Noliving's past comments

  • 0

    Noliving

    It's not an observation - he didn't observe anything. And 'most likely' is irrelevant - this are real people we are talking about - so what actually happened matters, not some speculation.

    Sure it is, observation is nothing more than a comment/opinion/speculation about something someone has read, seen, heard, touched, smelled, or any other senses you can think of.

    Smith read this article and gave his opinion on what he thinks most likely occurred to fill in the missing gaps of this article. That is an observation by definition.

    Why is it irrelevant? This story is incomplete with the details, anything that could help fill in the gaps, including conjecture, would be entirely relevant.

    Yes what happened does matter but until that information is released we have nothing else to go on and so the best way to help further our understanding of this story is to make an observation/guess/hypothesize/speculate or whatever word you want to use. The only time this becomes a problem is if we act upon these observations/theories/speculations.

    And there is nothing that says criticism of said speculation is forbidden, which is why my comment still stands.

    Which begs the question, why do you think Smith's scenario is not the most likely scenario?

    Posted in: 14-year-old boy found dead in apparent suicide at home

  • 3

    Noliving

    Truer words have never been said.

    What makes you think that Smith's observation is not the most likely scenario?

    Posted in: 14-year-old boy found dead in apparent suicide at home

  • 0

    Noliving

    You still haven't produced a single link to back up your claims, though. Instead of picking out single years when something happened, let's look at the bigger picture; school killings in the US, Canada and UK over the last, say, 20 years. Now what happens to your averages?

    You haven't answered any of my questions.

    I fail to see what the point is by going back 20 years, the violent crime rate that occurred in any nations 20 years ago is not relevant to the situation that exists now, wouldn't you agree?

    It shows over the past 20 years the homicide rate differences are around 0.04-0.08 100,000 at most on average between the nations, which is a trivial difference. Anything suggesting other wise is just hyperbole. It shows that the averages pretty much all rise for all countries as well.

    It would also show that the overall violent crime rate at American schools have decreased by more than 50%.

    As for my picking out single years, well I was only picking out the most recent years which are the most relevant years as they are the ones that will give the most accurate representation of what is currently going on in terms of violence, not what occurred 20 years or 10 years ago.

    But here is a link showing you from 1992 to 2010 the number of school homicides during the school day for each year:

    http://curry.virginia.edu/research/projects/violence-in-schools/national-statistics

    Posted in: 4 dead after shootings in Saskatchewan

  • 0

    Noliving

    If my savings total one penny, then a rise to three pennies is huge. I'm suddenly three times richer. Of course if you have a whole pound (or dollar) in the bank, my savings probably appear insignificant. It's a matter of perspective.

    Great! Now tell us what you can do on a practical level with those three pennies that you couldn't do before. I'm betting nothing.

    Meaning that over half of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who are stone cold sober. 100% of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who breathe air. Maybe we should ban that, too

    Right, the number of people intoxicated is a lot less than the number of people who are stone cold sober at anyone point in time. Meaning Alcohol disproportionately is involved in crime.

    So if you don't agree with a ban then that means you believe that the lives that could have been saved by banning alcohol is an acceptable cost, correct?

    So we agree that banning a product or service over a mortality rate of the population that is the equivalent of two hundredths of one percent is an overreaction or in other words is a disproportionate response, correct?

    Here's a credible link showing that the number of schoolchildren in the UK (including nursery schools, state-funded primary schools, state-funded secondary schools, special schools, pupil referral units and independent schools, i.e. all schoolchildren, not just kids in grade school, which my dictionary tell me is a US term for elementary school; I'm assuming you're using it to include secondary school too); it states that there were 8.2 million kids in school in 2012, the latest date for which there are data. Which means that your figure for 'around 10 million' in grade school is way wide of the mark, and also puts a question mark against all your other numbers.

    Well this certainty is a first Cleo, a non UK citizen having to point out that England is not all of the UK to a UK citizen. Your figures don't include the kingdoms of Wales and Scotland; Nor does it include Northern Ireland.

    But lets use your numbers, at 8.2 million kids that would mean every homicide on school grounds would only increase the per capita homicide rate, not decrease it.

    You seriously doubt that a teacher was murdered last year? Or that a teacher was murdered on school grounds in 2014? You seriously doubt that a student was murdered in Aberdeen this past year in Scotland?

    Posted in: 4 dead after shootings in Saskatchewan

  • 0

    Noliving

    Apples and bananas.

    Apples and Bananas are both fruit......and no it isn't comparing apples and bananas for the point that is being made: it is your position that in general when something is two or three times or however many times it is more likely to occur regardless of the base value that it is not a trivial difference, correct? I'm saying the base value matters, because large percentage gains from incredibly small base values are not impressive at all, again it is like saying you increased your savings account from one penny to three pennies, but in this case we are dealing with a base value that is hundreds of times if not even thousands of times smaller than that. Hence the comparison, of base values, If you have a base value of four thousandths of one percent versus a value of two hundredths of one percent would you say 200 hundredths of one percent was a lot or would you say the two hundredths of one percent is so low to begin with that it doesn't matter how many times more it is than the four or five thousandths of one percent?

    I'm saying it doesn't matter because the base value is so low to begin with.

    Someone else drinking isn't going to hurt me or my family (unless it's a drunk driver) and if i drink myself into an early grave it's my own decision, while some fool walking around with a loaded firearm is beyond the control of the individual and a homicide waiting to happen.

    So what you are saying is that a 20+ per 100,000 is so low that you don't even bother to consider the risk, correct?

    The CDC estimates that nearly 40% of those convicted of homicide were intoxicated at the time of murdering someone.

    According to the CDC nearly half of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who are intoxicated. This is basically true in all countries.

    I'm sure the German women would disagree that people intoxicated can't hurt them.

    You're going to have to back that up with a credible link if you expect anyone to believe it.

    Well lets see here the average homicide rate at American grade schools is less than 0.03 per 100,000. The UK has around 10 million grade level students, which means every homicide is 0.01 per 100k In 2014 you had the teacher stabbed to death, so now you have a homicide rate of 0.01 vs a value less than 0.03 per 100,000. 2015 you had two students stabbed to death on or near school grounds, for example the Aberdeen homicide and you had a teacher stabbed to death this past summer in the UK as well on school grounds. That is a 0.02 per 100,000 homicide rate vs a less than 0.03 per 100k homicide rate and if you include the teachers death that means the UK had a grade school homicide rate of 0.03 per 100,000.

    Posted in: 4 dead after shootings in Saskatchewan

  • -2

    Noliving

    Can you provide stats for that? Cos I've tried googling, and not come up with anything reliable.

    Yes, Canada has ~7 Million students, grade school and university level combined. The USA has ~70 combined. With two of these killed at school that would be the equivalent of 20 deaths murdered in the USA at school. So already this year they are leading the USA, in fact on a per capita basis that would beat USA homicide rate of 2015 as well which had 19 murders either at or near school and university grounds during and after school hours. At the end of the day the average homicide rate at American schools is around <=0.03 per 100,000. In fact the UK and the USA basically have the same homicide rate as well. The UK averages around 2 maybe three grade school homicides a year. Claiming you have a lower school homicide rate than the USA isn't really something to get all high and mighty about because the difference is hundreds of thousandths of one percent.

    With respect to all homicides, Canada has a count of 505 (1.4 per 100,000 of population) while the US has a count of 12,253 (3.8) (latest figures, from 2013)

    So in other words it is a two thousandths four hundredths of one percent difference in gun homicide rates.....Not exactly impressive.

    Posted in: 4 dead after shootings in Saskatchewan

  • 0

    Noliving

    You can probably count Canada's mass shootings (and school shootings to boot) in all of the nation's history on one hand, whereas one hand wouldn't be enough for a single day in the US.

    @Smith - On a per capita basis Canada has a higher homicide rate at its schools than the US does, so what is your point? You really honestly think the US has over 11+ mass shooting incidents a day? Lets say it does, at that rate it would take over 200 years for it to inflict a one percent casualty rate on the USA population.

    Posted in: 4 dead after shootings in Saskatchewan

  • 1

    Noliving

    If you believe it was that accidental and innocuous I've got a dinosaur to sell you

    OK, where is the dinosaur?

    Posted in: Pentagon: 2 U.S. Navy boats held by Iran but will be returned

  • -1

    Noliving

    Lets see here:

    I added nearly $21,000 dollars to my Roth 401K this year(includes company match) I paid nearly $2,000 dollars in principle on my mortgage. I also added an additional $12,000 dollars to my liquid savings account. I'm looking at a tax return/refund of between $6,000-$6,600 dollars for the 2015 year.

    Oh did I also mention that I grossed over $13,300 dollars in overtime this year and I was promoted for the second time in four years....

    Posted in: Are you financially better off than you were this time last year?

  • 0

    Noliving

    That has to be right here in Japan, doesn't it?

    Nope more like Iceland is the safest country in the world.

    Posted in: Times Square on New Year's to be safest place in the world: police

  • 1

    Noliving

    Where else in the world have 550 children been murdered by firearms in three years? I'm betting without a glance that other than some African and/or Islamic hell-hole the US is the only first world country in the list.

    OK.

    Comparing accidental deaths to those purposely cut down by your precious guns is intellectually dishonest. At best.

    Seeing as the quote that I was responding to just stated that 550+ children had been killed by firearms over the past three years, it did not specify if it was due to homicides only, suicides only, accidents only, etc. I'm merely pointing out that children of the ages of 0-14 die from things all the time that kill around 183.33+ and the government and we as people don't do anything or a lift a finger really to further reduce or prevent. We just accept their deaths. In other-words firearms don't disproportionately kill children in the age range of 0-14. Plus with all the hyperbole surrounding firearms you would think that with over 300,000,000 million firearms in circulation and over 40 million children+ between the ages 0-14 you would think if anything that the death toll should be higher than 183.33 on average each year.

    There is nothing intellectually dishonest about it.

    You don't strike me as an idiot, yet surely only an idiot would argue that the US doesn't have a serious problem with guns.

    Subjective.

    How do you define a serious problem?

    Currently right now there is over 300+ million firearms in circulation, it is estimated that nearly 32-50% of the population adults/households own a firearm, over 10+ billion rounds/bullets are sold to civilians each year. The current death toll from all causes is said to be around 10 per 100,000 or one one hundredth of one percent of the population or in other words it would take 100 hundred years to kill one percent of the population, the non fatal wound rate are said to be around 20-25 per 100,000 per year or in other words it would take around 50-35 years to physically wound one percent of the population.

    Are we saying in general that when 32-50% of the population owns a product that results in one hundredth of one percent of the population dying on an annual basis is a series problem?

    For those that don't do you blame them for saying that in general when a product is owned by 32-50% of the population and it results in one one hundredth of one percent of the population dying on an annual basis that it is not a serious problem?

    Alcohol kills two and half times as many people on a per capita basis than firearms do in the USA, would say Alcohol is a more serious problem than firearms are in the USA?

    It is all subjective.

    claiming their right to own guns trumps those of people who’d prefer not to have to worry about being threatened, shot or killed by a gun and its owner.

    Yeah god forbid anyone claims that their right to own a product or use a service or engage in an activity outweighs someone's worry over a one one tenth of one percent odds of something happening to them. We just can't have that now can we!

    my question, why would any civilian need a 50 calibre weapon: you know full well why I asked it.

    Yes to act as a euphemism for claiming that because it is not needed that it should be prohibited. The problem is that it is fallacious argument because then that means all things that are not 'needs' should be prohibited. Can you yourself honestly claim that you live your life on the most basic of needs? If you don't can you honestly claim that all the things that you do that are not needs don't or will not result in loss of life? Life is so much more than just needs, if it wasn't then it wouldn't be worth living.

    It is not a fair question.

    I know a gun is a gun and they all fire bullets which can maim and kill, but a bullet that is 12.95mm (.51 inch) wide should be used only by military forces to defend their country from military invasions.

    You do realize that a lot of muzzle and breach loaders, especially from the 1700's and 1800's are around that caliber if not even larger.

    I’d put 50 calibre weapons in the same category as hand grenades: not needed, should not be allowed.

    Great, for some people that is all they need to be persuaded, for others like myself you are going to have to do a little bit better than just simply saying that because you don't approve of something that it should be prohibited, especially when its human cost is lower than the human cost of recreational activities that you sanction.

    Do US Americans fear runaway bison herds and is that their justification for needing these military grade weapons?

    Nope they use the justification that it is fun and that the number of people using them for non-malicious reasons out weigh the cost. Kind of like how we say that the benefits of recreational consumption of Alcohol outweigh the 88,000 deaths caused by it. Kind of like how we say that the benefits of recreational sex out weigh the 20,000+ deaths caused by STDs, more than all homicides by all weapon types combined in the USA. You know the same arguments you use for why such activities that you approve of should be allowed even though it results in loss of human life.

    Is it because so many gun owners are such bad shots that they need a weapon that can fire 3 rounds a second, as quickly as they can pull the trigger.

    Bolt actions can be fired at a rate of 2-3 rounds a second, lever action firearms can be fired at a rate of 2-5 rounds a second, and pump action can be fired at a rate of 4-6 rounds a second. Semi-automatics in general achieve a rate of fire of 5-7 rounds a second. If you bump fire semi-automatics you can achieve rates of fire similar to that of fully automatics.

    So the reason why is because speed shooting is a real skill, see the faster you shoot the less time you have to aim and hit the target meaning it takes more skill to be able to hit a target in less time. The challenge is why people use them. Another reason is because they are a versatile firearm, they are a jack of all trades type firearm. They are effective in any and all roles that firearms are used in. They can shoot as slow as you want to and they can shoot as fast you want them to.

    As you know, those same gun laws that allow you to purchase military grade weapons allow those you fear to do the same.

    All firearms are military grade, other wise they would blow up in your hands. Military style semi-automatic firearms are legal to purchase in the following nations for civilians:

    Canada, New Zealand, UK(.22lr caliber), Sweden(They actually still allow civilians to purchase brand new machine guns), France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, USA, etc.

    Posted in: Anonymous email threat closes all Los Angeles schools

  • -4

    Noliving

    You're a gun owner: how many rounds per second can a legally purchased semi-automatic assault rifle fire?

    How fast can you squeeze the trigger?

    Why in the world does a civilian need a 50 calibre semi-automatic weapon?

    Well first off it isn't a fair question, needs are not a requirement in order for people to own or use products or purchase services or engage in an activity for non-malicious reasons. Lets say something isn't a need, what is your point? That if something is not a need that it shouldn't be allowed?

    I think the empirical evidence would support the position that allowing civilians to purchase or use semi-automatic 50 caliber firearms generates more tax revenue than it costs society.

    How easy is it to get magazines that hold more than the 'legal' number of rounds?

    It is not difficult in any country, magazines are really for the most part nothing more than a box with a spring in it. Your basic 3d printer you can get at BestBuy or Sam's club could make the box for example.

    Wc, in the three years since the Sandy Hook massacre, over 550 children have been killed by guns. That works out to about one every other day. You'd think that if some foreign entity such as ISIS were killing American children at that rate, the government would do something. So far: Crickets.

    It just shows you that populations tend to overreact to outside forces. Lots of things kill over 180 children each year in the USA, fires, drowning, accidental poisonings, etc.

    In fact unintentional injuries/accidental that are not from firearms result in over 6,000 deaths of children between the ages of 0-14 in the USA each year.

    Posted in: Anonymous email threat closes all Los Angeles schools

  • 5

    Noliving

    Nothing more than grand standing BS.

    Posted in: Abe vows to make Japan world's safest country

  • -1

    Noliving

    Gun sales have indeed risen, but they are now more concentrated in a declining number of households - in fact, the number of households with no gun owners is now lower than it has been since the 1970s.

    @Laguna - Important to note that although the gun owning household numbers as a percent of the total population maybe declining the total number of gun owners is actually increasing, at 32% with today's population equals around ~77 million gun owners while using the 50% with the population of the 1970's gives you around ~70 million gun owners.

    This occurs when the population is growing faster than the gun owning house hold rate is declining. In fact that occurs with anything in general, if the population is growing faster than the declining ownership rate of something than the grand total owners of anything will grow.

    Households with guns continue to suffer from proportionately higher gun death rates, as can be seen from the following graphs. As gun-owning households are disproportionally white and as they suffer from higher death rates, support for meaningful gun control is simply a demographic question of time.In the meantime, though, the dead-enders will continue to allow no end of havoc.

    @Laguna - Which begs the question: What is the point? Is the point that because they suffer from proportionately higher death rates means they should not own firearms? In other words is the argument being made that because something increases the risk or odds of you being injured or killed by owning a product or engaging a service mean that you should not own those products or engage in those services or participate in an activity? If the answer is yes than that means pretty much everything should not be owned or engaged in.

    As for the demographics well unfortunately it is whites that have the highest voting participation and it is elderly that vote the most and if we take a look at the death rate you are talking hundredths of one percent differences between the demographics, which means it is not killing them fast enough in order to sway the voting results.

    Something like this happened at a Walmart not long ago, I believe. Just looked for it online so I could give you a link, but alas it keeps directing me to ANOTHER Walmart shooting that happened just three days ago, as if my point needed more proving.

    @Smith - No something like this has not happened where a chain reaction shooting takes place among those who are legally carrying either openly or concealed.

    Now, tell me that shooting would have happened if they did not have guns -- I dare you.

    @Smith - If they did not have guns then yes it is highly unlikely there would have been shooting with items that can launch projectiles, like bows/crossbows, slingshots, etc. But it is irrelevant if a shooting would have taken place as violence still would have been used by the participants and injuries still would have happened and in some cases a death.

    Anyone who owns guns, let alone 24 or so, is a fool, plain and simple.

    @Smith - So the Harvard University shooting team is a bunch of fools? The Yale University shooting team are a bunch of fools? Why is it foolish to own a product that on an annual basis results in hundredths of one percent increase of injury or death?

    Posted in: Liberty University president urges students to arm themselves

  • 0

    Noliving

    Surely it's the same distance whether you travel by car, bicycle or walk? : )

    And if you travel by airplane?

    Posted in: California shooting rampage leaves 14 dead; 2 suspects killed in gun battle with police

  • 0

    Noliving

    Ever looked at the size of the US military? If the government wants to oppress the people, they will do it, and no amount of citizen guns will stop it. This argument against gun control is ridiculous.

    Yes, it is about 1.2 million active with an additional half million if you include its reserve force that is under the brand name National Guard. So about 1.7 million. Only around 15-25% of the military is trained for front line combat, so for ground forces think infantry, the rest are basically pure logistics, so that means you have around at most 425k military forces that are trained for front line combat. Now you take that 425,000 and you spread it out over the entire country of the USA and you surround them with, depending upon whom you believe, 77-100+ million gun owners, this is assuming all gun owners would fight or resist the USA military, historically it was around 20% that were involved in the war of independence for example, and you realize that the sheer size of the country, for example the distance from Anaheim California to St. Louis Missouri is about the same distance from Paris France to Moscow Russia if you travel by car, plus the sheer number of gun owners in the USA would simply overwhelm the US military. The country is too big and the sheer number of the opposing force would stretch the US military, it would be able to control certain pockets of the country but not much else. The most likely scenario is that the US military would adopt the Afghanistan and Iraq strategy where it controls the major cities but no much else.

    If there was to be a conflict there can be no question that the insurgent forces would take much higher casualties than the American military would, the real the downfall to the insurgent forces would be there wiliness to fight and more importantly to die. If they are not willing to die they would probably retreat at the first sign of battle with the US military.

    You are aware that the NRA sells to, and refuses to STOP selling to, terrorists like these guys, right? Kind of blows away your argument that it's not about guns, as well as support for the NRA.

    I highly you doubt you would disagree with the reasons why that bill/terror watch list is opposed by not just the NRA but also the ACLU. There is no due process at all with regards on who is placed on the terror watch list, the criteria for how people is placed or determined to be placed is entirely secret, and did I mention there is no due process which means you can't challenge why you are placed on the terror watch list and it also means that the government does not have to prove or provide any evidence for why you are on this list.....oh and by the way did you know that this list is shared with at least 22 other nations?

    What we do know is that in some cases in order to get on this list can be due to "reasonable suspicion", what does this reasonable suspicion look like you might ask????? Here is an answer for you Smith: It requires no concrete evidence or irrefutable proof/evidence .

    Consider a real world context, actual criminal justice, where an officer needs reasonable suspicion to stop a person in the street and ask him or her a few questions. Courts have controversially held that avoiding eye contact with an officer, traveling alone, and traveling late at night, all amount to reasonable suspicion. Now use that same criteria to label people terrorist suspects.

    The Maryland state law enforcement acknowledged back in 2008 they placed over 50 people on the terror watch list because they peacefully protested against the death penalty and the Iraq war, those people who were placed on the watch list have no due process to be taken off that list.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html?hpid=topnews

    Until the criteria is made public, people placed on the terror watch list are notified about placed on it, and have a due process to challenge there placement, until all of that is done the terror watch list should be scrapped but seeing as that is not going to happen then at the very least the terror watch list names should not be included in the NICS system.

    Posted in: California shooting rampage leaves 14 dead; 2 suspects killed in gun battle with police

  • -3

    Noliving

    I can just see what happens when a college professor hands a desperate student a failing mark. I can imagine that when another student sees someone's gun they panic, pull out there's, and start shooting. Someone sees that and shoots the student. Someone sees that and shoots them, and so on.

    OK......Perhaps you can show where and when this has happened in the USA, not necessarily in a school or due to a failing grade but when someone armed with a firearm, panics, starts shooting, and then someone sees that and starts shooting and then someone else sees that and starts shooting and so on and so on...

    They have told me how concerned they are that more civilians are buying weapons and even forming vigilante militia.

    Yeah they are overstating the threat.

    “we could end those Muslims before they walked in.”

    Oh jesus christ.....

    Posted in: Liberty University president urges students to arm themselves

  • -1

    Noliving

    I don't agree with anything you have ever said as you consistently defend gun ownership immediately post massacre.

    Really? Even on comments that have nothing to do with firearms you have conscientiously refused to agree with anything else I have said on any other topic because of my comments on guns?

    Posted in: 3 killed, 9 wounded in shootout at Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado

  • -1

    Noliving

    But if only the police had guns, what's that - they did have guns?

    Your point? I think this case demonstrates that it is a good thing that the police have guns when situations like this arise.

    The fact that a country can allow itself to be awash with firearms can only be defended by nutcases.

    Not really hard to defend at all and no it can easily be defended by people who are not nutcases, if you had 32-50% of the adult population owned a product and the death rate of that is one one hundredth of one percent of the population dies each year I don't think you would be against it, in fact I know you wouldn't be against it because alcohol kills over two hundredths of one percent of the population each year and you defend countries that allows themselves to be awash with Alcohol.

    It will be so interesting to see how the republicans try to get out of this one, with all the rhetoric about Muslims and how they should be rounded up........they can only come out as hypocrites if they don't suggest Christians should be rounded up.

    Posted in: 3 killed, 9 wounded in shootout at Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado

  • -2

    Noliving

    Paris was horrific, but why does that event spur Republicans to suddenly become concerned about the potential for domestic carnage when that carnage has already been happening across the U.S. for years and years with nary a peep from them?

    Most likely because it is more sensational followed by the appearance that it was committed on the orders of an organization several thousand miles away and plans on carrying out more such operations and has made open threats threats to the entire society they attacked where as the violence in the USA is generally viewed as targeting a specific segment, in general young black males, of the population and is more interpersonal in nature. So if you are not part of that demographic and you don't associate with that demographic then the threat level is perceived to be much less.

    The truth of the matter is that the response is disproportionate to the threat or risk, this is true for most things considered issues in society. The reaction to 9/11, at least state side was over done and now it is occurring in France. Look at Ebola and the hysteria that resulted and yet 30,000 people die every year from the Flu in the USA and there is really no hysteria over the Flu.

    Look at gun deaths in the USA and then compare it to Alcohol deaths in the USA and then put it into the context of 315+ million people and you start to realize that people are just overreacting to threats or perceived threats.

    How many weapons in the hands of gangbangers would have been more difficult to obtain if they were registered in a national database? More than one, I can assure you.

    More likely zero.

    Can you honestly claim cars are more difficult for criminals to own and drive because they are registered?

    Can you claim that cars are more difficult to obtain for people who don't have licenses or without insurance because the car is simply registered?

    Can you claim that cars are more difficult to obtain for illegal immigrants/undocumented workers because the car is simply registered?

    Can you claim sex offenders have a harder time finding victims because the victims have a registered residency address with the government?

    There is basically no evidence that registering cars causes people to drive safer or that it reduces crimes committed with or involving cars.

    There is basically no evidence that the sex offender registry works at reducing sexual assaults.

    So why would a gun registry be any different?

    Posted in: Police investigate New Orleans shooting that wounded 17

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