Noliving's past comments

  • 1

    Noliving

    A lot of registered sex offenders in the USA are basically 18/19 years olds who have sex with 15 and 16 year olds. So it depends on what type of sex act we are talking about and at what ages the offenders were. It is also important to note that a large number of sex offenders only attacked family members.

    Posted in: When pedophiles or minors convicted of violent crimes are released from prison, do you think residents in communities they move to should be informed of who they are and where they are living?

  • 1

    Noliving

    Using Wikipedia as the source for Japan's 2014 estimate of the population the suicide rate per capita is 20.11 per 100,000.

    The real question that I have is what is the total number of people that make an attempt or self harm. For example in the USA the total number of people who go to the hospital for hurting themselves on purpose(not necessarily with the intention of killing themselves) is around ~490,000

    Posted in: No. of suicides stays below 30,000 for third straight year

  • -2

    Noliving

    I don't know why you think it's a liberal thing. I'm as big a liberal as it gets, and I think ADD is a myth as well. Same with my other liberal friends who are teachers.

    It is not a myth, ADD is without a doubt over diagnosed but that was mainly because there wasn't really a way to physically test someone if they have it. Although there still isn't a physical test that will prove beyond a doubt that you have ADD that is very strong evidence that has been building over the past few decades that ADD/ADHD is a brain development "defect" in that the frontal cortex or frontal lobe of the brain develops more slowly or completely stops developing prematurely compared to people who do not have it.

    Posted in: Oregon woman detained over prescription drug released

  • -1

    Noliving

    As for what I mean - everyone who demands the right to be able to shoot other people in the face (aka gun ownership) have a responsibility for everyone who gets shot in the face due to the availability of guns. It's pretty straight forward.

    Who is making the demands to shoot people in the face? Especially for non self-defense reasons. See your above statement is strongly implying that a majority of the gun owning population is demanding the right shoot people in the face for non self-defense reasons. I don't agree with that implication.

    AKA practicing killing.

    Really? So you consider fencing and archery to be practicing to kill people?

    What would you say is the effectiveness at converting those who take up target shooting to killing people?

    How many Japanese tourists would you say when they go to a gun range either in Hawaii or Guam, or Las Vegas are doing it for the purpose to practice to kill people?

    Yet, that doesn't mean that their guns won't be used to kill.

    No one is claiming that just that the odds are extremely remote.

    Look at Littleton -the guns were taken by the child from his mother's legal collection. And how often do we hear of kids who shoot each other with their parents guns.

    Can you show that the number of kids wounded or killed by firearms is considerable more than other activities that wound or kill children in the same population? Like swimming pools or Alcohol, or trampolines or bike riding, etc..

    And the statistics themselves show that having a gun in the house dramatically increases the risk that someone will be shot in that house.

    When is that not true for anything? That is like saying if you have electricity running through your house you dramatically increase the risk that someone will be electrocuted or if you have plumping you dramatically increase the risk that someone will slip and fall on a wet floor severely injuring them selves. If you have alcohol in the house you will dramatically increase the risk of dying from acute alcohol poisoning.

    What are the odds? If you have a firearm in the house what are the odds that someone will be shot? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10000? 1 in 100,000? 1 in a million?

    What are the odds? When you have ~100,000 people being kill and wounded by gun fire or ~33 per 100,000 or 0.00033% of the population being struck by gun fire on an annual basis what are the odds? Keep something in mind, gun deaths and wounds are not evenly distributed throughout a population.

    That's all? Well I'm sure the families of those 400-700 people will be relieved to hear that. Someone just needs to tell them that it's all ok, because only a few people die accidentally for no good reason.

    Yep that is all, pretty low when you consider accidents kill over 120,000 Americans each year and that there are over 300 million people. Strangerland can you honestly say you don't condone or engage in any recreational activity that kills 400-700 people+ each year in the USA or even Japan for that matter and that those people who die accidentally are not dying for no good reason?

    Posted in: Nine dead after Missouri mass murder

  • 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

View all