JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
-
- Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) in Kanto region
- RCS (RCSコーポレーション), Kanto
- Salary: ¥180,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month includes performance bonus
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - TOKYO - late-March start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
0
Noliving
You could make that case about anyone and everyone opinions.
Define masterful.
Posted in: Filmmaker Moore demands Georgia boycott after execution
3
Noliving
a 23 year old is not a kid society mike. Plus if it was a kid you have to ask yourself then how incompentant sony is.
Posted in: FBI arrests suspect over Sony cyberattack
0
Noliving
Isn't that what people said about Iraq? Oh well, believe it or not but compared to this time last year attacks in Afghanistan are actually down 20%.
Posted in: Kabul attack over; assailants dead
-1
Noliving
There is one thing that is important to note, buy american doesn't mean they only buy from companies that are HQ or founded in the US. It means buy equipment or materials that are made in the US. So as long as the Canadian company has a facility in the US that makes something that the US government is going to buy they can bid for it.
Posted in: Canada denounces Obama 'buy American' proposal
0
Noliving
Man you are thick, of course people would be up in arms if the Israelis would have been killed considering they were not the aggressors in the incident you fool. Since in this incident the Egyptians were the aggressors and were threatening people with deadly force, and in fact badly beat up an employee at the Israeli embassy, who posed no threat to them I think any rational person would not be so up in arms about them, Egyptians attackers, being killed or wounded. If it was the other way around where Israeli protesters were attacking the Egyptian embassy and badly hurt one of the Egyptian embassy staff and 3 Israeli protesters were shot dead I don't think anyone would really have much sympathy for the Israeli side.
Are you honestly suggesting people should be just as angry and have as much sympathy for the violent protesters being harmed when they are the aggressors and the ones who badly beat up an innocent employee at the building versus embassy employees who are not threatening anyone being killed and or wounded. Are you honestly suggesting aggressors should get the same amount of sympathy?
I got a question for you, if it wasn't for the embassy employees, except for the one, being able to get into a room in which they were able to lock the door, do you think they would have been severely harmed if not killed by those Egyptians if they had not been able to get into a locked room?
And seeing as you are new to this site lovehandles you should realize that based upon previous articles on Israel there usually is an irrational Israeli basher or anti-semite that posts on these threads every once in a while.
Posted in: 3 killed, 1,000 injured in attack on Israeli embassy in Egypt
0
Noliving
The answer is no one. Both chose a form of cover, one behind a rock and one inside a tank but then again there is less than 14 M1 Abrams tank in Afghanistan and there are millions of boulders in Afghanistan. This is like the equivalent of arguing which is more cowardly, air strikes or IED's that are remote detonated or pressure plated(Meaning the attacker is never discovered and thus never put in danger). Tanks are rarely if ever used in Afghanistan due to the mountainous terrain basically making tanks worthless. I have yet to see a video of an insurgent taking on an M1 Abrams tank all by themselves with an Ak-47.
Whether you like it or not the Afghan war is a justified and legal war for the US to fight.
Posted in: Bomb at U.S. base in Afghanistan injures 77 Americans
0
Noliving
Man you really are thick. Read his comment again and ask yourself if he actually believes it.
Posted in: 3 killed, 1,000 injured in attack on Israeli embassy in Egypt
0
Noliving
This is part two and some of it is a repeat:
Well lets see here the NRA has helped create and pass laws that prevent criminals, mentally ill people, and juveniles from getting guns. The NRA has also supported instant background checks on people who are buying guns at retail stores. They also helped write and pass the bill that would require instant background checks on those that want to carry a gun in public whether it be concealed or not concealed.They also helped to create the law that banned the manufacture and importation of armored piercing rounds. The NRA supported the Hughes-McCollum bill that prohibits the development and production of firearms that would be undetectable during scans at airports. The NRA has help write and support laws that increase prison sentences for the violent crimes, reduce the chance of parole for those convicted of violent crimes and approve more funding for the creation of increased prison capacity in order to make sure those sentences are carried out. For example the NRA strongly supported and helped lobby the Project Exile in Virginia that made it a minimum 5 year sentence for illegal possession of a firearm. It eventually went nationwide under the Bush administration in 2002 called the Project Safe Neighborhoods. I can keep going on gun laws that the NRA has supported.
The truth of the matter is that the gun laws people think the US needs already exist, and the ones that don't exist won't work to end gun violence or just violence in general because criminals don't follow laws, what works are tougher prison sentences that keep them off of the streets. For example of something that doesn't work increasing waiting periods doesn't lower gun violence in fact the states that imposed longer waiting periods actually had higher murder rates after laws were passed that increased the waiting period to get a hand gun.
Here is an interesting quote, tell me if you disagree with it: " Don. B. Kates, a noted civil rights lawyer, best put the international comparison myth in perspective, writing, "In any society, truly violent people are only a small minority. We know that law-abiding citizens do not commit violent crimes. We know that criminals will neither obey gun bans nor refrain from turning other deadly instruments to their nefarious purposes. . . . In sum, peaceful societies do not need general gun bans and violent societies do not benefit from them."
How are they out of control JapanGal? Over 99.9999% of gun owners don't shoot or kill anyone with their firearms, in fact 99.9999% of guns in the US are not used to assault someone whatsoever. In fact gun crime has been falling for the past 20 years and in those past 20 years the US population has increased and the US adds anywhere between 1 million to 4.5 million guns to the population, yet again gun crime and all other types of crime have fallen. So in what way is out of control? Out of control suggests gun crime is going up. How can something be out of control if it is decreasing for two decades straight?
Posted in: 4 dead, 8 wounded in shooting at IHOP restaurant in Nevada
0
Noliving
Is it? I mean guns laws were most likely violated in this situation, what laws did the NRA actually stop that would have stop this crime. Can you tell me the name of the law that prevented from going through that would have stopped this? You do realize that the NRA is actually for gun laws that prevent mentally ill and criminals from getting guns. In fact the NRA just helped to pass a bill through the legislature in the state of Michigan that increases gun safety classes in public schools so as to prevent accidental gun deaths. Oracle what do you know of the NRA in terms of what bills it has lobbied to pass passed and fought against. Here is a website that gives you a small snapshot of the laws and programs the NRA has helped create: www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209#FABLE III:
What laws is the US missing oracle?
You talk about workable strategy for gun control, for the past 20 years guns violence has been going down, if gun violence is still going down why do we need new/more laws when the current gun laws right now are doing their job of reducing gun violence? I can understand the argument that it is to close gaps or inefficiencies but the vast majority of the current gun laws don't have gaps or inefficiencies that people think they do.
Gun laws that people want or think the US needs are a lot like sex laws, they are unenforceable without massive government intrusion into your personal private life with the ability of random unannounced search and seizures without probable cause. To give you an example in 1965 the US Supreme court struck down a bill that would have made it illegal for married couples to use birth control. The reason why they struck it down was because the only way you could have enforced it was with massive government intrusion into your life.
Posted in: 4 dead, 8 wounded in shooting at IHOP restaurant in Nevada
-6
Noliving
Ok lets see here, there are more than 300 million legally owned by an estimated 65 to 100 million gun owners. According to the FBI there was about 9,500 to 9,900(might be off by a couple of dozen on the upper range) murders with firearms with an additional 15-20,000 suicides.
So lets go by total number of guns divided by murders (300,000,000/9,900), this gives us a rate of 30,303 guns per murder. For something that is design to kill someone very easily that is pretty shocking that it takes 30,303 guns per murder isn't it? If we go by total number of gun owners divided by murders (65,000,000/9,900) that gives us a rate of 6,565 gun owners per murder with a firearm or in other words(percentage) the rate of gun owner committing murder is 0.000015233%. But the argument was both murder and suicides, so 300,000,000/29,900 = 10,033. That means per gun death there is 10,033 guns. Now for gun owners 65,000,000/29,900 = 2,173 gun owners per death by guns, over half of which are suicides or in other words(percentage) 0.00004601% of gun owners will either kill someone or the themselves, again more than half of that percentage is suicides. So with such low percentage what are they being used for and the answer is either hunting, target shooting, or just for display in someone's collection. They are not being used to kill someone else or the owner.
So what does that mean? It means that more than 99.9999% of guns will not kill someone or injure someone, it means that more than 99.9999% of gun owners will not kill someone or themselves. As for the murder rate, the difference between European and american murder rates is really negligible. Percentage wise it is a big difference but in reality it really isn't that big of a difference it really is negligible difference. For example lets say we both have 100,000 cars each and I have 1 black car and you have 5 black cars, out of a 100,000 cars is you having 4 more black cars that much more? Nope, it is negligible. Lets go by the quality of a product, again we both have 100,000 cars, I have 1 broken car per 100,000 and you have 5 broken cars per 100,000, is that additional 4 more cars out of 100,000 really that much more? Nope it is negligible.
The reason isn't guns, the reason is the drug war. I can tell you right now that if the US was to end their drug war, especially against marijuana, that it will have a greater impact on lowering murder and all other types of crime, violent and nonviolent, then any gun law could ever hope to achieve. Take for example Mexico and its violence, is that because of guns or is it because of drugs? I can tell you right now that confiscating someone's guns in Iowa will have no effect on gun crime or just crime in general in LA, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC. etc.
Most gun murders in the US is caused by the illegal drug industry.
In what way would making them illegal protect the innocent when the criminal can still get the gun. That would be like saying if I make marijuana illegal I can get rid of it, or if I make prostitution illegal I can end it. It will never go away it just gets pushed underground.
As for not protecting the Innocent: "DETROIT (WXYZ) Feb 21, 2011- A Detroit pizza delivery man turned the tables on three would be crooks Sunday night. The driver for Papas Pizza shot and killed one of the men who attempted to ambush and rob him around 10 PM. The address provided was a vacant home on the 20000 block of McCormick on Detroits east side, one block from the border of Harper Woods."
To read more search: pizza delivery man fights back after being ambushed kills robber
Posted in: 4 dead, 8 wounded in shooting at IHOP restaurant in Nevada
-4
Noliving
Not really, it is nothing more than perception. For example in Germany there is an estimated 1.5 million legally owned firearms, yet the estimate for illegally owned firearms is over 8.5 million. Just like with drug, prostitution, and gambling laws, all it does when you make them illegal is just drive them underground it doesn't actually lower their presence which is the case with Germany. All the gun laws have done in Europe is just sweep guns under the rug or put them in the shadows, not actually reduced their presence. Also when you consider the fact that over 99.999% of gun owners don't kill someone or injure someone in the US I would argue that in fact they are acting very civilized with their guns.
That depends on the situation, what is the range, are they hiding behind an object? Also is the goal to kill or to just wound the animal? Ask yourself this though, if your being attacked by an animal are you really going to be asking yourself: "I hope this weapon isn't overkill for what I'm defending against", you can't be seriously saying that you would stop and think for a moment about whether or not a gun is to much for the predator that is currently stalking/attacking you. Desert Eagles that are .375, .44 or .50AE make excellent hunting/defense firearms for deer/elk, bears, mountain lions, and moose. Lets be honest here, how often are desert eagles found/used in a crime scene? Very rarely if ever and the reason for that is because they are just to big, it is almost impossible to conceal them effectively. Most of the time when someone is charged with a gun crime with a desert eagle it is because they are in illegal possession of it not because they actually assaulted someone with it. The only people who really own such a weapon are collectors or big game hunters.
If it is to be used for hunting, target shooting, self-defense or in the unlikely event a revolution against a tyrannical government then no it is not ridiculous. That may have been its sole purpose when they were originally created but multiple purposes such as sport/target shooting have become a purpose for gun design.
Which laws? Gun Laws don't need to be change really I mean murder is already illegal same with assault, what needs to change is a culture that says if someone disrespects you you need to assault/kill/(get back at) that person. Meaning if someone disrespects you in order to get any type of respect back from the community you need to assault/kill that person. Think of it like honor killing, you have to attack the "person" that "took" away your honor and in order to get it back from the community you have to kill that woman. You can make honor killing illegal but until the culture actually stops believing in honor killing it is still going to happen. That is what needs to change not gun laws, and I know I'm not being politically correct here but that type of mentality is prevalent in the black ghetto areas. And why is it that way? Because the people there only have "respect", they have nothing, no job, no education, no future as a result the only thing worth anything to these people is respect and when you take their respect away, by disrespecting them of course, you have taken everything away from them, meaning in their minds they have nothing to lose if they decide to attack/kill you.
If any law needs to change it is drug laws in the US. That will have more effect on gun crime and all other violent and non violent crimes in the US than any gun law ever will.
Posted in: 4 dead, 8 wounded in shooting at IHOP restaurant in Nevada
0
Noliving
Man I'm in the wrong profession.
Posted in: New Zealand's legal brothels gear up for busy World Cup
0
Noliving
Based off of US gun crime and gun suicide figures compared to the total number of gun owners and the number of guns in the US that couldn't be further from the truth.
Posted in: 4 dead, 8 wounded in shooting at IHOP restaurant in Nevada
1
Noliving
No it doesn't, 85% of US counties report an average annual rate of murder of 0. The vast majority of gun crime or just crime in general is in the inner part of major cities like: LA, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Washington D.C.
The issue isn't gun laws, the issue is the lack of enformcent of the current gun laws. The gun laws are strong enough already, they are just not heavily enforced. In fact gun laws wouldn't even make that much a difference, states like New Hampsire which have pretty much no guns laws have a murder rate of around 1 per 100k.
No they are not banned. Technically a true assault rifle has a fully automatic mode, which you can still legally buy in the US but they are extremely expensive. Chances are this was a semi-automatic rifle that fired the same caliber and looked like an AK. Banning assault rifles wouldn't make much of a difference anyways, they make up on average around 1% of all gun crime, in fact rifles on average only make up 3% of all gun crime in the US. Around 86% of all gun crime is with a semi-automatic pistol or a revolver of some sort and then about 11% of gun crime is committed with a shotgun.
Posted in: 4 dead, 8 wounded in shooting at IHOP restaurant in Nevada
0
Noliving
I don't think people realize just how safe the Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq were, which is where these American's went hiking. Kurdish controlled areas in a lot of ways were just as safe as Europe or North America. The Insurgency just simply didn't exist in the Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq.
Posted in: Iran sentences 2 American hikers to 8 years in jail
0
Noliving
Nothing will happen. I love how people think that if the US stop providing Israel with 3 billion dollars that Israel would change their behavior. They won't. Israel knows they can win a war with or without US 3 billion dollars in aid. It won't change anything.
Posted in: Egypt protests to Israel over police deaths
0
Noliving
Because Iraq has been debating about whether or not to extend the US troop presence in Iraq and the US is saying that they have to make a decision very soon because there is a point of no return coming up where if they don't make a decision in time the US will withdraw its remaining forces by December of 2011 even if the Iraqi government asks for it to extend the duration of some US military forces. I can't remember when this point of no return exactly is but I have heard that the Iraqi government needs to make a decision either by the end of August or the end of September or else the US is going to leave by December no matter what.
It is important to note that the US is sticking to the deal. The US has yet to deviate from the deal. Iraq though on the other hand may deviate from the deal because of gaps in their defense capabilities.
Posted in: No deal yet on U.S. troops staying in Iraq
0
Noliving
I tried to warn you Oracle about SmithinJapan on another thread. Basically all SmithinJapan does in a debate is purposely misrepresent people's points. Just ignore his posts if you can.
Sourpuss, don't waste your time on SmithinJapan. All he is going to do is just misrepresent your points, it is just best not to reply to him.
Posted in: SlutWalk comes to Washington
8
Noliving
Mike for the love of god apologize to this woman.
Posted in: Was I a date, a friend or just a potential English teacher?
-1
Noliving
See this is the type of misrepresentation I'm talking about Oracle. Oh you can also add lucabrasi as one who has probably said it as well.
Posted in: Shoplifter injures four in knife attack in Kumamoto