If the Islamic terrorists are killing people because it say in the Koran to kill non believers then why did they wait several hundreds of years before starting their campaign since modern terrorism dates from About 1983.
Because you don't know your history.......the Ottoman empire, the Abbasid Caliphate.....etc....
Then you also have the modern day Israel/Palestine conflict that as much as both sides like to claim is over territory has really become about religion.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
I can just imagine how this (woman) looks. Dyed hair, heels, short skirt...
So far she sounds attractive.....
How can you forget your daughter for five hours?? Kids that age are usually very noticeable!
Only when they are crying.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Looking forward to the trickle down to me! That's how it works right?
Yes, did you invest your money in Stocks/Equities of Japanese companies? If the answer is yes then absolutely it is trickling down to you.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I will believe it when I see it.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Your earlier comment about fun at the shooting range is specious, to say the least. Inane, more like it. I was the best marksman in my platoon, by the way, and I hate guns. They're for killing people and animals, the former a sin, the latter an ego-boost.
Lol how is it specious to say that people enjoy target shooting? Are you honestly claiming there is not a single person on this planet that doesn't enjoy target shooting? It is your opinion that guns can only be used for killing people and animals but that doesn't mean that people are under any obligation to only use it for those reasons.
The society south of the 49th parallel is anything but normal.
And it is nothing to be ashamed of.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Numerous respected polls from 2015 show around 90 percent support for some sort of expanded background checks for gun purchases.
I'm sorry but how is saying that you support background checks the same as saying you don't think the human cost is acceptable? I support the minimum drinking age being 21 that doesn't mean I don't think the human cost to enjoy alcohol isn't acceptable.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
80 years is too old for driving one ton plus trucks
That is a pretty small vehicle in terms of curb weight. My Subcompact ford fiesta weights more than one ton at a curb weight of around 2,500 pounds.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I think you have to show a link or poll that the gunshot death rate is acceptable to the majority of Americans which you introduced that it is an acceptable cost to enjoy firearms.
Here you go: Poll Finds That More Americans Back Gun Rights Than Stronger Controls
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Good heavens, what a V I O L E N T country America is. Why are they so U N A B L E to do anything about it?
In general the trend has been that violent crime is decreasing in the USA. So whatever they are doing seems to be working.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Not really if we look at the figures. The majority don't own a gun and 50% of the 300 million guns are owned by 3% of the adult population. So the majority don't enjoy using guns. Not sure who the death rates are acceptable to?
Just because someone doesn't own a product doesn't mean they disapprove of/don't enjoy the product; nor does it mean they don't enjoy target shooting when they rent a gun at the range or use a friend's or family member's gun at the range. All you are doing here is conflating ownership with approval/enjoyment of product, which is just being lazy.
Can you show me a poll where the majority of Americans believe all firearms should be completely banned for civilian ownership? I doubt you can.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
The gun crime archive for 2017 shows 19,916 incidents. 4,891 deaths. 9,614 injuries. 201 children 0-11 age killed or injured. 114 mass shootings........
Another day, another event in the American shooting gallery where they kill and wound for fun.
@Zichi - OK, so Americans have said that it is an acceptable cost to be able to own and enjoy firearms. What is wrong with that? It is not like the casualty rate is unprecedented to be able to use a product for recreation.
Just another day in 'Merika! Yee-haw! Thanks Trump and the NRA for making this not only possible, but a daily routine, guaranteed.
So what Smith? If Americans want to say those casualty rates are acceptable to enjoy firearms then what do you care? Like I said to Zichi it is not like these casualty rates are unprecedented.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
Yes but those figures are extremely skewed due to the massively unequal distribution of wealth in the world. The real 1% owns about 60 to 70% of the world's wealth
Yes that would be called net worth. Again if you make more than $32,400+ a year then you are in the top 1% of income earners. If you have a net worth of $770,000+ you are in the top 1% of net worth.
I take it you qualify for the top 1% of income earners in the world? I know I do.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I think holding the UK election bang in the middle of Ramadan could be a mistake, and we've already had a jihadi targeting politicians after he mowed down members of the public.
They would be targeting the UK politicians regardless of day.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
World wide if you make $32,400+ a year then you are in the 1% in terms of income of the entire world's population. If you have a net worth of around $770,000 then you are in 1% for net worth.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
It's been shown many times, the cost of keeping a death row inmate on death row for ten years is more than the cost it would be if they were a lifr.
That is entirely due to the fact that the prisoner has guaranteed appeals, multiple of them, if they choose to exercise them.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
What does China offer in terms of military hardware to the south koreans so they can defend themselves? I bet nothing.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Death penalty supporters like lethal injection because they feel they are killing someone in a humane way. Seriously.
And? This is the same rational we use when we euthanize our pets, is it not? We believe that by giving our pets a lethal injection that it is humane way for them to go instead of the guillotine, firing squad, electrocution, hanging, etc.
Do you disagree that giving our pets lethal injections is a humane way to euthanize them?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Even if the US were to leave the SDF would simply take their place, the locations is far to strategic to Japanese interests.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
So what age should the cutoff be?
How about the same age for cutoff that they have for commercial pilots?
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Makino, who has admitted to the charge, was quoted by police as saying he likes women to be obedient to him.
So basically it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone if he is ever arrested for domestic violence/homicide.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Stranger: Only to those who are too cold to care about children getting murdered. To the rest of us, it's an entirely strong argument - as strong as anything.
Children being murdered is more than just an emotional argument. It's entirely valid, and a good basis upon which to base laws and policies.
And what if as a result of those policies it resulted in more children dying, not necessarily from homicide, because of the diversion of resources? Counter-Terrorism is a perfect example of how it sucks up resources that could have been used for other purposes that most likely would have resulted in more people being saved. Or should I say that people who die from Terrorists are worth that much more than those who die but not from terrorists?
Stranger: Of course you won't - you see the right to own guns as more valuable than children's lives. In your own words, "so what", right?
So it would be fair to say Stranger that you believe that children who die from homicide are worth more than children who die from disease, accidents, suicides, etc. Correct? I can't say that I agree with that if that is the case.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It almost seems like they are visiting not to honor/remember those enshrined but to just simply get a rise out of China and Korea.
4 ( +7 / -3 )
Strangerland: Ahh, so we're not supposed to see murder and killing as something emotional. Thanks for further explaining your position on the matter. So what right? Only kids getting killed at school, nothing to get emotional about.
You can be emotional all you want but appeal to emotions arguments are not strong arguments and not only that but making rash decisions, especially policy decisions, based off of emotions does not make good policies/laws.
All you have to do for such examples is the sex offender registry, Afghan war, the patriot act, Iraq war, Libya war, Trump's refugee ban, people begging the Obama administration to ban people from west Africa due to the Ebola scare, etc.
I can't say that a child's life increases in value simply because they were killed on school grounds. Nor can I say a child murdered is worth more than a child that dies from an accident.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
What an interesting thought.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Not loving it. Can't find my own profile so that I can quickly access recent comments or discussions I am interesting in following up.
This is my biggest issue. But I do like preview system for new comments much better, especially the side by side view.
Another feature I would like is the ability change the email address that is associated to a displayed username or at the very least setup secondary email addresses. The issue I'm having is that my email address I use for this account no longer exists, in fact it hasn't existed for the past several years.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Well, I think that comment sums up your position. So what if we allow the people to own something that's primary purpose is killing? So what if people die because of that? It probably won't happen to me, so too bad for them.
@Stranger - Yes Stranger so what if we allow people to own products whose primary purpose is for killing when 99.9% of its owners don't use it to kill other people much less themselves on an annual basis. So what?
Like I said Stranger if the only acceptable cost to be able to own products, enjoy products or engage in cultural practices or hobbies or sports or whatever is zero dead and or wounded then we are all going to live very boring lives.
Can you name a single thing that has never ever resulted in someone being killed by it either directly or indirectly because of it? Can you name a single product that has only killed "guilty" people either directly or indirectly?
It's really the perfect argument for your side of the deal, insofar as there is no counter to it. If you don't care that other people will die as a result of the decision to allow people to arm themselves to kill, then there is no appeal to humanity to be made. It's a very American position. which is why you'll continue to see these killings until the end of time. Or the end of America. Whichever comes first.
@Strangerland - Appeals to "humanity" arguments are nothing more than red herrings fallacy appeals to emotions arguments.
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 don't care about these people's lives.
And yet the odds of one dying in a terrorist attack is even much smaller. Yet, conservatives like you want to discriminate and use every excuse in the book to not allow people who don't look like them to enter the U.S. Go figure.
@PeterL - I know, it is stupid. Neither party is willing to repeal the patriot act and it is frustrating that it hasn't been repealed yet. I think the refugee scare is BS. Oh and by the way I'm not a conservative. I believe in a single payer health care system, I believe in a single payer Trade/Vocational/College/University system. I also believe in a single payer food system. If Bernie Sanders would have registered as a write in candidate I would have wrote his name in.
In any case, you seem to disregard the percentage of you actually knowing anyone personally who will get killed or injured from a gun. Because if you do, then the percentages go higher. I for one have personally known someone who was killed by a gun, and though it wasn't me, it did affect me emotionally. That emotional impact on anyone should not go unnoticed or disregarded by anyone.
@PeterL - Would it make you feel any better to know that I'm already in that statistic? I had a classmate in high school who committed suicide with a handgun during our senior year. When we were younger we used to play in the local basketball league, in fact we were on the same team one year and that year our team went undefeated and we won the championship.
So what is the percentage then if we include those who know someone who has been impacted by guns?
In general what is to you an acceptable cost to be able to own things for recreation?
Mass shootings are expensive for everyone even though it probably won't happen to you. When you have to through two security check points to enter an amusement park (one bag check and one metal detector- yes, this exists) that creates cost just because rednecks want to be able to carry their non registered ARs around due to their low self esteem. Now schools are practicing gun drills which requires more training at the expense of the tax payer. Fire and tornado drills I understand. But now tax payers need to pay to implement these measures because of stories like this and Sandy Hook (by the way, who here thinks Sandy Hook was a hoax?). If more movie theaters have security checkpoints who pays for that? The US is becoming enslaved by security costs.
@Nishikat - So then isn't the answer that we are supposed to push back against people's irrational fear? The reason they are expensive is because of societies emotionally based rash decisions that are complete over reactions to the true level of threat that something poses, that is not a strong argument to do the security check points or the gun drills or gun registrations. It is the same thing with pandemics/epidemics and that is over 90% of the cost that society pays in containing them is simply due to societies overreacting to them.
This is why I want strict gun registration and restrictions like they do in Japan or Switzerland. And why do we need military style rifles anyway? What are you worried about? They are only good for mass shooting.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Registrations are a waste of money, there is basically no evidence that a gun registry in and of itself results in less gun homicides, assaults, suicides, and or accidents. There is no evidence that car registrations result in people driving safer or reduce the use of cars to facilitate or cause crimes. There is no evidence sex offender registries reduce sexual assaults, in fact there is some evidence to suggest that sex offender registries actually increase the recidivism rate of sex offenders. Look at the terrorist watch/no fly list, there is no evidence that it works.
I'm assuming you have heard of the amber alert system? If you have then you would know that it is waste of money, there is no evidence to support that it increases the odds of a child being found and returned either dead or alive after being kidnapped.
As for need, needs are not a requirement in order to own products, enjoy hobbies, etc for non-malicious reasons. Can you honestly say that every single product you own is for a need and not a want? If you can't then what is the point of your question? You do realize that with the "need" question you are basically arguing that people should only be allowed to own things that are absolutely needs and that people should not be allowed to own things that are not needs. Plus living your life is so much more than just needs, wouldn't you agree?
Also, it's really funny that people on JT (and living in Japan) think we need to be able to buy guns as easy as shopping for socks at K-mart. Yet, they choose to live in a complete gun free zone.
And yet you have people who complain about the American gun laws but will vacation/holiday there or will move over there for a job and then will go to a gun range to have fun. Do you know how many non-Americans I have come across that are opposed to gun ownership but constantly go to gun ranges and shoot other people's privately owned guns. Do you have any idea how many Japanese employee's of American companies come to the USA and one of the first things they want to do is ask their American co-workers if they have a gun and if they can shoot it at a gun range or on that person's property. My mom used to deal with that request all the time from her Japanese counter-parts all the time when she worked at Medtronic.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
And yet it happens thousands of times per year in America.
Yes it does happen thousands of times per year, that doesn't change the fact that your odds of being killed by a gun are one hundredth of one percent annually. It doesn't change the fact that schools have a 1 in 10,000 year odds of having a homicide on their school grounds during school hours in the USA
You are complacent about guns because you think it can't happen to you, so you support gun ownership by the masses. The result of that is the deaths of thousands of people in America. That's on your shoulders and the shoulders of everyone else who supports it.
I don't think it can't happen to me just that the odds are extremely in my favor that it will never happen to me in my life time. It is a low enough risk for me that I don't think it is really worth my time to worry about it for any real length of time or dictate how I choose to live.
Yes the result is the deaths of thousands of people in america and yes it is on my shoulders and everyone else who supports it. So what? I support board games being legal in the USA, does that mean I have the deaths of all the people, particularly young children, on my shoulders? Absolutely it does. Do you disagree with that?
I support movies and television shows being made, does that mean I have deaths and injuries of those cast members and crew who were involved in those movies? Yes it does. I support the speed limit in the USA being above 55 MPH, does that mean I have deaths and injuries caused by the speed limit being above 55 MPH on my shoulders? Yes it does.
If the only acceptable cost for people to own products for recreation, enjoy hobbies, engage in cultural practices, produce and sell mindless entertainment products is zero dead and wounded then we are all going to live very boring lives.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
You want to equate some third-world dictatorship or war zone with parts of the richest, supposedly most advanced country in the world, the so-called 'beacon of hope and freedom'?
Your point Cleo was that if someone refused to travel to a geographic location, whether it be a city, county, state, country, etc. that the very fear had taken such an extreme hold over the person that they don't even notice it. My point is that you are using too strong of a word(s). Obviously if such a fear had taken such hold over someone they would be basically having nervous breakdown, so it would definitely be something they would notice. To put this into further context for you do you travel to Yakuza locations? Do you knowingly walk past Yakuza buildings or operations? I bet you don't, does that mean you are terrified? Nope.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
I bet everyone who is part of one of those incidents, or who witnesses one thinks the same thing.
I bet they do Stranger but it doesn't change the odds, they still remain the same. For example winning the lottery, just because you win a lottery like the Power ball that is one in several hundred million odds doesn't mean that the odds are no longer pretty much non existent going forward for you or for anyone else.
The difference between them and the rest of us is that the chance of having it happen is so small, as to be pretty much non-existent. Whereas in gunland, it's a very real possibility that happens to thousands every year.
For the vast vast majority of people in gunland the odds are pretty much non-existent as well, how do we know I this? Because statistically the casualty rate from guns in the USA each year is three hundreds of one percent each year. Means over 99.9% of people living in the USA will not be injured or killed by a gun every year.
I don't know about you but if you told me that I have a 0.01% chance of being shot/killed by a gun for a year I would say that is non-existent
With that being said if you are someone who is in a gang, deals in drugs or in the criminal underworld, are in an abusive relationship/are the abuser or live with or associate with anyone who meets that above criteria then yes chances of being shot then become a realistic possibility. If you don't qualify for any of those then the chances of you being shot and killed once again become pretty much non-existent.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Choose from hand-picked tours throughout Japan with professional guides in amazing destinations.Outdoor Japan Adventures
Posted in: Clam crowder
A mix of what's trending on our other sites