Noliving's past comments

  • 0


    By eliminating them. Australia did it.

    No they didn't considering the fact that Australia today has just as many if not more firearms today than at the time of the Port Arthur massacre.

    Guns kill. Less guns means less deaths. Less guns is good.

    Seeing as this logic basically applies to everything that then means that we should have less of everything.

    Posted in: Former Marine kills 3 Baton Rouge police officers, wounds 3 others

  • -2


    Micah used cop-killer bullets which cops, for obvious reasons, have wanted banned for years - but the GOP refuses to bring it up for a vote

    No he didn't use armor piercing rounds. Shotguns and rifles will go through Type-IIIa body armor because that body armor is only designed to stop pistol calibers, not long guns. Type IV and Type V are designed to stop long guns and only swat teams have that type of body armor.

    So you are left with two options, either you ban all longs guns or you provide all law enforcement officers with Type 4 and Type 5 body armor.

    It's engineered to pierce armored vests. Technically, they're know as Teflon-coated bullets. Because conventional bullets, made primarily from lead, often become deformed and less effective after striking hard targets, coating them with substances such as Teflon allow them to more efficiently penetrate such objects as car doors and armored vests.

    Ah yes the old Teflon coated bullet myth. Teflon coated bullets have less penetrative power when impacting Nylon and Kevlar and the reason for that is because the Teflon is designed to cause the bullet to grip better to the surface it hits. Well in body armor the whole point of kevlar and nylon is to act like a spider web in that it is supposed to grab the bullet, so you have fabrics that are designed to act like spiderwebs and then you factor in that the Teflon coating is grip or stick the bullet to what it hits, especially if it hits at an oblique angle. So guess what the end result is then? If you answered that it reduces the penetrative power of a bullet when it impacts nylon and kevlar vests you would be correct.

    The only time Teflon improves the penetration power is when it hits a hard surface like glass or metal, primarily at oblique angles because the Teflon results in the bullet gripping the surface instead of ricocheting off of it.

    Posted in: Former Marine kills 3 Baton Rouge police officers, wounds 3 others

  • 1


    Well regulated = registration for any new gun translation in a database like with a car registration.

    Cars are registered to generate tax revenue to pay for the maintenance of roads, not as a means to deter criminal usage of cars or to make people drive safer. Plus there is zero evidence that the registration of cars in and of itself results in people driving safer and deters criminals from using cars to commit crimes or to facilitate crimes with cars. Perhaps you can find the studies that prove your claim. Finally are you honestly claiming that there have been times when you wanted to physically harm people with a car but was stopped only because your car was registered?

    It's the difference between one in a thousand and one in one hundred thousand. I think that's significant.

    Well one it isn't and two the odds of person dying in the USA from all causes put together is 1 in 8,000 annually. See if you have a one in thousand chance each year that means it would take you 1000 years on average before it would actually happen and when you consider that the average life span of a human is between 70-100 years old it is irrational and more importantly impractical to make decisions on ownership of products or experiencing of news things based off of such odds, you are not really gaining any real practical benefits.

    Finally the odds are far greater that you will die from Alcohol than you are to die from guns, do you consider that enough reason to more heavily regulate Alcohol or to even ban Alcohol or voluntarily give up Alcohol? I doubt you do.

    Posted in: 'The Voice' singer Christina Grimmie dies after shooting

  • -7


    Is that figure correct? If we restrict just to homicides involving firearms, according to wikipedia there were 11,208 in 2013. Assume they were done by separate people. If there are 100,000,000 gun owners, thats's 0.11208% of the gun owning population killing people.

    Meh..Either way it is a fraction of a fraction of one percent of the gun owning population killing someone which means claiming the gun owning population in the USA is not well regulated is just not true and is basically hyperbolic BS.

    And yes you are correct the figure is incorrect, on the low end of the gun owning population it would be 0.14% not the 0.0014% I stated earlier.

    Posted in: 'The Voice' singer Christina Grimmie dies after shooting

  • -17


    Failed gun policy. End of story.

    Crime statistics would indicate other wise, gun homicides are down nearly 49% in the past 20 years, non-fatal gun assaults are down 69%.

    "Well Regulated Militia" again...

    Well there are around 70-100+ million gun owners in the USA, if each gun death and gun assault was committed by a different person that would be around 100,000 people at most out of 70-100 million gun owners. Which means at most 0.0014% of the gun owning population are committing crimes which is a very low number. So yes it would appear it is a well regulated militia.

    God HELP America.

    Get a grip.

    Posted in: 'The Voice' singer Christina Grimmie dies after shooting

  • 1


    Interesting that you focus on 'grade school'. I wonder why you don't include high school and university?

    Because high school is grade school in the USA. Depending upon your definition it is grades 9th or 10th-12th.

    As for colleges/universities, Stranger was talking about children not adults.

    And I wonder where you pulled that particular statistic from? According to the Pew Research Centre, a poll in 2013 showed that nearly half - 48% - of gun-owners in the US have a gun for 'protection'; 2% 'because it's their constitutional right/they support the 2nd Amendment'; 2% don't know why they have a gun; 32% use guns for hunting; 2% are collectors and 7% have guns for target/sport shooting. Even if you consider killing wild (or in many cases, canned★) furry/feathery things for fun 'recreational' rather than highly malicious, it's obvious that guns are not overwhelmingly primarily used for recreation. People have guns, those people say, for protection. They're scared.

    Easy - I said owned for non-malicious reasons and is overwhelming used for recreation. The vast majority of those that own firearms for protections are far more likely to use the firearm for target shooting then they are for self defense or to assault/kill someone, much less themselves, for malicious reasons.

    If you own a firearm then you will use it at some point for target shooting. Also there are multiple reasons one can have, the poll is only allowing one answer which would be the primary reason but people who a firearm primarily for self defense can also own it because they enjoy target shooting and the opposite is true, someone who owns one for target shooting doesn't mean they won't or can't use one in the event they need to use physical force to defend themselves.

    That works out at fewer than 10,000 gun deaths per year. In 2015 over 13,000 were killed by firearms (not including suicides), so your figures are off there, too.

    Your own link says this:

    The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000

    So in other words according to your own link the per capita gun homicide rate was just under three thousandths of one percent.

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • -1


    In this case, they are the ones whose opinion should matter the most, as they are the ones who have been most affected by the legality of guns, and they are the group that will keep increasing in numbers as long as guns are legal. Their opinion doesn't help you keep guns legal, nor does it help you keep the policies and laws the way they are, which is why you are discrediting their opinion.

    Stranger how does pointing out that mass killers don't have a personal grudge against children in general when they attack a school and are most likely doing it for the fame mean you or I are attempting to discredit their opinion? Explain that one.

    But kids get shot and murdered while trying to learn.

    The homicide rate at USA grade schools is basically the same as the developed world, for example the homicide rate of the UK grade schools was basically the same if not slightly higher this past year and half than the USA.

    Are they now? You are the one who made the comparison, and none of the rest of us are stupid enough to think that, so you can only be talking about yourself then.

    When you have two products that over 99.9%, literally, are used for non-malicious reasons and are overwhelmingly primarily used for recreation when in the hands of the civilians is what makes them an equivalent. To suggest that the only thing that can makes products an equivalent is what they were designed for is just intellectually dishonest.

    Different enjoyment. One is enjoying practicing murder and killing. The other isn't. Apple and orange.

    Really? You believe that every single target shooter or even the vast majority of those target shooting, especially those tourists from Europe, East Asia, Japan and China especially, when they go to a gun range their primary motivation is to practice homicide and killing?

    Would you say those that practice the sport of fencing are just practicing to murder and kill by stabbing? How about the Olympic fencers? Heck about the Olympians that are target shooters at the games, whether it be with bow or a gun.

    Lets say you are correct, what is the conversion rate then of those who target shoot? We already know that the gun death rate(Suicides, accidents, and homicides) is one hundredth of one percent and if you include those wounded then it it is three hundredths of one percent. So are we talking about 1%? 10%? or are we talking about something is a fraction of a fraction of one percent?

    I'm annoyed of the attempts at gun lovers who are willing to let children die so that they can have their steel phalluses to try to pretend that other things that aren't made for killing are even remotely equivalent.

    This is coming from a person who is willing to let more children die from Alcohol so that he can get his rocks off of on Alcohol.

    Do you honestly believe it helps your argument that more children die from something that isn't designed to kill people than from something that is? Do you honestly think it helps your argument that the vast majority of gun owners don't hurt people? Do you honestly think it helps your argument that gun owners send less people to the hospital then people who drink Alcohol?

    I will say it again, to claim that the only thing that matters when claiming products are equivalent to one another is what they were originally designed for is just intellectually dishonest.

    the only reason I don't approve of gun is because they take people's lives. Kids get murdered at school. Kids murder each other. Kids kill each other accidentally because their parents are too stupid to not have a gun in the house.

    Then you should have no problem acknowledging that if your goal is to save lives then what something is designed to do is irrelevant because a premature death is a premature death regardless of its cause.

    And I notice you still don't answer the question on whether you prefer to live in a society where criminals have more or less guns.

    I prefer to live in a world where criminals have less access to weapons of any type, I prefer to live in a world where criminals have less access to any items that they could wield/use for malicious reasons.

    With that being said I have to weigh the increase in odds of something bad happening because of the increase access vs the amount of people using those things for non-malicious reasons.

    In this case of firearms we know that with a gun ownership rate of 32-50% it has resulted in a three thousandth of one percent of the USA population being murdered on an annual basis and two hundredths of one percent physically wounded.

    In general if you have a product that is owned by 32-50% of the population for non-malicious reasons and it results in a similar number of people being murdered and wounded then I would say that is an acceptable cost. How about you Stranger?

    And that is a good enough reason to never even think about banning gun possession by civilians??? Definitely the stupidest in the world when it comes to guns. …Yeah it is so stupid that as a result one hundredth of one percent of its population is killed by it each year......

    So Jane what you are saying is that you believe Alcohol should be banned then? Or do you believe that the amount of people dying from Alcohol is an acceptable cost to enjoy Alcohol if push came to shove in terms of keeping Alcohol legal?

    I am lost for words. An overwhelming logic indeed!

    Yeah it is, who could have ever imagine that people refuse to let the odds of something that small dictate how they will live their lives. Is it morally and ethically wrong Jane to say that something that has the odds of like 1 out of 50,000 chance annually of hurting/killing you is acceptable?

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • -3


    I see. So the pro-gun stance is that the feelings of parents of kids murdered by guns don't matter. Got it.

    That is quite a leap Stranger, I never said that the feelings don't matter entirely. I'm saying that having a test that every single statement or comment or opinion on every single topic that involves people being injured or killed that has to make the family and friends of those impacted feel better doesn't help the conversation nor move it forward a single inch nor does it help make better policies/laws. If anything it does the complete opposite.

    If you allow cars, society doesn't collapse. If you allow knives, people can cook. If you allow alcohol, people will enjoy themselves. if you allow computers, society doesn't collapse.

    And allowing firearms a society doesn't collapse either. Do you honestly think a country like the USA where the economy is growing, unemployment rate is going down, crime is going down, and the population is growing is a sign that the USA collapsing?

    You can cook using non metal knives Stranger and if even if you couldn't cook you can eat a lot of foods raw and survive. Society didn't collapse before the invention of electrical computers.

    If you allow guns, children die. Mothers die. Fathers die. Grandparents die. Friends die.

    That is true with every single product, if you allow Alcohol children will die, Mothers will die, Fathers will die, grandparents will die, friends will die. If you allow cars people and animals will die.

    Just say it Stranger, you believe that their deaths are an acceptable cost so that you can enjoy Alcohol and so you can have the freedom to not have to use public transportation. God forbid anyone ever say the samething about any other product that kills less than Alcohol, especially if that product was originally designed to kill but is overwhelming used for non-malicious reasons.

    If you don't allow knives, people cannot cook.

    You can cook food just fine using non-metallic knives. Heck at the very basic definition of cooking you don't even need a knife of any type. You just need a heat source.

    Can we drop this ridiculous attempt at comparing guns to things that aren't built to kill?

    It is not a ridiculous attempt at all. If your goal is to save lives then it is irrelevant if a product is designed to kill or not because a premature death is a premature death regardless of its cause.

    No one is stupid enough to think they are an equivalent

    Yes they are, they are both(Alcohol and guns) overwhelmingly used for non-malicious reasons. Firearms especially. They both are primarily used in civilian hands for recreation. They both result in premature deaths, Alcohol kills more than firearms do. If you claim that your primary motivation to get rid of guns is to save lives then you will have no problem explaining how your distinction will have a practical impact on reducing premature deaths.

    Do you honestly think that by claiming something is not designed to kill that that point by itself will cause that said product to begin killing less people either today or tomorrow because of it? If I was to to go to you and say Alcohol is not designed to kill do you honestly think that on a practical level starting today or tomorrow that Alcohol will begin to kill less people because of it? Or that it makes the deaths caused by Alcohol any less premature?

    If the answer is no then it would be a fair statement to say that the distinction has zero practical benefits to the goal of saving lives and that it is really nothing more than a euphemism for saying I believe that the premature deaths caused by such things are an acceptable cost so that I own an enjoy those said products, correct?

    it's just an attempt by the gun lovers to deflect from the fact that guns have no positive effect on society.

    The same benefits that people get from recreational Alcohol consumption are the same benefits people get when using a firearm for recreation at a range or for the most part any recreation that people do. If you honestly believe that they have zero positive effect on society then you believe that the gun ranges that Japanese tourists go to in Guam and Hawaii have zero positive impact on society, really? You believe that the Minnesota High school clay target shooting league has zero positive effects on the people that participate in it. You believe that Harvard University Target shooting team that competes competitively has zero positive impacts. How about paintball and air-soft leagues, they have zero positive impacts?

    Don't insult our intelligence by claiming otherwise

    Why are you so afraid to have your intelligence insulted?

    or make your self look stupid, by putting forth stupid arguments.

    The only person here who would look stupid is the person who can't acknowledge that people all around the world use firearms for recreation and can go their entire lives and never hurt anyone with a firearm.

    The only person here who would look stupid is the one that can't acknowledge or admit that they believe that the lives lost for recreational alcohol is an acceptable cost to enjoy alcohol.

    The only person here who would look stupid is the one who beats on and on about how something is designed to kill yet deliberately ignores the fact that over 99% of the owners of said product won't use it for those reasons thus wasting everyone's time on said argument.

    The only person here who would look stupid is the one who claims that it is relevant if something is designed to kill or not if their goal is to save lives. Any intelligent person would know that the distinction has zero practical benefits to saving lives, it doesn't magically make a product safer in the future, it doesn't magically reduce the risk that the product currently poses. Nor does it mean that a product can't be just as deadly as something that is designed to kill.

    Everyone here knows that the reason why you want guns banned is not to save lives but to get rid of something you don't approve of. You don't care about the people who die from firearms, you never have, you just don't like guns and whenever anyone calls you out on it your responses are distinctions that have zero practical benefits which means they are nothing more than euphemisms for saying: Yes I'm being a hypocrite but I will never admit to it.

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • -1


    Well that should make the parents of kids shot at school feel better.

    So what if it doesn't make them feel better? Not everything in this discussion or on any other discussion of any other topic should have to pass a "test" of does it make the relatives and friends of the victim feel better. Quite frankly there is probably a lot of truth to the statement that the people who do mass killings or attempt to do mass killings against elementary children in public are not doing it out of a hate for elementary children but rather for media attention that it brings.

    but what we are saying is that more criminals will have guns when they are legal. Is that what you want? More criminals with guns?

    Which now gets to the question of balance.

    If you allow cars more criminals will use cars in crimes and will use them to evade law enforcement. If you allow metal knives then more crimes will be committed metal knives, if you allow Alcohol then more people will commit crimes while intoxicated. If you allow computers then more computer/information crimes will be committed.

    Is that what you want Stranger? More criminals using cars to aid them in crimes, or using knives to commit crimes or people getting intoxicated and committing crimes?

    The answer of course is no, so again we come to the question of balance.

    Do we believe that the benefits brought by a metal knife out weigh the additional crimes committed by metal knives when they are legal and could easily be replaced by plastic knives.

    Do we believe that the benefits of private car ownership out weigh all the additional crimes that are committed and aided by cars when they are legal when they could be replaced by public transportation.

    Do we believe that the benefits of recreational Alcohol intoxication outweigh all crimes that are committed by intoxicated people when all they would have to do is find a new hobby or drink.

    Sandyhook wasn't urban? Columbine wasn't urban?

    This may come as a surprise to you Stranger but NewTown, just over 27-28k in population, is considered a rural city.

    Columbine is considered suburban. I think his point is that school shooting are not really an urban thing they are more of a rural thing, and for the most part he is correct. Most school shootings do not take place within schools that are in a city but in the suburbs and rural parts of the nation.

    Two dead and injured in shooting Houston, TX shooting spree. I thought guns saved lives? Doesn't seem to be the case in gun happy Texas.

    They do, if it wasn't for law enforcement with firearms the death toll could very well be higher, especially when the attackers are randomly attacking people at will. Do you disagree that what happened today in Houston that if it wasn't for the firearms used by law enforcement the death toll most likely would have been higher today?

    If it wasn't for law enforcement guns at the Wisconsin prom event a few weeks ago the death toll probably would have been higher, same with the anti-Muslim rally in at a high school a few months ago.

    The idea that guns can never ever save innocent life is just BS.

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • -2


    You're ignoring the larger point,

    For good reason SuperLib, you were using incorrect information as a way to buttress the larger point. You would do the same.

    But the point is that gun supporters would help if they would let us know what kind of restrictions, if any, we could place on gun ownership.

    Using incorrect information isn't the best way to make that point.

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • 0


    “How could Trump possibly champion the collapse of the housing market and our economy?” U.S. Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio said on the call.

    Because as Trump said it was a bubble and financial bubbles are things you want to burst as soon as possible in order to limit the economic damage they do.

    "The economic collapse of 2008 wiped out $7.4 trillion in stocks, $3.4 trillion in real estate and 5.5 million jobs, according to a report from the Pew Charitable Trusts. It cost the average American household $5,800 in lost income. The effects were felt worldwide amid fears of a global financial meltdown, a Second Great Depression, brought about by too-big-to-fail-banks playing the U.S. economy like a Vegas casino. Some experts say the threat of a relapse endures." citation above

    Do you seriously honestly believe that the executive office, regardless of who is in it, has that much power over the US economy?

    Posted in: Clinton blasts Trump for cheering housing bubble burst

  • -2


    Only a complete moron thinks you need even ONE; just ask the parents of the kid who shot herself the other day, or the thousands upon tens of thousands of parents or children, brothers, sisters, etc. who lose their loved ones every year (yes, EVERY year), because they 'need guns'.

    What is your point about needs Smith? That the only things people should own or use are "needs"? Can you honestly say that you live your life on the very basic of needs? If you don't can you honestly say that the things that you own that are not needs have not already or will eventually cause a person to lose their life, either from the manufacturing/assembling of the product to harvest of the raw materials to make the product in the first place to even the transportation of the product to the shelf.

    88,000 people die every single year from Alcohol in the USA. More people die from Alcohol on a per capita basis in basically every developed nation than firearms kill people(Suicide, accidents, and homicides) on a per capita basis in the USA.

    So what?

    Nor do they help in school shootings. Arming people in the school wouldn't help one bit, either; it'd just be more death.

    If you seriously believe that Smith then why bother to call law enforcement when you see someone in civilian clothing with a firearm? Especially if you see them on school grounds. Why even bother to call law enforcement then if you honestly believe that?

    You guys care more about the guns than the lives, and that's all there is to it.

    So what if people do Smith? In order for anything to be legal you have to accept that a product or service will eventually result in someone dying because of it.

    If the only acceptable cost to own a product, or use a service or engage in a behavior is zero deaths and or injuries then we are all going to live very boring lives.

    Do you really blame people for saying that if a product in general is owned by 32-50% of the adult population purely for recreation and it results in one hundredth of one percent of the population dying annually because of it that they find that to be an acceptable cost? Do you really blame people for saying that?

    Proof of that is in the fact that you would kill people, not to protect yourself, but to 'protect the guns'

    Because he feels that in the event that the government becomes tyrannical that the civilian population will need firearms in order to fight back.

    Don't pretend you care about lives.

    You have made repeated calls for restrictions to be put on firearm ownership and use as well as been highly condescending to owners of firearms in several threads. You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in/own throughout society.

    Get over yourself. You do not care about lives either.

    I know they often point to mental health but they also do things like barring doctors from asking a patient if they have a gun in the house

    @SuperLib - Yeah that isn't true. Doctors can ask if the patient has a gun in the house, what they can't do is badger the patient into revealing that information. See the reason the law came about is because of a Florida doctor that was treating a patient that had nothing to do with gun shot wounds or injury caused by a firearm and when the family stated they were not going to answer that question for privacy reasons the doctor basically went to them and said he wasn't going to provide anymore future medical services after the current round of treatment for refusing to answer a question that had nothing to do with the current treatment he was providing. Now in the doctor's defense he did say that he did this as well with other things, most notably a swimming pool, that if people didn't answer such questions, like during a routine physical or for vaccinations, he would stop providing medical services to them.

    So this law doesn't prevent them from asking the question it just prevents them for badgering or forcing the patients to provide information that is not relevant to the treatment they are receiving in order to further receive future medical care.

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • -11


    Most of these school shootings happen outside the gun free zones. Has there ever been a school shooting stopped because someone had a gun?

    Well there was that prom shooting just a few weeks ago in Wisconsin but that wasn't exactly at a school but it was a school sponsored event that was stopped by someone with a gun....

    Then you also had that Texas school shooting where you had an anti-islam rally that was attacked.

    Or is that too far outside the box?

    Well it is obviously too far outside the box considering no nation, including Japan has gotten rid of gun ownership.

    Only in the US is it the 'better' option to have these kind of drills in schools than just to get rid of guns.

    Do you seriously think that is a practical option in a nation of 300+ million firearms, and over 10 million being manufactured annually?

    Quite frankly I think the drills are irrational, if you take the 57 divided by 13 you get just over 4 homicides per year or a 0.01 per 100,000 gun homicide rate at schools from firearms, which is basically the same homicide rate at schools for the UK and Canada, to further put that into perspective more children die on school sport teams than from gun homicides on average.

    The American school homicide rate is really not any higher than other developed nations.

    Definitely the stupidest in the world when it comes to guns.

    Yeah it is so stupid that as a result one hundredth of one percent of its population is killed by it each year......

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • 0


    I thought the below quoted comment is an interesting comment on NYT site, I think the part where she says that Trump vocalizes what other men think is pretty much true: I would say for the vast majority of men in the world at some point or another we have had those thoughts about women that he is vocalizing.

    I am a feminist and a Democrat and I passionately oppose Trump's candidacy for president. That said, I don't find this article helpful. First, Trump openly expresses the thoughts that other men have but don't vocalize. They lack Trump's power and prestige, so they keep these things to themselves. We are not talking about a small percentage either. Look at how many men across the country watch porn. Once again, Trump will score points for saying and doing what other people wish they could. Great.

    Second, any woman in America who has gotten involved in a co-ed organization (work, internships, even higher education) has experienced things like this. It's part of life. Deal with it and do your part to make change, like raising your sons to respect women. I was first propositioned by an older, more powerful man than I when I was 16. Thanks to my father, in whom I confided, I came out unscathed. It was scary and it left an unsettling memory, enough so that I found my heart pounding in anxiety when I unexpectedly passed him on a staircase a few years later (thankfully, he walked right by me without any sign of recognition).

    This experience has repeated itself several times since. Each instance made me stronger and more able to fend for myself as a woman. Were the experiences unpleasant, uninvited, and unsettling? Yes. But they are part of life. Sorry, but this article fails to indict Trump for anything other than crude behavior that women encounter every day.

    Posted in: Trump has a history of questionable behavior with women: NY Times

  • -1


    But America has made bigger and more mistakes than most countries. And many of those mistakes have been in recent history, unlike most countries.

    That is almost entirely due to the fact that the USA was the sole country that was in a position to make decisions that could have those types of results if they went awry, for most countries it wasn't for lack of trying but a lack of capacity to even make such important decisions in the first place and someone has to make those types of decisions.

    Look at China in the south china sea, if that goes awry for them it is going to be a big problem, same for the USA.

    No Vietnam War. No Korean War. No Iraq "Wars" No bloodbath in the Middle East.

    Considering how the North Korea turned out I think everyone would agree that the Korean war was well worth it, especially when looking at the success of South Korea. Desert Storm was worth it, the second Iraq war for now is not worth it but in the future it may in fact become worth it. Vietnam war was already a bloody war before the USA got involved and it had already been going on for at least a decade.

    The truth of the matter is that the USA role in securing the international sea trade lanes has been immensely positive for the entire world.

    Posted in: Do you agree with U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump's call for Japan to drastically increase its financial contribution to maintain American military bases?

  • -1


    I'm guessing it's probably safer as well.

    Oh god, as the article states there are 8-9 million tourists and all you can show is at most 2 grand total incidents of robbery and one assault per year. So in other words you have 1 violent crime per 2.67-3 million people. If you honestly think you are not safe with those statistics then you are being grossly irrational.

    Posted in: Japanese tourist returns to Niagara Falls to testify against attacker

  • 3


    An employee that bitches or moans about punctuality is probably not one that is worth keeping around anyway.

    Depends, is it one of those where you show up five minutes late every day but you have meetings that start the minute you were supposed to be at work or is it more like during those five minutes you would be turning on your computer starting up outlook?

    It's about punctuality, and if you think the "boss" is wrong for expecting it I disagree. IF a company has rules about it, deal with it,

    They are dealing with it by pushing back.

    Posted in: Newly hired Japanese list 5 business manners they find unnecessary

  • -1


    Serious examination of gun violence and gun regulation has been outlawed by the NRA and the accomplices in the US Congress. The five murders are not about race. They are about access to weapons designed for military assault and the GOP/Tea has eliminated all research and scientific analysis of gun violence at the demand of the NRA. This is a fact.

    It is not outlawed at all, if universities and other NGOs want to spend their own money on gun violence research they can, it is perfectly legal to do that. All that has happened is that federal government can't fund a gun violence research project where its conclusion explicitly state or call for gun control. In other words if they did research breaking down the sex and age of the people most likely to be the perpetrators of gun violence but didn't explicitly call for an age restriction as a result of their findings then the government could in fact provide funding for that research.

    But not having guns makes it harder to murder.

    That is a true statement with every object, it is harder to kill someone if you don't possess anything.

    That one is different. Junkies will buy heroin because they are junkies, and physically and mentally addicted. Gun addicts don't have that physical addiction, and the huge majority aren't going to rob their families to get money to buy a gun. So it's not really an equivalent comparison.

    Marijuana isn't addictive and yet you have more people breaking the law than heroin junkies.

    And America has a major problem with it - so guns should be removed to minimize the number of deaths that come from that lawless behavior.

    Ah more hyperbole, how is a one hundredth of one percent mortality rate of the population a huge problem?

    America has a bigger problem with Alcohol then it does with firearms in terms of the number of deaths, emergency room visits and violent crimes committed by people intoxicated. Do you believe that Alcohol should be removed to minimize the number of deaths comes from that lawless behavior?

    How lawless do you think America is?

    So why make any law? Why consider the source of poisoned water? Poisoned air?

    To act as a guideline or best practices, especially for people who do not have malicious intentions. For people who have malicious intentions rules/laws are worthless, the only thing that stops people with malicious intentions is violence/force, and that is where law enforcement comes into play, to use force/violence against people who don't comply.

    Rules/laws that make illegal the ownership of a product or service only really apply to those with malicious intentions. If you are someone who doesn't have malicious intentions then the law really shouldn't apply to you, it does really nothing to improve public safety.

    Getting tough on gun crimes means people get punished after they shoot someone in the face. Getting tough on guns means they can't shoot someone in the face, for which they can be punished. Getting tough on gun crime and not guns is treating the symptom, not the problem.

    Same argument used on drugs and yet it doesn't work on a practical basis. Gun violence is not evenly distributed among the population of gun owners. Gun violence, and violence in general, is extremely concentrated among a very a very small population of the larger population. For example Sweden found that 1% of its population is responsible for nearly 63% of its crime. I believe it is estimated that just over 400 people in the NYC metropolitan population of over 10 million+ people is responsible for around 40-50% of all gun crimes. Research has shown that in general that 5-8% of criminal population is responsible for around 50% of all violent crime.

    In other words arresting people who commit the violent crimes has a much bigger impact on reducing violent crime then getting rid of firearms that are owned by non violent people. Confiscating the firearms of Montana ranchers does nothing for the gun crimes in Chicago; just like how confiscating the guns in Hawaii does nothing for the gun crime in LA California or Washington D.C.

    Getting tough on guns or gun crime is treating the symptom and not the cause.

    Posted in: Manhunt underway in Pittsburgh area after 5 partygoers shot dead

  • 1


    Bunch of HYPOCRITE, Japan and US are pushing the world to WW3.

    Where is anyone criticizing China for increasing its military spending? All people are criticizing China for is its bullying nature when dealing with other nations in the south china sea.

    Posted in: China to boost military spending by 7-8%

  • -1


    Why should semi autos like the AR be legal?

    Why should they be illegal? Because they result in around 100 or less deaths annually in a population of over 320 million people? If so it is your position that in general a hobby or recreational that results in 100 deaths in a population of 320 million should be banned or made illegal?

    How about a machine gun. Why do you want one of those?

    Because they are fun to shoot......Why do you want Alcohol? Because it is fun to consume, never mind the fact that Alcohol kills more people on a per capita basis in all of the developed world than firearms do in the USA.

    Gun nutters don't care about the kids, they just care about this incident because it might cause something to come between them and their prescious, prescious guns. The thought of not having the ability to instantly kill someone makes them worry about how they will be able to function in society.

    Neither do you SuperLib, you would rather see children dying from Alcohol than give up Alcohol. If the only acceptable cost to enjoy a product, service, or recreational activity is zero children killed and zero children injured then we are all going to live very boring lives.

    Seeing as Alcohol kills more children than firearms do on a per capita basis in the USA and pretty much in every developed country and you are OK with the body count you can't really complain about gun owners saying an even smaller number is an acceptable cost to enjoy their firearms.

    Gun supporters see no link at all between easy access to guns and tens of thousands of gun shootings each year. As long as that's the case, we might as well just accept that some kids will have their heads blown off every now and then and just move on with our lives.

    Gee you have a population where 32-50% of them own firearms and that ownership results in at best a one hundredth of one percent increase in the morality of the entire population and they consider it acceptable. Wow who could have seen that one coming.

    Do seriously blame people for saying that if you have a product that is owned by 32-50% of population and it results in a one hundredth of one percent of the population being killed and two hundredths of one percent being wounded that they would say that is an acceptable cost? Do you seriously blame them for saying that?

    Alcohol kills more children on a per capita basis in the USA than firearms do and sends over 10 times more children to the emergency room than firearms do and you consider their lives an acceptable cost so that you can enjoy the pleasures of recreational consumption of Alcohol.

    This idea is ridiculous. The US military is the most powerful military in the world, by a ridiculous amount. There is no way the people could mount a decent fight against the military if the military really wanted to stomp on them. That contest was lost decades ago.

    No not really, the USA military is around 1.5 million active with an additional 800k in reserve strength. Keep in mind that only around 10-25% of any nation's military is actually trained as infantry soldiers, which means front line combat, the rest are logistics and intelligence.

    So what this means is that you have a military strength that is at best ~500,000 front line soldiers trying to control a population of over 320 million people, about 200+million of which are over the age of 16. Then you factor in that the population is spread out over a land area on the continental side that is over 3,000 miles from LA to Boston and over 1,000 miles from say Minneapolis to Houston. Then you factor in that it is over 3,000 miles from Miami to Seattle. To put this distance into perspective the distance from Paris, France to Moscow, Russia is about the same distance from Anaheim to St.Louis.

    There is no question that if an uprising were to take place the the uprising forces would take a much higher casualty rate than the US military but then again the US military is too small and too spread out across the USA to be able to control a population of over 200+ million fighting age adults. Back during the US war of independence it was estimated that nearly 20% of the colonists took up arms against the British. If 20% of the 16 or older population was to take up arms against the USA government you would be looking at a force of over 40 million people versus a military force that at best has around 500,000 soldiers that are trained for front line combat.

    The real determining factor in who would win such a conflict really rests solely on how willing the uprising forces are to take casualties. If they have a very high tolerance then the sheer number of the civilian population would over whelm the USA military not to mention that they would be too spread out which means any military unit under siege in one part of the country would be hundreds of miles away from any real reinforcements to help and that could take hours for those reinforcements to come and those reinforcements would then leave the area they just left exposed.

    If that was a good reason, then why aren't they legal in all countries?

    They pretty much are for the most part in the developed world, Canada, USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, New Zeland, etc.

    But then again you are right Stranger, if something is not legal in all countries then it can't possible be good enough reason to make it legal in one country. I mean freedom of speech is not legal human right in all countries so all the arguments for freedom of speech are not good enough reasons because as you pointed out it would be a human right in all countries then. Gay marriage is not legal in all countries so the arguments for gay marriage are not good enough to then to make gay marriage legal seeing as it is not legal in all countries.

    How about just enforcing it? If you aren't part of a well regulated militia, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

    Well according to the constitution if you are a male you are automatically considered a member of the militia.

    its America. It seems that every other day there is a school shooting somewhere. I would have thought that people will have gotten used to it by now. Want to protect your right to bear arms? Well, there is a price to pay for that.

    You are aware that the US school homicide rate is ~0.027 per 100,000, which means the USA school homicide rate is basically the same as the UK's. In order for Australia to have a similar school homicide rate they would just need to have one homicide every other year or two every three years.

    The reason why it seems more common in the USA is because the USA school population, both grade and college level, is over 70 million people which means at the current per capita rate it would be just under 20 homicides a year. Considering the USA has basically 12 week summer vacation you have about 40 weeks of school which means you have about one homicide every two weeks. Even if the USA was to cut it homicide rate in half at schools to basically 0.0135 per 100,000 it would be hitting the news every month that school is in session, sometimes twice. The USA student population is so large that basically any homicide rate level will give the impression that homicides are more common in the USA when compared to countries that have much smaller populations, even though on a per capita level they are basically the same.

    Posted in: 14-year-old student opens fire in Ohio school cafeteria


Search the Largest English Job Board in Japan.

Find a Job Now!

View all

to Buy
in Japan

Find the perfect home today!