Noliving's past comments

  • 0

    Noliving

    I thought the below quoted comment is an interesting comment on NYT site, I think the part where she says that Trump vocalizes what other men think is pretty much true: I would say for the vast majority of men in the world at some point or another we have had those thoughts about women that he is vocalizing.

    I am a feminist and a Democrat and I passionately oppose Trump's candidacy for president. That said, I don't find this article helpful. First, Trump openly expresses the thoughts that other men have but don't vocalize. They lack Trump's power and prestige, so they keep these things to themselves. We are not talking about a small percentage either. Look at how many men across the country watch porn. Once again, Trump will score points for saying and doing what other people wish they could. Great.

    Second, any woman in America who has gotten involved in a co-ed organization (work, internships, even higher education) has experienced things like this. It's part of life. Deal with it and do your part to make change, like raising your sons to respect women. I was first propositioned by an older, more powerful man than I when I was 16. Thanks to my father, in whom I confided, I came out unscathed. It was scary and it left an unsettling memory, enough so that I found my heart pounding in anxiety when I unexpectedly passed him on a staircase a few years later (thankfully, he walked right by me without any sign of recognition).

    This experience has repeated itself several times since. Each instance made me stronger and more able to fend for myself as a woman. Were the experiences unpleasant, uninvited, and unsettling? Yes. But they are part of life. Sorry, but this article fails to indict Trump for anything other than crude behavior that women encounter every day.

    Posted in: Trump has a history of questionable behavior with women: NY Times

  • -1

    Noliving

    But America has made bigger and more mistakes than most countries. And many of those mistakes have been in recent history, unlike most countries.

    That is almost entirely due to the fact that the USA was the sole country that was in a position to make decisions that could have those types of results if they went awry, for most countries it wasn't for lack of trying but a lack of capacity to even make such important decisions in the first place and someone has to make those types of decisions.

    Look at China in the south china sea, if that goes awry for them it is going to be a big problem, same for the USA.

    No Vietnam War. No Korean War. No Iraq "Wars" No bloodbath in the Middle East.

    Considering how the North Korea turned out I think everyone would agree that the Korean war was well worth it, especially when looking at the success of South Korea. Desert Storm was worth it, the second Iraq war for now is not worth it but in the future it may in fact become worth it. Vietnam war was already a bloody war before the USA got involved and it had already been going on for at least a decade.

    The truth of the matter is that the USA role in securing the international sea trade lanes has been immensely positive for the entire world.

    Posted in: Do you agree with U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump's call for Japan to drastically increase its financial contribution to maintain American military bases?

  • -1

    Noliving

    I'm guessing it's probably safer as well.

    Oh god, as the article states there are 8-9 million tourists and all you can show is at most 2 grand total incidents of robbery and one assault per year. So in other words you have 1 violent crime per 2.67-3 million people. If you honestly think you are not safe with those statistics then you are being grossly irrational.

    Posted in: Japanese tourist returns to Niagara Falls to testify against attacker

  • 3

    Noliving

    An employee that bitches or moans about punctuality is probably not one that is worth keeping around anyway.

    Depends, is it one of those where you show up five minutes late every day but you have meetings that start the minute you were supposed to be at work or is it more like during those five minutes you would be turning on your computer starting up outlook?

    It's about punctuality, and if you think the "boss" is wrong for expecting it I disagree. IF a company has rules about it, deal with it,

    They are dealing with it by pushing back.

    Posted in: Newly hired Japanese list 5 business manners they find unnecessary

  • 2

    Noliving

    Yeah, safer roads with less accidents, but the occasional accident that happens because of bad software is much scarier than roads filled with people who are distracted on their cell phones, drunk, tired, or just plain slow reflexes from age or whatever.

    Depends, for the occupant of the vehicle that is definitely true but then again it is much easier to correct/fix bad software than it is to get people as a whole to change their behavior. So if you wish to change the behavior of the car it is a software update.

    The big danger is software security holes that would allow for remote controlling of the vehicle by a third party.

    Posted in: Do you think self-driving cars are desirable?

  • -1

    Noliving

    Serious examination of gun violence and gun regulation has been outlawed by the NRA and the accomplices in the US Congress. The five murders are not about race. They are about access to weapons designed for military assault and the GOP/Tea has eliminated all research and scientific analysis of gun violence at the demand of the NRA. This is a fact.

    It is not outlawed at all, if universities and other NGOs want to spend their own money on gun violence research they can, it is perfectly legal to do that. All that has happened is that federal government can't fund a gun violence research project where its conclusion explicitly state or call for gun control. In other words if they did research breaking down the sex and age of the people most likely to be the perpetrators of gun violence but didn't explicitly call for an age restriction as a result of their findings then the government could in fact provide funding for that research.

    But not having guns makes it harder to murder.

    That is a true statement with every object, it is harder to kill someone if you don't possess anything.

    That one is different. Junkies will buy heroin because they are junkies, and physically and mentally addicted. Gun addicts don't have that physical addiction, and the huge majority aren't going to rob their families to get money to buy a gun. So it's not really an equivalent comparison.

    Marijuana isn't addictive and yet you have more people breaking the law than heroin junkies.

    And America has a major problem with it - so guns should be removed to minimize the number of deaths that come from that lawless behavior.

    Ah more hyperbole, how is a one hundredth of one percent mortality rate of the population a huge problem?

    America has a bigger problem with Alcohol then it does with firearms in terms of the number of deaths, emergency room visits and violent crimes committed by people intoxicated. Do you believe that Alcohol should be removed to minimize the number of deaths comes from that lawless behavior?

    How lawless do you think America is?

    So why make any law? Why consider the source of poisoned water? Poisoned air?

    To act as a guideline or best practices, especially for people who do not have malicious intentions. For people who have malicious intentions rules/laws are worthless, the only thing that stops people with malicious intentions is violence/force, and that is where law enforcement comes into play, to use force/violence against people who don't comply.

    Rules/laws that make illegal the ownership of a product or service only really apply to those with malicious intentions. If you are someone who doesn't have malicious intentions then the law really shouldn't apply to you, it does really nothing to improve public safety.

    Getting tough on gun crimes means people get punished after they shoot someone in the face. Getting tough on guns means they can't shoot someone in the face, for which they can be punished. Getting tough on gun crime and not guns is treating the symptom, not the problem.

    Same argument used on drugs and yet it doesn't work on a practical basis. Gun violence is not evenly distributed among the population of gun owners. Gun violence, and violence in general, is extremely concentrated among a very a very small population of the larger population. For example Sweden found that 1% of its population is responsible for nearly 63% of its crime. I believe it is estimated that just over 400 people in the NYC metropolitan population of over 10 million+ people is responsible for around 40-50% of all gun crimes. Research has shown that in general that 5-8% of criminal population is responsible for around 50% of all violent crime.

    http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/06/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-says-all-crime-estimate-committed-15-p/

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131206111644.htm

    In other words arresting people who commit the violent crimes has a much bigger impact on reducing violent crime then getting rid of firearms that are owned by non violent people. Confiscating the firearms of Montana ranchers does nothing for the gun crimes in Chicago; just like how confiscating the guns in Hawaii does nothing for the gun crime in LA California or Washington D.C.

    Getting tough on guns or gun crime is treating the symptom and not the cause.

    Posted in: Manhunt underway in Pittsburgh area after 5 partygoers shot dead

  • 1

    Noliving

    Bunch of HYPOCRITE, Japan and US are pushing the world to WW3.

    Where is anyone criticizing China for increasing its military spending? All people are criticizing China for is its bullying nature when dealing with other nations in the south china sea.

    Posted in: China to boost military spending by 7-8%

  • -1

    Noliving

    Why should semi autos like the AR be legal?

    Why should they be illegal? Because they result in around 100 or less deaths annually in a population of over 320 million people? If so it is your position that in general a hobby or recreational that results in 100 deaths in a population of 320 million should be banned or made illegal?

    How about a machine gun. Why do you want one of those?

    Because they are fun to shoot......Why do you want Alcohol? Because it is fun to consume, never mind the fact that Alcohol kills more people on a per capita basis in all of the developed world than firearms do in the USA.

    Gun nutters don't care about the kids, they just care about this incident because it might cause something to come between them and their prescious, prescious guns. The thought of not having the ability to instantly kill someone makes them worry about how they will be able to function in society.

    Neither do you SuperLib, you would rather see children dying from Alcohol than give up Alcohol. If the only acceptable cost to enjoy a product, service, or recreational activity is zero children killed and zero children injured then we are all going to live very boring lives.

    Seeing as Alcohol kills more children than firearms do on a per capita basis in the USA and pretty much in every developed country and you are OK with the body count you can't really complain about gun owners saying an even smaller number is an acceptable cost to enjoy their firearms.

    Gun supporters see no link at all between easy access to guns and tens of thousands of gun shootings each year. As long as that's the case, we might as well just accept that some kids will have their heads blown off every now and then and just move on with our lives.

    Gee you have a population where 32-50% of them own firearms and that ownership results in at best a one hundredth of one percent increase in the morality of the entire population and they consider it acceptable. Wow who could have seen that one coming.

    Do seriously blame people for saying that if you have a product that is owned by 32-50% of population and it results in a one hundredth of one percent of the population being killed and two hundredths of one percent being wounded that they would say that is an acceptable cost? Do you seriously blame them for saying that?

    Alcohol kills more children on a per capita basis in the USA than firearms do and sends over 10 times more children to the emergency room than firearms do and you consider their lives an acceptable cost so that you can enjoy the pleasures of recreational consumption of Alcohol.

    This idea is ridiculous. The US military is the most powerful military in the world, by a ridiculous amount. There is no way the people could mount a decent fight against the military if the military really wanted to stomp on them. That contest was lost decades ago.

    No not really, the USA military is around 1.5 million active with an additional 800k in reserve strength. Keep in mind that only around 10-25% of any nation's military is actually trained as infantry soldiers, which means front line combat, the rest are logistics and intelligence.

    So what this means is that you have a military strength that is at best ~500,000 front line soldiers trying to control a population of over 320 million people, about 200+million of which are over the age of 16. Then you factor in that the population is spread out over a land area on the continental side that is over 3,000 miles from LA to Boston and over 1,000 miles from say Minneapolis to Houston. Then you factor in that it is over 3,000 miles from Miami to Seattle. To put this distance into perspective the distance from Paris, France to Moscow, Russia is about the same distance from Anaheim to St.Louis.

    There is no question that if an uprising were to take place the the uprising forces would take a much higher casualty rate than the US military but then again the US military is too small and too spread out across the USA to be able to control a population of over 200+ million fighting age adults. Back during the US war of independence it was estimated that nearly 20% of the colonists took up arms against the British. If 20% of the 16 or older population was to take up arms against the USA government you would be looking at a force of over 40 million people versus a military force that at best has around 500,000 soldiers that are trained for front line combat.

    The real determining factor in who would win such a conflict really rests solely on how willing the uprising forces are to take casualties. If they have a very high tolerance then the sheer number of the civilian population would over whelm the USA military not to mention that they would be too spread out which means any military unit under siege in one part of the country would be hundreds of miles away from any real reinforcements to help and that could take hours for those reinforcements to come and those reinforcements would then leave the area they just left exposed.

    If that was a good reason, then why aren't they legal in all countries?

    They pretty much are for the most part in the developed world, Canada, USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, New Zeland, etc.

    But then again you are right Stranger, if something is not legal in all countries then it can't possible be good enough reason to make it legal in one country. I mean freedom of speech is not legal human right in all countries so all the arguments for freedom of speech are not good enough reasons because as you pointed out it would be a human right in all countries then. Gay marriage is not legal in all countries so the arguments for gay marriage are not good enough to then to make gay marriage legal seeing as it is not legal in all countries.

    How about just enforcing it? If you aren't part of a well regulated militia, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

    Well according to the constitution if you are a male you are automatically considered a member of the militia.

    its America. It seems that every other day there is a school shooting somewhere. I would have thought that people will have gotten used to it by now. Want to protect your right to bear arms? Well, there is a price to pay for that.

    You are aware that the US school homicide rate is ~0.027 per 100,000, which means the USA school homicide rate is basically the same as the UK's. In order for Australia to have a similar school homicide rate they would just need to have one homicide every other year or two every three years.

    The reason why it seems more common in the USA is because the USA school population, both grade and college level, is over 70 million people which means at the current per capita rate it would be just under 20 homicides a year. Considering the USA has basically 12 week summer vacation you have about 40 weeks of school which means you have about one homicide every two weeks. Even if the USA was to cut it homicide rate in half at schools to basically 0.0135 per 100,000 it would be hitting the news every month that school is in session, sometimes twice. The USA student population is so large that basically any homicide rate level will give the impression that homicides are more common in the USA when compared to countries that have much smaller populations, even though on a per capita level they are basically the same.

    Posted in: 14-year-old student opens fire in Ohio school cafeteria

  • -2

    Noliving

    Nice long post justifying kids getting shot in the face, so that some people can enjoy a 'hobby'. I bet the parents of all kids shot in the face will find solace in the fact that others can continue their 'hobby'.

    Wow another petty hypocritical shame attempt, tell me again why it is OK for you to say that it is acceptable for children to die so you can enjoy the 'hobby' of drinking alcohol but not firearms. Remember more children die on a per capita basis from Alcohol than from firearms.

    Posted in: 4 dead, 14 wounded in Kansas shootings

  • -2

    Noliving

    I accept it. I have some responsibility in this. Can you do the same? Can you take responsibility for the fact that your stance ends up with some kids shot in the face?

    Yes, I already have. I have known for a very long time that all activities carry the possibility of it resulting in people dying. If you can't accept people dying because of a hobby or recreation then we are all doom to an incredibly boring life.

    So what I don't get is why you try to shame other people for saying yes other people, including children, are an acceptable cost to enjoy a product, hobby, activity, etc. especially when the subject in question kills less people than an activity that you approve of and participate in for purely reasons of pleasure.

    With good reason. Gun ownership by definition is moronic.

    Well considering Alcohol is more deadly to you than owning a firearm would you say Alcohol consumption is even more moronic than owning a firearm?

    So it is your opinion that in general that if you own a product for recreational reasons and it increases the odds that you will be injured or killed or someone will be injured or killed as a a result of owning that product by a few hundredths of one percent each year that it is moronic?

    It's not nonsense, you just don't want to accept that you are pushing a stance that directly results in children being shot in school, kids being shot on the street, wives being shot at home, police being shot everywhere.

    It is entirely nonsense because your claim that you are doing it to save lives is not genuine, those body counts are entirely acceptable to you if it is a recreation that you approve of but if it is a recreation that you don't approve of well then suddenly those body counts are just unacceptable.

    Are you kidding me that I don't accept the fact that my stance results in people being killed, including children?

    I have repeatedly asked you if you have a product that 32-50% of the population owns or engages in for recreation and it results in one hundredth of one percent if you blame those people for saying that it is an acceptable cost, so how about an answer to the question, Stranger. Yes or No, which is it?

    The fact that I'm asking that question means that I do in fact find it acceptable that when a product is owned or is used for recreation and it results in one hundredth of one percent of the population dying. In fact you tried to

    shame me on another thread by saying you hoped that the families of the victims would get solace out of the fact that I find their loved ones death an acceptable cost to own firearms. So clearly you know that I accept that my stance will result in other people's deaths otherwise you wouldn't have said what you said in the other thread. Heck I have been the one repeatedly claiming that if the only acceptable cost to the pleasures of life is zero killed and wounded we would all live very boring lives.

    I'm not sure why you think that

    Seriously? You have repeatedly tried to shame other people for saying that the current body count from firearms is acceptable to own firearms for recreational reasons and yet you deliberately ignore the fact that you approve of a recreational activity that results in higher body count. In other words you are a hypocrite, how can you credibly try to shame other people for saying this many people is an acceptable cost to.

    I think you know the difference between those things you mentioned and guns. Guns are meant strictly for killing and nothing else. They were "invented" to kill human beings very quickly and effectively, and none of those other things you mentioned even come close.

    @Tahoochi - Yes I do know the difference between the two, what something is designed to do does not dictate it ends use, nor does it mean that there are not other uses for it that are contrary to what it was intended for and nor does it mean those other uses will not be it predominate use.

    Do you really think it helps your argument that something that is not designed to kill kills more people than something that is?

    While the purpose for things like alcohol are admittedly questionable considering how many deaths it may be responsible for, the comparisons you make are absurd because guns only have one purpose,

    Tell me, why should I find the above persuasive? Both the consumption of Alcohol and the ownership of firearms in the USA is primarily used for recreation, is it not? So clearly guns have more than just one purpose. Would you not agree that how something is being used primarily in society is far more important than what it was designed for?

    We both know that for a statistical fact that over 99.99% of gun owners don't hurt anyone each year. If you have a product where its usage is overwhelmingly not how it was intended well then harping on what a product is designed for is a waste of everyone's time and is very weak argument. Plus it is not a nuanced or practical argument/point either. I mean GPS is designed to kill people, it is designed for nuclear weapons to guide them to their targets. TNT for example is designed not to kill but to help people, particularly miners. Flash bangs are not designed to kill people either.

    and if you don't plan on killing anyone (which no one should), I just think that you shouldn't be allowed to own one.

    So in other words this isn't really about saving lives as it is more about getting rid of something you don't approve of. Why should people who just want to have fun and not hurt anyone be prohibited from using them for recreation, especially when it harms less people than a recreation that you approve of? Swords are allowed for recreation, we call it fencing, same is true with bow and arrows, we call it archery.

    The only things that I can think of that can compare to a gun is mouse traps and bombs. And one those is already illegal to own. So why don't you answer a question for a change and tell me what the difference is between a hand held bomb and an automatic assault rifle? Why is one illegal to own and the other, not?

    You will be happy to know that hand held bombs are not illegal in the USA they are classified as destructive devices, and technically fireworks are explosive devices themselves and those are for the most part not banned either.

    Hand held bombs are explosive devices that are designed to be thrown from a hand and will detonate either upon impact, timer, or radio control and in general will send shrapnel in all directions. Assault rifles are designed to propel an intermediate powered rifle bullet out of a barrel by containing the explosion of a charge and redirecting the energy of that explosion out of the barrel, they have the ability to switch between pump-semi-and fully automatic modes.

    But if they were to be banned the most likely reason is because some people just don't approve of them.

    Posted in: 4 dead, 14 wounded in Kansas shootings

  • -1

    Noliving

    Noliving - as long as you are ok with the fact that the stance you are promoting directly leads to children getting shot in the face. No big deal, right?

    Why not Stranger? You are perfectly at peace with the fact that Alcohol on a per capita basis results in more children dying in practically all of the developed world than firearms killing children in the USA. If you are at peace with that than what is so unacceptable with being OK with something that kills children at an even lower rate?

    You have made repeated calls for restrictions to be put on firearm ownership and use as well as been highly condescending to owners of firearms in several threads. You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in/own throughout society.

    Get over yourself. You do not care about these people's lives and especially the lives of the children lost.

    Posted in: 4 dead, 14 wounded in Kansas shootings

  • -2

    Noliving

    Maybe the NRA and gun rights supporters there should replace the gold and silver crosses hanging around their necks with little six-shooters and baby Kalashnikovs?

    Um simple web search would show you that there is already quite a market for firearm necklaces. Heck they even have some made with real bullets but missing the explosive charge and primer.

    Just look at the 14-year-old in Canada who used a knife to kill... oh wait... no one died and she was quite easily taken down (and not killed, either). Oops! Guess it's the guns after all, put so very easily in the hands of the people with intent. I'm going to take a wild guess in thinking the guns were not illegal, either.

    @Smith- Ironic you make this comment and yet a day later a man in India kills 14 people with a knife. It turns out this shooters ownership of the firearms were illegal before he went and did what he did.

    A major problem in America

    @Laguna - Why is it a Major problem? Is society going to collapse because of it? Would you say this is a bigger problem than STDs in the USA? Would you say it is a bigger problem than accidental deaths? Would you say it is a bigger problem than Alcohol? I guess what I'm asking is why is it a major problem if the casualty rate is less than the one thousandth of one percent of the population?

    Isn't America's quarter million gun deaths per decade absolutely grotesque no matter what side of the issue you are on?

    @TorafusuTorasan - If you are naive about the death totals from mundane activities then yes this would be grotesque to you. If you are aware of the death totals from every day activities, like 22,000+ people die every single year from accidental falls in the USA each year, then no it really isn't grotesque it is actually quite normal and that such tolerance would be necessary in order to live your life other wise you would be paralyzed by fear from simply accidentally falling to your death from a slip and fall while walking. Did you know that 88,000 people die every single year from Alcohol in the USA? Did you know that more people die in the USA each year from HIV than from all homicides by every single weapon type combined in the USA? Death tolls from the Flu routinely reach 30,000+ people on an average year in the USA and yet its death toll is rarely in the news.

    The USA is a country of 3 millions deaths annually from every single cause of death combined. Firearms make up ~1% as the cause of all deaths in the USA each year. On average more than 8,200 people die in the USA every single day.

    This is only going to escalate - there WILL be more killings because America can't escape from this loop...

    @Thunderbird2 - God you are as bad with the hyperbolic fear mongering as the NRA. Gun violence for the most part is declining in the USA, in the time between 1993 and 2013 the USA gun homicide rate dropped by around 49% and more importantly the non fatal gun assault rate dropped by 69%. During this time the USA added 100+ million firearms to its streets and sold over 25+ billion rounds of ammunition, that figure is not a typo either. The only real gun death statistic that is increasing as of late is old white guys committing suicide.

    Odds are this is not going to escalate, the most likely thing that is going to occur is that the gun death rate stays basically the same but the amount of attention it receives is increased.

    Are guns really, truly, and absolutely necessary for anyone that wants to own one?

    @Tahoochi - And your point is what? That if something is not absolutely necessary that people should not be allowed to own a product?

    We're saying that if there were no guns, then there would be less death.

    That is a true statement with practically everything, if there was less alcohol less people would die, if less people were having sex less people would die from STDs, If less people engaged in hobbies and recreational activities then less people would die from those things. So what is your point? Is your point that your above quoted statement is really just a euphemism for saying that because you don't like guns means people should not be allowed to own firearms?

    30,000 dead Americans a year is a small price to pay for gun owners' feeling of safety when they have their weapon on them

    @SuperLib - This is coming from a person who thinks 88,000 dead Americans every year is a small price to pay so that they can drink Alcohol for pleasure.

    But what if I yell "bomb" on a plane or " fire" in a crowded room? I present a clear and present danger and that type of speech is agreeably restricted.

    @Mr. Noidall - Actually since 1969 it is not restricted at all. Your examples refer to a Supreme Court decision in 1919 when a war protester who distributed fliers to resist the the first world war conscription/draft was convicted during that war and was appealing that conviction. This protester was jailed under the 1917 Espionage Act and 1918 Sedition act. In other words his actions to resist a draft, non-violently I might, presented a clear and present danger to the USA government recruitment efforts during the war. It did not threaten violence against anyone or even endanger anyone's life for that matter, just merely civil disobedience. The clear and present danger argument basically criminalizes any type protest that is against a government objectives/goals.

    The 1969 Supreme Court ruling dealing with KKK basically says that the Clear and Present danger standard is no longer sufficient grounds to restrict someone's free speech, in order to restrict someone's free speech you have to show they are about to commit or at the very least incite others to commit imminent lawless actions. So in other words if you shouting fire can be proven to incite imminent lawless actions they can convict, if they can't prove that but instead all they can prove is that you wanted to be jerk and yell it they can't convict you, even if it endangers other people's safety. Heck you can even claim you want to kill specific individuals by name and still not be convicted if they can't prove that it was intended to be an actual threat.

    Posted in: 4 dead, 14 wounded in Kansas shootings

  • -1

    Noliving

    Yes, but then people wouldn't have to take responsibility for deaths like this, because they wouldn't be supporting an environment that causes deaths like this to happen. On top of that, you'd see a lot less gun killings.

    Right and people wouldn't have to take responsibility for the deaths if they didn't support alcohol or private ownership of motor vehicles.....So what?

    And as you can see in the US, there is a serious issue with discipline, this article just being one of hundreds of such incidents every year. Unfortunately, some people cannot be trusted to be disciplined, and since legal gun ownership by the people means that those people who cannot discipline themselves will also have access to guns, it means that everyone who pushes for legal gun ownership bears some of the responsibilities for the deaths of the people in this incident and every other.

    That is a subjective viewpoint isn't it? If we say that a three hundredths of one percent casualty rate on annual basis is a serious issue with discipline would that mean everywhere around the developed world has an even bigger issue with discipline with regards to Alcohol considering Alcohol kills more and sends more people to the hospital in all developed nations than firearms kill and send people to the hospital in the USA? If the USA has as serious of an issue with discipline regarding firearms as you claim, and considering all the hyperbole surrounding the danger of firearm ownership, then shouldn't the casualty rate be much higher than three hundredths of one percent?

    Yes they do bear some of the responsibility. We both acknowledge that, just like we both acknowledge that we all here bear the responsibilities for the deaths of people killed by recreational drinking of Alcohol. So what is your point? That people should give up all things that they do for fun that result in people dying?

    So, the people who push for legal gun ownership bear some responsibility for this incident. I've already said that multiple times, so I'm not sure why you are asking 'so what?' - my point is pretty clear, you shouldn't need to ask.

    Well apparently I do need to ask because you keep trying to imply something by saying gun owners are responsible for these deaths. It is like you are trying to shame gun owners into giving up the recreational ownership of firearms but it keeps falling flat.

    And there you have it. You have very clearly said that you see the deaths of these people as an acceptable cost. I hope that the families of those kids can find solace in the fact that you are ok with the deaths of their loved ones, so long as you are allowed to have guns yourself.

    Right, just like how you believe a death rate that is two to two and half times that of firearms in the USA for Alcohol is an acceptable cost so that you can consume Alcohol purely for pleasure. I hope that the families of those kids can find solace in the fact that you are ok with the deaths of their loved ones, so long as you are allowed to drink Alcohol.

    If the only acceptable cost to enjoy the pleasures of life is zero deaths and zero injuries then we are all going to live very boring lives.

    You have made repeated calls for restrictions to be put on firearm ownership and use as well as been highly condescending to owners of firearms in several threads. You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in/own throughout society.

    Get over yourself. You do not care about these people's lives.

    Posted in: Bail denied for Michigan Uber driver charged with killing six

  • -3

    Noliving

    But guns are a necessity?

    Weapons one way or another are a necessity in order to maintain order. Whether be public or private is up for debate. I'm not claiming either way if guns are a necessity in private hands. All governments claim they need an armed force with firearms, no?

    Mork calling Orson...

    OK...........

    You still have motor vehicles on the road either way, but I agree that we could definitely cut down on the number of cars on the road if cities would invest in more public transport, and people used it more.

    Right, just like how if you banned private ownership of firearms you still have firearms either way.

    They however have stricter controls on their weapons, and theoretically have rules around when they can/cannot shoot someone, keeping gun deaths to a minimum.

    Same is true with private owners of firearms, there are controls on when they can and cannot use force against someone. The issue is discipline.

    This is not however the gun ownership I've been discussing

    Right, which is why I made a point talking about private ownership of motor vehicles and not the public ownership of motor vehicles because you are talking about the private ownership of firearms and not the public ownership of firearms.

    Anyone who supports that bears some responsibility every time another common person goes off and shoots people, like the guy in this article.

    Right, just like how everyone who supports something bears the responsibility every time someone gets hurt or killed. So what?

    So every person who supports personal gun ownership in the US bears some responsibility for the random people who got shot in Kalamazoo.

    And? Everyone who supports personal consumption of Alcohol bears some responsibility for all the assaults and homicides that result because of intoxicated people. So what.

    America has decided that it's willing to give people the permission to own guns.

    Geee that's a surprise, who could have ever thought that when you have a product that 32-50% of the population owns and it results in one one hundredth of one percent being killed and two hundredths of one percent of the population being physically wounded on an annual basis that they might find it an acceptable cost.

    Posted in: Bail denied for Michigan Uber driver charged with killing six

  • -4

    Noliving

    But the fact that vehicles are a necessity for our society to live makes that a lot more palatable,

    Private ownership of motor vehicles is not a necessity, you have public transportation. The only reason why anyone could claim that private ownership of vehicles is a need is because they refuse to fund public transportation.

    Our society would collapse without vehicles, but if we had a method of replacing them in a manner that would ensure no more accidental deaths, you can bet people would rejoice and go for it.

    That is not a true statement at all, societies thrived without motor vehicles. The human race has had a method of replacing private ownership of motor vehicles that would dramatically reduce accidental deaths and that is fully funding public transportation.

    Guns on the other hand are not necessary for society whatsoever, and serve no positive purpose at all.

    Every government would disagree, in order to maintain order you need violence and more importantly they want or need a monopoly on the violence. If violence was not a need then law enforcement would not exist. Guns serve as a powerful weapon for those defending others and themselves from those who wish to due harm for malicious reasons. Granted this type of power goes both ways. Target shooting is also a very fun recreational activity for a lot of people and this is especially important for people who have physical disabilities, target shooting is one of the few recreational activities where people with physical disabilities can compete at the same level as those who are not. I know quite a few people who are paralyzed where target shooting has helped them gain confidence and boost their self-esteem in who they are as a person simply because they are able to compete in tournaments with those who are not disabled and still be on an equal footing and win those competitions.

    Very respected universities such as Harvard have school sanctioned teams for target shooting. So clearly they see a positive impact, which now begs the question: How has Harvard been able to find a positive use for them when you have not? Gun ranges bring in a lot of tourists dollars, especially in Hawaii and Las Vegas as well.

    Then you factor in that as a hunters weapon they can help dramatically reduce the pain and suffering and duration that animals face and it helps provide a nutritious and lean and cheap source of protein to families.

    So it's a lot more distasteful, and it should be pointed out every time someone is shot that all those who defend the permission to own guns share some of the responsibility for these deaths.

    People share responsibility for all the deaths caused by every single thing they approve of, so what? If the only acceptable cost to own products, use services and enjoy hobbies, products, services, and recreational activities is zero than we are all going to live very boring lives.

    Do you really honestly blame people for saying that when a product in general is owned by 32-50% of the adult population for recreation and it results on an annual basis of one hundredth of one percent of the population dying that it is an acceptable cost?

    Posted in: Bail denied for Michigan Uber driver charged with killing six

  • 2

    Noliving

    And blacks kill blacks just like whites kill whites. Enough with the red herring already.

    Agreed that it is a red herring but with that said blacks do kill blacks at a much higher rate than whites kill whites.

    Crime in the black community shouldn't give cops the license to go blazing in like cowboys and kill.

    That depends upon the type of crime and crime levels. If you are talking petty crimes then you are correct but if you are talking about aggravated assault and homicide levels well....one could argue that those crime rates and those levels could make the case that law enforcement in certain situations should go in with guns blazing and kill. You also factor in that blacks are just under five times more likely to kill a police offer than a white person is to kill a police officer.

    I agree that law enforcement needs to exercise restraint, but at the same time do you blame law enforcement for being more on edge and trigger happy when in the black community?

    Posted in: Beyonce takes U.S. by storm with new activist role

  • 2

    Noliving

    Because they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fixing the problem. Incarceration doesn't fix the problem of police killing unarmed black men.

    How do you define fixing it? If you define it as reducing the odds of law enforcement killing unarmed black men well actually incarceration does in fact reduce the odds of them being killed while unarmed by law enforcement.....

    Because they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fixing the problem. Incarceration doesn't fix the problem of police killing unarmed black men.

    Ironically the quote proves turbostat's point: It takes very little energy to deny something, no matter how many instances you add up.

    Posted in: Beyonce takes U.S. by storm with new activist role

  • -1

    Noliving

    Never really understood how this guy became "popular" among any population in Japan.

    Posted in: Obscure at home, 'Texas Daddy' is a right-wing darling in Japan

  • 2

    Noliving

    The rationale of anyone with a brain is that blacks are more likely to kill whites because whites make up the majority of the population. It's just simple odds... As someone on the Left, I don't think most murders have anything to do with race. They probably have a lot to do with drugs and just plain old crime.

    That doesn't explain why the odds/per capita basis are still disproportionate towards blacks. For example if you look at interracial rapes the per capita rate it is much more likely to be a Black person raping a white person then it is for a white person to rape a black person by a very wide margin, same is true for inter-racial homicide per capita rates.

    Posted in: Beyonce takes U.S. by storm with new activist role

  • 3

    Noliving

    Bill's sexual indiscretions were irrelevant to his ability to preside

    Depends upon who it was with, if it was with a fellow employee, more importantly with a subordinate, one could argue that is extremely unethical and that there is a very strong potential of abuse of power/relationship between the subordinate and superior.

    Posted in: Woman who accused Bill Clinton of assault to campaign against Hillary's presidential run

Work
in
Japan

Search the Largest English Job Board in Japan.

Find a Job Now!

View all

Find Your
Apartment
in Japan

10,000’s of properties available today!

Search