If that means killing the person, so be it. It takes quite a mindset to threaten a cop, and it is not one to be reasoned with.
User avatar
#42 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
I don't know, the suspect here looked pretty no-nonsense and the police didn't stop him. The issue here is that none were WILLING to, and at ANY time he could have just ran off or INTO a crowded area, and what could they have done? Chase after him and then just step back when he takes another jaunt toward them?
User avatar
#45 - alcantara (02/14/2016) [-]
The threat is literally contained, none of the officers charged the suspect because there was absolutely no need to bring the situation to a conclusion swiftly; rather than capitalise on a series of percieved half-chances, they waited until they could safely take the suspect down.

You're first three words, "I don't know", are where you should have stopped, because until that point you were correct, you don't know.
User avatar
#51 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
"The threat is contained" you say as literally the entire space behind him is open for him to run though, and even running THROUGH the officers, for the record, given how quickly they backed away from him.

Unfortunately for us, we can't depend on maybe's in a situation. Threats SHOULD be dealt with as swiftly as possible, because you never know when it gets worse, and it always can. Dig it?
User avatar
#115 - testaburger (02/14/2016) [-]
This is why you have daily police shootings, and we don't.
That mentality right there.
User avatar
#120 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
I am so glad you realize that NOBODY having guns equals NOBODY getting shot; in fact, I think it would be investigated by the scientific community itself if there was a break in that pattern there, so I'm glad you notice it.

"That mentality right there" works for a place far more populated and far more dangerous than your own. The danger doesn't come from guns anymore than it does from knives, it comes from violent cultures, low-income lines, illegals, and many other things that you haven't had to worry about. You know who does? Eastern Europe. Oh, wow, look at that, shitholes. Just as well, as far as violence goes, The U.S is one of the safest places TO be, and even as far as first world countries go it's certainly not the worst.

Oh and by the way:
townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

:^)
User avatar
#137 - testaburger (02/14/2016) [-]
The US is about as safe as a prison during a riot.
I sure as hell wouldn't feel safe there, knowing every other guy I meet is a religious fanatic with easy access to guns.
The US is basically the middle east, but with christianity.

As for your link, it's no surprise that when you simply ban guns, shit will go down.
The point is to never get to the point where everyone and their dog has a shotgun lying around.
Like with drugs, you need to rehabilitate society, not just go cold turkey and expect rainbows.
User avatar
#234 - captainfuckitall (02/14/2016) [-]
No rehabilitation needed.

I was completely unaware that the U.S denied rights to women and regularly through acid in the faces of their wives if they left the house without their consent. My mistake.

The U.S also has a lot of problems that Northern Europe doesn't, including a very high population, multiple violent sub-cultures (gangs and ghettos), and also illegal immigration from a place with one of the MOST drugged up populations there is. Obviously shit isn't going to be too tightly screwed down, hence why cops actually carry guns, because it's not as if it would make them safer if they didn't.

If you wouldn't feel safe there, all the power to you. Personally, I don't feel quite safe with the Canadian economy being flushed down the toilet.