JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
0
Noliving
Really? I would like to see it where I specifically stated that every time an ex husband goes to kill his ex wife its because of drugs. I would like to see it where I specifically stated domestic violence involving guns is because of drugs. I stated/implied that the vast majority of gun violence/gun crime in the US is related to the war on drugs. Meaning that ending the war on drugs would have more effect on gun violence/gun crime then any gun law ever would.
This is what you stated:
In the above quote you are referring to gun violence in general in the US, you are talking about mass shootings in general in the US. You are not specifically talking about domestic violence between family and or friends in the US. And you know how I know that? Because you were quoting me on how the total number of gun violence in the US was falling for the past 17 years, in fact it has been cut in half.
So then what was my response then to that quote?
I was referring to those tragedies/gun violence in a generalized term stating/implying that the majority of gun violence in the US is related to the war on drugs and I backed that up with the homicide figures for the city of Detroit.
I agree that ending the drug war would have a limited impact on domestic violence but they don't occur as frequently as you make them out to be and even if you did ban firearms you didn't stop the domestic violence the domestic violence and possible murders would still occur just in a different way. In order to deal with domestic violence you need to teach people how to deal with their emotions, best time to do this is in school.
Good day.
Ya its not hard at all, most hair salon places have 3-4 chairs lined up in a row that run parallel to the side walls, fill each seat with a patron and have maybe have each patron have a hair stylist behind them and then have some people in the waiting area. Take your SUV or Truck and ram the hair salon from the front, which is usually just made of glass, at about 60-100 MPH.
In fact here is a link to a news story that shows 8 people killed by a rolling truck.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38710643/ns/usnews-life/t/driver-off-road-race-crash-killed-idd/#.TptD3psglY
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
-1
Noliving
Did I ever state that yabits? I claimed that the majority of gun crime/violence is tied to the drug war. Meaning that if you want to have the greatest impact on gun violence and or just violence in general in the US you need to end the Drug war, even the UN says that. I'm not claiming that every single gun crime is tied to drugs, I'm stating that the vast majority of it is.
Yabits do you honestly believe that if this man didn't have a gun he wouldn't have killed her that day and or anyone else in that business that day? Go ahead take away the guns, he would have just used knives and or just run them over with his car. Do you honestly believe in your scenarios that if someone gets PO'd and they don't have a gun they won't kill or they won't at least attempt to kill the person they are mad at? In your scenarios yabits even if they didn't have guns they would still kill people they just use other means and you know it. In order to deal with the domestic violence you do social programs that deal with social behaviors related to anger and violence. Gun laws will have no effect on reducing domestic violence.
No it doesn't happen on a weekly basis, at most it happens on a monthly basis. Your right it had nothing to do with drugs and it had nothing to do with guns, it had everything to do with the fact that the perp didn't know how to control his anger problems. No gun law would have stopped him from killing those 3 people, it was a murder suicide so the fourth victim was the perp.
Isn't it a little obvious that in that statement I'm implying that the vast majority of gun violence in the US has deal with the drug war. Especially when you look at the previous two sentence to the one your quoting that basically states that 60-70% of murders in the city of detroit are the result of drugs. I'm not stating that every single gun crime or gun related violence would end I'm stating that more than half of gun crime and gun violence would end. Even the UN says that. The UN this year called on, by implying, that the USA drug war needs to end because it is the primary driver of violence in the US and Latin America. Heck go to Canada and you'll find that the majority of gun crime is related to the drug trade.
Do you honestly believe that less than half of the gun violence in the US is related to the drug industry?
That is a straw man argument. The US constitution forces all citizens, unless the exceptions I state otherwise, have to be available for jury duty. Just because they get screened out of one jury doesn't mean they can't ever be called again for jury and if they were to be called for jury duty for every single crime they would serve on at least one jury panel. The fact the US government has the right to call upon any citizen for jury duty and force them to report for jury duty means they have the inherent right to be on a jury panel. In order for your argument to work a person would have to be able to get through the screen process and be able to voluntarily quit jury duty after the US justice system has put you on the jury panel. Do you know what "Inherent" means? Oh and in fact you can volunteer yourself for Grand Jury trials. No guarantee your going to get on.
What? Well-regulated militia according to the quotes I provided means, from the founding fathers, a trained and discipline fighting force, it doesn't mean gun regulation.
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
-1
Noliving
You based US victory on whether or not the Sadrist held influence over the iraqi government?
How is Afghan worse than Iraq?
Posted in: U.S. drops plan to keep troops in Iraq
0
Noliving
I meant Pakistani.
Posted in: Militants attack U.S. base in eastern Afghanistan
0
Noliving
Afghanis don't want the US military around so much that they are willing to blow themselves up to try to make their point.
I'm sick of US warmongering and I'm not even living in Afghanistan.
There is no war in Afghanistan to be won.
Go home!
Who said they were Afghans? They very well could be Taliban.
If the Afghan people were as against US forces as you claim they are the US military would have already been decimated by the Afghan population. It is a minority that want the US to leave. That doesn't mean that in time when conditions improve that they won't want the US to leave, they will but for now they don't. At least not in the numbers you claim. Also do you honestly believe this is the first suicide bomber in Afghanistan?
Posted in: Militants attack U.S. base in eastern Afghanistan
0
Noliving
Well regulated doesn't mean restrictions placed on what guns you can own etc.
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
0
Noliving
No they don't.
And you what is behind those tragedies? Narcotics trade in the US. If you ended the drug war in the US, heck even the UN says that the US needs to end its drug war because its the primary driver of violence in latin america and the US, you would have more effect on gun crime then any gun law ever would. 60-70% of homicides in Detroit for example are drug related, even though the primary means of the homicide was with a gun the motive, which is the most important thing not how, was drugs.
If you want to end gun violence in the US then you need to end the war on drugs in the US.
You have to understand what "Well-regulated" means first.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
Here is another:
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.
Well regulated means trained and discipline fighting force.
As for the Jury, every single citizen is required to be available for jury duty unless:
be a United States citizen; be at least 18 years of age; reside primarily in the judicial district for one year; be adequately proficient in English; have no disqualifying mental or physical condition; not currently be subject to felony charges; and never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored)
So as long as your a citizen and over the age of 18, speak English and are not a criminal you are by law required to report for jury duty.
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
-1
Noliving
Well I base it upon trends. For example in the past 3 years the US has reduced it gun homicide by around 20-25%. No I wouldn't say its time to switch because its not a rat race. As long as the person is improving his efficiency that is all that matters really. So for example lets say the 47% increases to 50% and then the year after that it is 55% and so on that is fine. The US has more than cuts its gun violence in half, talking grand total here not per capita's, since 1994 and yet it has added at least 50+ million guns. So its working, it may not be working fast enough for your taste but again its not a rat race. At the current levels of gun violence it would take over 300 years to kill 1% of the US population. Where as heart disease is killing 1% of the US population every 6 years and its rising where as gun violence is in fact dropping.
The scale possibly but the actual crime no, even though he had a restraining order against him, he still would have at the very least assaulted his ex wife. However though there are a variety of ways of killing a lot of people very quickly for example he could rammed his vehicle into the building, or he could have made a home made flamethrower with a supersoaker and burned them to death or just walked in with a chain saw or he could rounded up some friends and walked in there and just hacked everyone to death. The problem that most anti gun people have is that they focus exclusively on gun crime, they don't actually look at the overall crime situation. So if gun crime goes up but the overall crime situation is decreasing then your streets are getting safer.
Agreed as such that sort of device has restriction on how it can be used and the gun owning community supports these restrictions, for example it is illegal in the US to point a gun or fire one in a public setting unless it is in defense of your life or the life of another.
It still remains that gun homicides are still 4 times less than in America, despite the apparent rise in gun crime. And I sure hope you don't even imagine that gun crime is synonymous with gun homicides. I would rather get robbed with a gun than killed with one, and you know what I mean so don't go obfuscating that.
UK has a hand gun ban and it has made gun ownership so difficult that it is pretty much a ban especially if you have no criminal record and mental illness if they deny you a right to a gun even though you meet all the legal requirements because the UK government just doesn't want you to have one then it is a gun ban even though its "legal". Your right gun homicides are less than in America but unlike America your trends is that it is increasing at a while in the US it is decreasing.
So lets look at your model again, lets make America the 30% that increases its efficiency to 47% and lets make the UK the 60% but is going to have its efficiently cut in half in 10 years which trend would you rather have?
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
2
Noliving
Oh please they have had 10 years to perfect their attacks for the next time on American military bases. Most likely this was nothing more than an attack to get into the news, IE a propaganda attack because of the fact that they can't overrun these bases/capture these bases.
Posted in: Militants attack U.S. base in eastern Afghanistan
2
Noliving
But current measures are working, gun violence has been dropping for the past 17 years. If you look at the total number of gun crime for example in 2008-2010 you will see that gun violence has dropped even though more guns hit the streets each year and it is on track to further drop this year. Why is it so hard for you to recognize that the current measures have been working for the past 17 years to reduce gun crime and are still working?
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
0
Noliving
Why should he take it into account? The whole point is that people make the claims that if guns are illegal in the US or very difficult to get then there would be virtually no gun crime. Mexico is prime example of that not being the case. Seeing as guns are heavily restricted to the point that they are pretty much illegal this gun crime as anti-gunners claim shoudln't exist even if there is a drug war.
What the drug war proves is that prohibition makes things a whole lot worse, prohibition on drugs and guns. Ending the drug war and legalizing drugs would have a far greater impact on violence in mexico then any gun law ever would.
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
1
Noliving
Pretty convenient. You really think that's what the authors of the second amendment had in mind?
People like me claim his rights stop when he commits unjustified homicide with them. Fine its convenient for you yabits, that is like saying according to freedom of speech people he had a right to say what he wanted but then claim that his rights stop as soon as he started to yell fire in a crowded room with only one exit which results in a stampede that kills people or that his rights stop as soon as he starts making death threats and hate speech and then that person followers go out and kill people. Pretty convenient I guess.
You should take the time to do research, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the Centers for Disease Control.) says that there are less than 800 people that that are killed yearly in the US as a result of accidents at home or kids take the guns from home to school and shooting other kids. Why is it you can't check your facts before you spit out your hyperbole?
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
-4
Noliving
Sorry but your wrong, the FBI says that for the years 2010, 2009 the number of homicides committed with all categories of firearms in the US was less than 10,000. Oh I care but considering that the grand total gun violence has been dropping for the past 17 years and yet the US has added more than 50 million firearms to its streets would in fact suggest that gun violence is not that pressing of a problem or concern compared to lets say obesity and obesity related health problems in the US. And unlike gun violence in the US, obesity and its health are increasing in the US. As a result I place greater emphasis on Obesity and its effects on society then I do on guns. There are over 500,000 deaths by heart attack in the US and its increasing. Less than 10,000 have been murdered each year for the past two to three years and 2011 is so far showing to be on track to be even lower.
Why is a desire to own guns infantile? The reason why they justify it, including me, is because they/me are able to put it into context. The context is that there are 65 million+ gun owners that own more than 300 million+ guns, the US adds on average 4.5+ million guns each year, there is a grand total of 300+ million people that live in the US. The current grand total of homicide is less than 10,000. If you take 10,000 and divide it by 65 million you get 0.00015% of legal gun owners will commit a murder. That means 99.99985% of gun owners will not kill anyone. Why should gun owners be punished when not even a tenth of one percent of gun owners commit homicide?
Here is another context, more people die each year by alcohol related incidents, does not mean they die by alcohol overdose but that they died from an incident in which alcohol played a major role in the death such as drunk driving, then people are murdered by guns. By your logic alcohol should be made illegal and that those that want to consume alcohol have an infantile desire. But most people when they see those alcohol stats they correctly point out that tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Americans safely drink alcohol each year in the US, so although 12,000+ fatalities that were related or were caused by alcohol seems like a big or large number but when compared to the total number of people that are consuming alcohol each year in the US it is actually a very small minority of people that are really ever in harms way.
Your point? Japan has 7,000+ auto deaths each year, the US has 40,000+ auto deaths each year. I think a AAA member can figure out why that is. In fact I'm willing to bet you can figure out why that is to.
Oh here is something to consider, more Japanese people per capita commit suicide then Americans commit murder and suicide combined. Meaning you are more likely to die in Japan then you are in the US even though the US has more than 300+ million guns. Can you please tell me why that is?
Really? I did not know this. Did you know that if you have electricity in your home you are more likely to be electrocuted to death then if you didn't have electricity in your house. Did you know that if you have plumbing you are more likely to drown or slip and fall to your death then if you didn't have plumbing. Did you know that if you owned a car you are more likely to die in a car accident then if you didn't own a car. Did you know that if you own knives you are more likely to die by a cut or a stab then if you didn't own knives. I know I didn't those things..............
I want you to justify something for me. Most people have metal kitchenware utensils even though plastic kitchenware utensils are just as effective as metal ones and safer, except for when cutting steaks. Considering the number of people that are stabbed to death with a kitchen knives of some type, why do people need to own metal kitchen utensils, especially knives, when plastic ones do the job just as well and they are safer.
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
2
Noliving
Someone committing homicide with a firearm is not exercising their second amendment rights. That would be like saying if someone lied under oath they were exercising their first amendment rights or if they made death/terrorist threats that they were exercising their first amendment rights.
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
3
Noliving
Ya so? It's pretty rare in the US to have seven people dying around you within secodns, unless it is a hospital or a nursing home.
A large source or the largest source is corrupt FFL's, in 94 during the height of gun crime only 8% of FFL's were illegally trafficking firearms, which means that a very small percentage of FFL's today are a large source for illegal firearms. Straw buyers are also another source, if the legal gun owner knowingly transferred the gun to a criminal or a mentally unstable person that would be illegal, remember I said any crime with a gun that includes illegal transferring a gun. Another source, according to interviews with criminals, is that they steal them from friends and family members. You have to keep in mind that most people don't check on their guns on a daily basis so that provides them with another avenue on getting the gun.
If you include the straw purchasers it is still less than 1 out of 100 or less than 1% of legal gun owners commit any crime with a gun. 1 out of 100 or 1% of legal gun owners is a minimum of 6.5 million people and seeing as there around 100,000 incidents involving guns, and the good news is incidents involving guns in the US is falling, it is way below 1% of gun owners commit a crime.
Gun owners do not deserve the demonetization that they are given. In fact your average gun owner is less likely to a commit a crime than a person in law enforcement in the US. In other words, the police are more likely to a commit a crime then your average gun owner.
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
2
Noliving
Why would it? There are less than 10,000 murders with guns and there are over 65+ million gun owners that own more than 300+ million guns and gun violence in general, including murders and suicides, has been decreasing for the past 17 years even though on average the US adds 4.5+ million guns each year. More guns hit the streets and yet there is less gun crime. If gun violence has been decreasing for 17 years even though total number of guns is increasing that would suggest the current US gun laws are working in reducing gun crime. If you were to do a per capita of per 100 gun owners on the number of legal gun owners that committed any crime with a gun it would be less than one. You are more likely to fall to your death in the US then you are to be murdered by a gun. Your more likely to die in a car accident then be murdered by a gun in the US. You are 53 times more likely to die of a heart attack in the US then you are to be murdered by a gun.
I can tell you right now that ending the war on drugs would have more effect on gun crime than any gun law ever would in the US. Take Detroit for example, 60-70% of its homicides are related to narcotics. You end the drug war you could basically cut Detroit's murder rate in half.
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
-6
Noliving
Your thinking mexico not the US.
Posted in: 8 killed in California salon shooting
0
Noliving
In what way was I trying to mislead readers? I'm failing to see the point that I supposedly missed that Moore was trying to make. What was the point that Moore was trying to make regarding the Heston speech? Do you not know how Moore mislead his audience regarding that Heston speech?
Posted in: Filmmaker Moore demands Georgia boycott after execution
-1
Noliving
You'll first have to explain to me what the point is, that I supposedly didn't get, before I can clarify it for you.
Posted in: Filmmaker Moore demands Georgia boycott after execution
0
Noliving
Also a perfect example of his documentaries using "facts" to present an argument in which he purposely misleads the audience is the Heston's "cold dead hands" speech he gave.
Michael Moore has some good ideas and principles but his way of advertising or presenting them leave much to be desired.
Posted in: Filmmaker Moore demands Georgia boycott after execution