Noliving's past comments

  • 0

    Noliving

    According to Nationmaster (where the above figures came from) the murder rate in Iceland is 0 per 100,000 population. The difference between 0 and 5 is not one ten thousandth of one percent, no matter how you jiggle the numbers.

    10(all gun deaths) divided by 100,000 = 0.0001% or in other words one ten thousandth of one percent of the population will be killed. So that means a country such as Iceland that has basically zero gun deaths will have at most a one ten thousandth of one percent difference in the death rate when compared to the USA.

    If you do 5 divided by 100,000 = 0.00005% or in other words five one hundred thousandth of one percent of the population will be murdered. So that means the most the difference can ever be between Iceland or Japan and the USA is five one hundred thousandths of one percent. A lot of people would argue those are trivial differences.

    That would only be true if everyone who didn't own a gun thought their lives were boring. Since that obviously isn't the case, your argument fails.

    No it doesn't fail because the argument isn't about only firearms, it is about every activity people do for enjoyment. So that means that if the only acceptable number is zero that means we are all going to live very boring lives because we all engage in activities for recreation that result in someone's death. For example Alcohol, Alcohol kills more people and children on a per capita basis than guns do. So take away Alcohol. Swimming pools also kill more than zero people, so take away recreational swimming. Biking, Hiking, Fishing all result in the deaths of more than one person each year. So take away all of those activities. Casual sex results in more than one person dying each year, so take away casual sex. Sports will result in more than person dying each year, so take away sports. Eating for pleasure will result in more than one person dying each year. TV/Movies will result in a few stunt doubles or production crew members being killed on a yearly basis. You can't enjoy life and not engage in an activity that kills at least one person each year. So if the only acceptable human cost to enjoy the pleasures of life is zero than we are all going to live very boring lives.

    In order to enjoy life you have to accept that people will die. So what is a fair balance?

    I don't own a gun, I don't know anyone who owns a gun, I don't consider shooting, whether it's targets or critters, to be a recreational activity, and I don't consider my life boring at all.

    Of course you don't because you also engage in other recreational activities that kill people, some of them kill just as many as firearms, such as recreational consumption of Alcohol.

    If keeping firearms out of the hands of people who think shooting things is fun lowers the risk of my kids or grandkids getting shot by some crazy loony in a school, a shopping centre or just in the street, then it's well worth it.

    Would you say the same if someone was to ban Alcohol on the grounds that it would reduce the chances of an intoxicated person killing your kids or your grand kids for maliciously or non maliciously reasons? Or would you say that the risk, which is greater than firearms, is acceptable?

    The perception that lethal weapons are recreational tools or can be owned for protection based on an ancient provision in an ancient document is false. Responsible gun owners can and do turn into irresponsible gun owners with an irreversible outcome. Remove that chance.

    Lethal weapons can most definitely be used as recreational tools. Look at Fencing and Archery for example, look at those that practice martial arts. Yes some responsible gun owners can and do turn into criminals the question is does the number of those who use these products for non-malicious reasons outweigh the human cost. Do the tens of millions if not hundred million plus people, not including over seas tourists who go to gun ranges, who use firearms each year for non-malicious reasons out weigh an increase of 0.0001% in death to the population?

    Every recreational activity comes with a human cost. If the only acceptable human cost to enjoy a product or service is zero than we are all going to live very boring lives.

    Posted in: Nine dead after Missouri mass murder

  • -2

    Noliving

    Oh, I see. I'm sure if you go explain that to the parents of the kids at Littleton, it will take away all their pain and Make everything better.

    It isn't about relieving the pain of the people who have lost someone they cared about, it never has been and never will be and that is true with any such legislation because it can't bring those peoples lives back or undue the wounds they suffered. It is about finding a balance, if the only acceptable answer to enjoy a recreational activity or life's pleasures is zero than that means we are all going to live very boring lives.

    Also a correction, it isn't one one thousandth of one percent it is in fact one ten thousandth of one percent. So what is the balance? What is an acceptable human cost so that people can have the right to own firearms for non-malicious reasons? Currently right now the difference at most in populations between the USA and a country such as Iceland or Japan in terms of deaths is one ten thousandth of one percent.

    I'd ask you the same thing, as the words you are attributing to me are not the words I said.

    OK, than can you better explain what you mean by this: anyone who wants to use that justification has to recognize that their demands for the right to be able to shoot other people in the face

    Because you are not claiming that those whose lives are in immediate danger don't have the right to shoot their assailant in the face that really only leaves those who want to shoot someone in the face for fun or some type of malicious reason. So when has demanding the right to own a firearm ever been about demanding the right to shoot someone in the face for non-self defense reasons?

    Strange how the answer to that question changes depending on whether you're asking an American or a non-American.

    No it is not strange it is normal, if you go to the middle east and ask them if the benefits of recreational alcohol outweigh the cons they will probably tell you no, if you go to Europe or North America or North East Asia they will probably tell you yes. If you go to a Native American reservation and ask them if the benefits of recreational Alcohol outweigh its costs they will tell you no but if you go outside the Native American reservations the surrounding populations will probably tell you yes. When you get to numbers this low what you are really dealing with are cultural or morals rather than any real public health threat/danger.

    If you own a gun for hunting, fair enough. If you own guns for "protection", who's to say whether it's malicious or not.

    You also forgot owning a gun for target shooting. For those that own a firearm for protection the vast majority of them will never ever harm someone, would you disagree with that? I think the best determination of that is by proxy by using the crime rate of those with permits/licenses to carry firearms in public in shall issue states and so far the data indicates they have a lower violent crime rate than the general population.

    For the average idiot, a gun in the home (or car, or handbag) is an accident waiting to happen.

    Not as likely as you might think, there are around 400-700 accidental gun deaths and around 4,000 to 7,000 accidental wounds caused by firearms on an annual basis. Total number of people who die by accidental falls is greater than 20,000. More than 60,000 people go to the emergency room every year in the USA from trampolines, 88,000 are killed by Alcohol and over 225,000 people are sent to the emergency room each year due to Alcohol in the USA. The truth of the matter is that accidents involving firearms are a lot less common than people realize, and it really drops if you are talking about long guns of any type.

    Posted in: Nine dead after Missouri mass murder

  • -1

    Noliving

    That's the mass shootings. Then you have the non-mass shootings, which brings the number way higher.

    Right that is the mass shootings and that is what you were talking about. But lets keep a few things in mind, the US overall gun death rate is ~10 per 100,000 or 99.9999% of a population will not be killed by a gun of any type in any given year. That means that the differences at most can only be one one thousandth of one percent when compared to a society that doesn't have any gun deaths. One could argue that is a very trivial difference.

    Anyways, anyone who wants to use that justification has to recognize that their demands for the right to be able to shoot other people in the face,

    Huh? The right to own a firearm does not mean you have the right to shoot someone in the face for whatever reason. Where are you getting that from?

    means that sometimes innocent children will shoot each other in the face, and that police will sometimes shoot kids in the face because they are afraid the kids have guns, and that sometimes 6-7 year old kids will be in class and will be shot in the face, and that the police will sometimes shoot unarmed people in the face.

    Yes there will be casualties with the right to own firearms, the question becomes does the number of those who own and use firearms for non-malicious reasons outweigh the human cost. In other words what is a fair balance? Is the 77-100+ million gun owners that own a combined estimated total of 300+ million firearms worth a 0.0001%, or one one thousandth of one percent, increase in the overall death rate of the population?

    Strangely, the problem stops at the Canadian border. How perplexing.

    It is not just at the Canadian border, remember 80%+ of US counties don't have a single homicide committed by any weapon type.

    Posted in: Nine dead after Missouri mass murder

  • -1

    Noliving

    Just another Friday in America. They don't care enough to fix the problem, so the rest of us shouldn't either. Carry on.

    Why should they? Mass shootings result in around 100 casualties(dead and wounded), in a nation with a population of over 310 million+ people and firearms that means that the per capita rate is less than 0.033 per 100,000. Could it not be argued that the amount of people who use guns for non-malicious reasons outweigh the human cost of recreational gun ownership?

    Posted in: Nine dead after Missouri mass murder

  • -1

    Noliving

    It's an easy option for Canada....drop the tariffs and then raise the subsidies to farmers. That's the US strategy: "free trade" of highly subsidized crops and products. Look how subsidized US corn exports destroyed Mexico's staple industry under NAFTA.

    What are you talking about? Mexico produces more and exports more corn than it did before NAFTA.

    Posted in: U.S. lawmaker says Japan and Canada must cut farm tariffs

  • 1

    Noliving

    Her apartment must have stunk.

    Depends upon how she "stored" the body, it doesn't say in the article but it is possible she put the body in a freezer of some type.

    Posted in: 19-year-old girl arrested for killing 77-year-old woman in Nagoya

  • 1

    Noliving

    People have the right to believe what they want, no matter how disgusting I think it is. If we are going to start policing people for their beliefs, then we need to start policing Christianity too, because there are a lot of oppressive beliefs in that religion. But I don't believe in thought police. So whether or not they believe something is only relevant if they act upon their thoughts

    That creates interesting questions and situations. Lets say someone believes people who leaves the faith should be killed but can't bring themselves to kill themselves, now lets say they know someone who can bring themselves to do such a thing and is going to do such a thing but decides not to say anything to law enforcement about it simply because he or she shares the same belief. Should that person who doesn't inform law enforcement be charged? I mean they themselves didn't really "act" on their beliefs, they just had someone else do it for them, you could argue that by knowingly not intervening that they were "acting" on their beliefs.

    The above scenario is where "charging" someone with their beliefs is not necessarily a bad idea, because it was there beliefs that prevented them from protecting another person from their attacker and even though they had nothing to do with the planning, logistics, and execution of the attack they knew it was going down and they could have done something to stop it but because of their beliefs they made the decision to do nothing.

    The problem with beliefs is that when you get a large enough population that believes in the same thing it creates an environment where those who want to act on those beliefs wont' be charged or jailed for acting upon them and those who do know something is going to go down will do nothing or not intervene to stop it.

    Posted in: Middle East media fear growing Islamophobia after France attack

  • 0

    Noliving

    why would she still wants to work for NTV after all these issues?

    For the principle of the entire thing so that when the next "girl" or woman decides to apply and has a nightclub work history she won't be discriminated against.

    Posted in: NTV settles with college girl; offers her announcer position

  • 0

    Noliving

    Correct me if I am wrong here, but "The right to bear arms" in America was meant to defend the country against intruders... not to out-gun and kill the people who protect and serve us, right?

    The right to bear arms is meant to protect from a foreign threat as well as a domestic threat but more historical documents indicate is was more for the domestic threat.

    Posted in: 2 New York City police officers shot in Bronx

  • 0

    Noliving

    If that were the case, you'd expect around 1/10 the incidents that happen to America to also happen in Canada. Yet the number is much smaller even after adjusting by population.

    Well if you go by Michael bloomberg groups there are one incident every 2 weeks or 26 incidents. so 1/10 would be 2.6 or 3 if we round up. So that would mean Canada would have to have an incident once every four months. This past year Canada has had 3 or more if you include this incident in the past year.

    Posted in: 9 dead at 3 crime scenes after domestic dispute in Canada

  • -2

    Noliving

    Pointed out here already, the 'pro-gun' lobby is not interested in life or hypocrisy or protection or rights. The pro-gun whores at the NRA are interested in only one thing, selling guns.

    To be fair you yourself are not interested in life, your only interest is to get rid of something you hate/disapprove of not to save lives. You deliberately ignore products or activities that are primarily used for recreation that kill more people and children on a per capita basis than firearms do that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in.

    Posted in: 2-year-old accidentally shoots his mother dead in Idaho Wal-Mart

  • -2

    Noliving

    Predictably, utter contempt for life as always. What is it about normal human relations that threatens the pro-gun lobby so much

    I'm not hearing you disagreeing with my comment sensenotsocommon. Is my comment wrong that all this "outrage" and snide comments being made is much ado about nothing? If so how? What I have contempt for is hypocrisy, especially those that try to claim a moral high ground.

    Posted in: 2-year-old accidentally shoots his mother dead in Idaho Wal-Mart

  • 2

    Noliving

    Much ado about nothing isn't it?

    For those offended by the above statement consider this:

    This will have no effect on anyone or anything outside of the immediate family and friends and her employer. Aside from angering pro gun control folks it won't change anyone's views on guns, or gun control. The pros will still be pro and the cons still con. And in a month the whole thing will be forgotten.

    Posted in: 2-year-old accidentally shoots his mother dead in Idaho Wal-Mart

  • 0

    Noliving

    Lessee... 1.5 billion Windows users... representing 14% ( one-seventh ) of computing devices... meaning the other six sevenths ( 9 billion ) are using smartphones and tablets...1.5 billion plus 9 billion equals... 10.5 bilion! No?

    Isn't it obvious each person can have multiple devices, for example a person could have a windows laptop(from work), have a personal android phone and an ios tablet..

    Posted in: Microsoft exec sees autumn release for Windows 10

  • -1

    Noliving

    Someone hasn't been paying their dues to the Yakuza.

    Posted in: Police crack down on bar, adult establishment touts during year-end

  • 0

    Noliving

    He should at least face discipline by the NYPD for using a banned restraining technique.

    Posted in: U.S. report fuels race furor over police killings

  • 0

    Noliving

    Thank god this is ending but I seriously have to wonder what was the quality control when doing this mass harvesting of organs. I have to assume it wasn't very good.

    Posted in: China to end use of prisoners' organs for transplants next month

  • -1

    Noliving

    It is not a good comparison because I can sit and look out a window on the world, or listen to good music with a glass of wine (or cup of sake) or good whisky in my hand -- and can't even begin to imagine of replacing it with a gun.

    Yes it is a good comparison and it is a better comparison than yours. You never did answer my questions, what is a better comparison, the number of times someone gets behind the wheel or the number of miles driven between accidents or motor vehicle related deaths? The number of times a pilot gets behind the controls of an airplane or the number of hours spent flying/number of miles flown between aircraft accidents or aircraft related deaths?

    You can look out a windows on the world and listen to good music and target shoot all at the same time.

    Posted in: 12-year-old boy with fake gun dies after shot by Ohio officer

  • -1

    Noliving

    Just pathetic, Noliving. You should be comparing each bullet to the number of alcohol molecules per sip. Glad to see you reaching so far.

    Lol OK Yabits, your argument was to compare the number of times people handle alcohol vs the number of times they handle a firearm. That is not a very good comparison, for example what is a better comparison when measuring pilots or drivers, the number of times they get behind the controls/wheel or the number of hours they spend driving/flying and or the number of miles traveled between accidents?

    Here let me demonstrate this to you, lets say you have a driver that travels from Minneapolis to Dallas using the interstate and only stopping to refuel the tank, most vehicles get anywhere between 400-600 miles per tank, trip distance is around 1000-1200 miles so they get behind the let say 3 times at most, now compare it to someone who has a 10 mile commute each way, so they travel 20 miles a day and they get behind the wheel twice and lets say you do that for 5 days. That comes out to 100 miles traveled and getting behind the wheel 10 times.

    Which is a better determination of how safe driving is? The number of miles traveled or the number of times getting behind the wheel?

    Lets say you have a pilot that has a route from Tokyo to Honolulu, just over 3,800 miles or 8-9 hours of flying vs a pilot that flies from from Minneapolis to Dallas, than two days later flies from Dallas to Minneapolis, so the pilot has traveled around 2200 miles and spent about 5 hours in the air and gone behind the controls of an airplane twice.

    Which one is a better determination? The number of times the pilot went behind the controls or the number of miles flown/hours spent flying?

    A better comparison is the number of Alcoholic drinks consumed for each death and the number of bullets discharged for each death. Just like how a better comparison for traffic deaths is the number of miles traveled vs the number of times they get behind the wheel.

    Apples and oranges. It's a false equivalency. You seem to be trying to say that because alcohol is legal, and kids die from alcohol related incidents, guns should be legal. What? That makes absolutely no sense. It's simply an attempt to distract from the subject at hand.

    No it is not apples and oranges and not it is not a false equivalency. They are both premature deaths and they are both needless deaths, the products are both used primarily for recreational purposes.

    What I am saying Strangerland is that if you are going to act sanctimonious and try to shame gun owners than it would be in your best interests to not condone a recreational product or a recreational behavior that kills just as many if not more children and adults on a per capita basis than firearms. Pointing out someone's hypocrisy and that their argument of "it's for the children" is not genuine and that their motivation for wanting to prohibit guns is rather they just simply don't approve of it therefore no one should be allowed to own this product or engage in this behavior is not an attempt to distract from the subject at hand.

    The fact is that every single gun owner in America is partially responsible for the death of this boy. Gun owners in America have decided that they are ok with kids dying, as the price to pay for their 'right' to own a gun. This has nothing to do with alcohol, and the legality (or illegality) of alcohol does not justify gun ownership whatsoever.

    Yes they do just like how every person who condones alcohol and consumes alcohol is partially responsible for the deaths of children that die due to Alcohol. You condone recreational consumption of Alcohol do you not? Does not Alcohol kill more children on a per capita basis in the USA than firearms do on a per capita basis?

    If the answer is yes to both, which it is, than who are you to shame gun owners and who are you to claim you are better than gun owners morally and finally who are you say that gun owners should give up their guns when you yourself are not willing to give up Alcohol?

    The legality of Alcohol for recreational consumption does justify gun ownership if they are both primarily owned and used for recreational purposes which they are. If you can say that the number of children dying for recreational consumption of Alcohol is acceptable than recreational gun owners can say the same for guns.

    Posted in: 12-year-old boy with fake gun dies after shot by Ohio officer

  • -2

    Noliving

    I cannot think of a scenario where the cops are called, and end up killing a 12-year-old kid for pulling out a beer bottle.

    It doesn't matter if you can or can't because it is irrelevant how the child dies, what matters is if the death is pre-mature and needless. A child that dies from Alcohol is just as premature and needless to society as a gun death.

    This not a matter of numbers, it is a matter of senselessness. It is sickly stupid to keep bringing up alcohol. The satanic logic you are using is this: "OK, so you get to keep the alcohol; and we get to keep guns."

    Yes it is partly a matter of numbers considering the numbers of children that die by gun deaths is used to try and severely restrict guns or prohibit them. Could you please explain again why a child's death caused by Alcohol is more necessary to society than a child dying by a firearm? I keep bringing up the number because of your, Strangerland, Cleo, and Smithinjapan sanctimonious attitude and using the numbers of gun deaths. You try to shame gun owners and yet you deliberately ignore and or refuse to stop engaging/condoning in any number of recreational activities that kill just as many people, especially children, than firearms.

    Satanic logic please, your logic is that you simply don't approve of guns therefore no one should be allowed to have them or use them for recreational reasons. So yes that so called Satanic logic is my logic, it recognizes that people have different interests and different dislikes and in order to be fair to everyone if we say this recreational activity kills this many people and that number is unacceptable than every other recreational activity that kills this many people or more and has nearly as many participants and or engaged in just as frequently is also unacceptable. If you want to call that Satanic than so be it but in my humble opinion I would say it is a pragmatic logic.

    No matter what the statistics are, a kid who brings a bottle of wine to a park and shares a few slugs with his friends is vastly different than a kid who brings a gun and starts firing slugs at them.

    No kidding, just like how a kid who takes a gun with him to a gun range and shares the gun with his friend under adult supervision at the range is vastly different than one who opens fire on them. Just like how a young teenage male who brings a bottle(s) of wine on a date so he can get his date intoxicated to the point he can molest/rape her/him and possibly kill her/him is vastly different than one who brings a bottle of wine to just enjoy a romantic date.

    With the indulgence of the moderators, I believe I can articulate the perverse stupidity of your continually bringing up alcohol, in hopes that you'll finally see the light: the key metric is incidents per use. Most people handle an alcoholic beverage infinitely more times in a given period of time than they handle a firearm.

    Conjecture. Love to see the evidence of legal gun ownership vs legal consumption of Alcohol. Just so you know the average american age 15 and older consumes the equivalent of 31 glasses of wine or 9.4 litres each year. In an average year the USA civilian market will sell 7-10 billion rounds of ammo to civilians. However though ammo sales for the past six years have exceeded 10 billion+ rounds. Here is a better comparison the number of bullets fired vs the number of alcoholic beverages consumed.

    A lot of people who are depressed and under tremendous stress will reach for a drink. Imagine what it would do to your stats if they reached for a gun instead? (As all too many do already...) Or if people handled guns as often as they handled an alcoholic beverage.

    More conjecture/presumption, here Yabits lets do this comparison. The amount of bullets fired vs the number of drinks consumed. You know as well as I do that most people will go to a gun range and fire hundreds if not 1,000+ bullets each time they go to the range. Do people who go to a bar consume hundreds of drinks or thousands of drinks or even hundreds of fluid ounces in one sitting?

    Also according to the suicide rates of the USA the USA has basically the same suicide rate as the UK, and well lets see here Japan has a higher suicide rate than the combined homicide and suicide rate of the USA. In fact the USA suicide rate is basically average when compared to the rest of the developed world. So we don't really have to imagine seeing as we already have the stats.

    If alcohol was as remotely as dangerous as a firearm, storage procedures for beer and wine within a home would be vastly different.

    It is, the statistics bare that out plain as day, more children and adults die in developed countries from Alcohol on a per capita basis than guns kill children and adults on a per capita basis in the USA. The reason why the storage procedures are not different is because of ignorance or because they are not ignorant and are deliberately making the decision that the current number of deaths caused by Alcohol is acceptable.

    So for the mods reading this and wondering how this relevant to the topic the answer is quite simple, Cleo, Strangerland, and Yabits have been trying to shame gun owners over the number of children and adults killed due to firearms. I'm just simply pointing out that if they want to make such comments they should first look at their own lives and ask themselves if they participate or condone any recreational activity that kills just as many if not more children and adults on a per capita basis and if they are OK with severely restricting or prohibiting such products.

    Posted in: 12-year-old boy with fake gun dies after shot by Ohio officer

View all