Great News - Aussie/Kiwi Beef is just tasteless and although I do love Japanese Beef, its not that great for 'a steak on a plate'. My favorite little Steakhouse has a had a regular supply of US beef for a while and its very tasty.
Got laugh at that comment. I guess it just comes down to taste. For me US steak is disgusting, fatty, meat, Japanese beef is to fatty and not well flavoured, can't go past Aussie steak if it is cooked properly the problem is most people cook it wrong. Over cooking it...... And those that are complaining about meat from Costco, who in their right mind would buy meat from Costco in the first place. The meat at Costco is over priced for the quality that you get.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Having been to china, l would say its just dirty air to add to dirty environments.... Beijing in particular is pure filth without even worrying about the air.
But then again Japan's air isn't anything to brag about either.....
-4 ( +5 / -9 )
Enoughs enough, it is clear that there is no point discussing this issue with you as you cannot see the trees for the forest when it comes to guns, and gun crime. I will say the NRA would be proud of you, this discussion has made me realise one thing l am so glad to live in the country l do. A country with sensible laws around guns and gun control and not a culture that sees guns as a right rather than a privilege. I pity you and your fellow Americans as l can see your doomed to repeat these sad events over and over as long as people like you have a voice and politicians are to scared to stand up to the likes of you. I guess people just have to realise that when it comes to America gun crime and massacres are to be expected as much as any 3rd world nation.
I pity you and the children of America that will inherit this madness.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Then how come the hunters using semi-automatics don't do that? Do you have any idea how fast you can shoot pump action or lever action or bolt action firearms?
Sure do, do you?
Semi-autos only fire one shot each time you squeeze the trigger. Do you think pump action are needed for hunting? How about bolt action? Are they needed for hunting? How about lever action?
Bolt action is fine for hunting. As is lever action. Semi auto's! Bit of over kill there.
You can fire lever action and pump action fire arms at a cyclic rate of 300 rounds per minute.
Rubbish! You started this nonsense last time. The "potential" rate is 300 rpm. However as they only hold a small magazine 6-20 rounds then the most you will fire is that many rounds per minute. Then you have to stop and reload. Also anyone who has shot a gun of any description will tell you that those rates of fire a. Are not sustainable, b. are not accurate and c. Are a waste of bullets.
Canadian and New Zealand hunters for example use semi-automatics to go hunting with. In fact the most popular hunting rifle in Canada is a semi-automatic rifle it is the Remington 740. AR-15s are quickly becoming one of the most popular hunting rifles in New Zealand. If you honestly think most countries restrict hunting firearms to being single shots only you are mistaken.
You pick two countries with loose gun laws. How about Australia, UK, or Japan. People manage to hunt just fine with bolt action rifles. I know that for a fact because I am one of them, and yes l have shot semi autos as well.
For example real world test shows that soft point .223 rounds, used in the AR-15, penetrate fewer wallboards than 9mm HP, .45 ACP FMJ, or 12 gauge buckshot:
Again rubbish. Given the effective range of a rifle compared to a pistol or shot gun. Yes at close range the rifle will penetrate less due to the break down of the bullet. The pistol fires at a slower fps rate so the bullet will not breakup as much. But over longer ranges rifles are deadlier. Also consider this in self defence a rifle would stop someone out to several hundred meters is that really self defence? A pistol is for close in action where a rifle would be too unwieldy. But this was pointed outgo you the other day.
No let me say this before you go any further. Gun ownership is not a right it should not be a right it is and should be a privilege. People should only own guns if they can prove they have a need for them. Hunting, stock management, occupation, or member of a shooting club. Self defence, protection, and just for the sake of it are not legitimate excuses. Like I said there is no place in a society for handguns as they can be concealed, or for semi auto rifles. There is no legitimate need for them and l say this as a gun owner and user. The rules in my country in the wake of the port Arthur massacre banned semi auto weapons and this was the best move ever as that type of weapon should not be in the hands of civilians.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Maybe the US should also be telling Japan to pull its head in over this issue just like they told the Chinese to. Firing weapons, even if it is just to warn the other side is awful risky and provocative. This will not end well for Japan if they are off target and hit a Chinese plane or vessel. I wonder if the US would be so supportive then?
2 ( +13 / -11 )
How is it a waste and what does using a semi-automatic have anything to do with being a terrible shot?
Really you need me to explain. It means you obviously miss on your first shot so you need to shoot again rapidly. Hence you're a terrible shot.
Semi-automatics are needed for their versatility, they are great for hunting, target shooting, self defense and forming a militia.
Yep and this one sentence pretty much sums up the mentality of the US gun lobby......
I love how every one thinks that if you go hunting with a semi-automatic that it means you are just going to rapidly squeeze the trigger or that your going to fire dozens of rounds and if you're not doing that then you are using a semi-automatic incorrectly.
Yep because that is normally what happens..... And it's normally because these "hunters" couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from 20 meters so they need a rifle that can pump out the rounds in a hope of hitting something.
If you can have a firearm that is very effective for target shooting, hunting and self defense why not have that gun instead of having one gun for each?
Again l ask, why do you need a semi auto for hunting. A decent shot and meter only needs a single shot, hunter in other countries can do it but you can't? Hmmm target shooting, yeah definitely need a semi auto for that! NOT. Self defence, don't make me laugh. A rifle for self defence is a joke....
1 ( +2 / -1 )
That is easy, they are the most versatile of all firearms. They are basically a jack of all trades master of none gun. Show me a firearm that is as versatile as a semi-automatic rifle.
You are actually right there noliving if your invading another nation, or planning a mass killing spree nothing is as versatile as a semi auto rifle. If your are hunting then it's a waste or you are a terrible shot..... Which again begs the question, why does the average joe need an semi auto assault rifle!
0 ( +2 / -2 )
You want to protect the safety of cinema goers, church goers, students etc then the best thing you can do is really quite simple, get rid of guns. It has worked elsewhere. Now l know you Americans struggle a bit with common sense and you gun worship peers would feel like your gods have been taken away but it might actually save a few lives. After all when was the last revolution in the US...
Ah America the land of the loony....
4 ( +5 / -1 )
i think Abe needs to chuck a fit at the Alerians... who gave them the right to storm the plan and kill hostage of other nationalities.
I think some people need to learn that the world doesn't revolve around Japan...... Imagine if terrorists seized a bus load of Chinese or Korean tourists in Japan. Would Japan let the Chinese or Korean military in to rescue them? Nope
Fact is it happened in Algeria, the Algerians did their best they rescued many hostages. Some died, that is truly sad. But the dead extend more than just Japan and the likes of you need to understand that. The world does not revolve around Japan dispute what you think. And sadly this is just another example of Japanese trying to throw their weight around to get their own way in other countries. If you don't like how it was handled easy, don't go there, or give the Algerians loads of money and training to ensure if this does happen again they are trained to their best ability.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
Let me ask you this Outta here, what would you rather have: Grand total going down but its share going slightly up or Grand total stay the same or going up but its share going down Which would you rather have?
Or alternative three, get your head out of the sand and address the weapon that makes up nearly 70% of all murders. I know its hard to understand but you do realise if you removed guns from the population then your murder rate would go down by a mere 67%. Yes some people would use other weapons but some wouldn't which even a 2yo would understand that this would reduce the murder rate. But hey it's hard for a third world country to understand let alone tackle these sort of issues....
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Ya that is because Firearm homicides did not decrease as fast, just slightly slower. as the other weapon types. What your not telling though is that since 1993 the grand total number of firearm homicides has also been cut in half. You are also conviently leaving out that is the grand number of people shot and wounded with firearms has also been cut by nearly half as well.
Listen I understand that talking to you NRA types about reducing the number of guns in society and that guns = death is like pulling teeth. You lot just cannot seem to be able to grasp the fact that your beloved guns cause all these issues. The fact is the % of crime committed with a gun is on the rise. The stats back this up yet you are still trying to argue it down. The fact also is there that almost every single week we have a mass killing in the US and the majority are committed with guns. The fact remains that every single day 25 people are murdered in the US with a gun. That does not count suicides or people shot by law enforcement.
The fact is many countries have instigated gun control and it works well. In my country there has not been a mass killing since the laws where introduced. Our gun crime is a fraction of yours dispute the fact that there are more guns here now than prior to the ban. So banning certain types of weapons works.
I still fail to understand why joe citizen needs or can even justify having a hand gun, let alone a semi auto anything. I think the most telling stat about your country is if you own a gun you are 4 times more likely to be shot during a crime. That to me says it all and its shoots down any argument that guns save lives.
Now I understand its your country and you do as you please in regards to your laws but if l lived in the US and thankfully l don't I would not like to have a worse murder rate than some 3 rd world nations. And honestly its only a matter of time before all these shooting start affecting things like tourism. It will only take one event, it is already being mentioned in the media that by visiting the US as a tourist you are 14 times more likely to be shot than if you visit other nations. Now that's an achievement to be proud of.
I realise from your comments that this will not sink in. So I will let you go play with your gun and this can be the end of our discussion
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Actually there was less than 12,700 not 14,000.
Yes you are correct, l was looking at previous years numbers.
Well what do you want? 50% reductions in 1 year? Average crime reductions are around 2-5% a year around the world. So basically in 18 years the US has nearly halved its violent crime rate per 100k while at the same time adding just over 50 million people to its population and adding more than 100 million firearms to its streets.
Lets see. Crime has reduced yes. I agree with that fact. However what about murders involving firearms. What have they done in the past 12 years? According to the very own site you posted (FBI yearly figures) in 2000 gun murders made up 65.6% of all weapons used in murders. In 2012 it made up 67.7%. So even though the crime rate has gone down the % of guns used in murders has actually increased.
So for all your bluster about crime going down which agreed it has n crime has increased as a %. Of course that is to be expected with an extra 100 million guns on the streets.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
No I just wasn't doing the math. Whenever someone quotes those figures they are usually using the combined homicide and suicide number. There was just over 8500 gun homicides, not 9000.
Sorry but what is 14000 divided by 67%? That would be 9380 not sure how you get 8500. And given that the actual figure was 67.5% and the number of murders was in excess of 14000 then the numbers are higher again...
Also that figure includes what is considered justified homicide as well as those killed by law enforcement. So if we use that figure of 8500/365 we get just over 23.28 homicides (including justified homicides and those killed by law enforcement) each day not the 30 each day.
These figures are the number of "murders" in the US. So lm thinking that law enforcement deaths are not included some how.... Sheet you will really do anything to drop the figures now won't you... Just accept facts. In terms of murders in the US you rate higher than many third rate countries....
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Maybe not porn in the true sense. But it is designed to appeal to dirty middle aged and older men who get their jollies looking at young women in provocative poses. Normally middle aged men who still live with mummy or who don't wear the pants in their family
2 ( +9 / -7 )
Now l realise that you are vehemently pro fun and will try to turn every comment against gun ownership around but seriously come on.... According to the FBI there was n excess of 14000 murders in the US and 67% of them involved a gun. That means in excess of 9000 people killed by guns, or on average 25 per day. So that must mean the other 5 per day are suicides according to you right? Unless you are disputing your own FBI figures....
And yes people can be killed with knives or other weapons, but even you must admit guns just make it so much easier...
9 ( +11 / -2 )
The problem is no-one actually recognises Japan's sovereignty over these islands, not even their good allie the US. they recognise Japan's right to administer them and that's it. So until there is a decision on the actual sovereignty issue this will just continue to escalate
5 ( +8 / -3 )
You may be partly correct about the mess etc. but the issue and the reoccurring issue with all these shooting is the tool used to commit the act. The gun. If a mentally unstable person has access to a gun things will turn bad, if they don't have access to a gun they will still potentially turn out bad but no where near as bad simple as that.
5 ( +8 / -3 )
And even why they protested to keep their guns a kid was gunning 5 people down with a gun. The sad sick irony is these pro gun nutters will try to deflect the blame and say its not the guns, and this is the exact reason to have more ins in circulation.
Sadly the US is getting more dangerous to visit and live. Maybe other nations should start issuing travel warning for people visiting the US
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Herve Nmn L'Eisa,
Here are some conclusions that can be drawn. Fact 5 people are dead due to being shot, fact guns were involved, fact there where several guns in the house including semi auto military style rifle......
I don't think many other conclusions need to be drawn. At the end of the day the teen used guns that where in the house to kill those in the house. Guess its not the guns fault though they just did what they are designed to do right?
10 ( +16 / -6 )
The truth is there are experts on both sides with facts and exaggeration. I don't know which side is right.
Couldn't agree more.... It's just sad that every single weather phenomenon these days is blamed on global warming.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I never said trees cause record tempuratures, I was talking about the bush fires that are also mentioned in the article. And how these global warming experts have attributed these to global warming as well. Maybe try reading....
You actually hit the nail on the head with your comment about one in a hundred year storms. So if they are 1 in a 100 year torms and global warming is a recent event well what caused them last time.
If you look at the temp records most previous records where set in the late 1800s to mid 1900s so where was global warming then? Why was it so hot back then? Is it just possible that this is nature?
No it's easier to blame global warming right? Especially here in Australia, it would be hard to justify a carbon tax if it was purely a natural event
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Bushfire's are a common feature of the Australian summer, and climate experts have said that they may become more intense due to global warming.
I love the way that these climate "experts" say that this is due to global warming..... Would not have anything to do with 2 years of wet summers followed by a spell of hot weather and no rain. I.e. a normal summer. Would also have nothing to do with successive pathetic decisions by government for example making it illegal to clear trees from around your house, reducing burn offs in winter and spring to reduce fuel loads, banning cattle grazing from national parks (they forget cattle eat the grass which again reduces fuel loads). Of course it's much easier to throw your hands in the air and cry climate change. A perfect example l live 5km from a national park where a major fire went through 5 years ago. After the fire there was that many dead and dying trees falling on the ground causing new fire hazards. Did they open the park to people to cut firewood and clean up these trees? Nope the greenies had the government threaten everyone with $5000 fines. Not a couple of years later another fire started and destroyed property. Did they learn from their mistake? Nope. Now every hot day we sit at home water tank and fire pump at the ready for the next fire because these Greene do goodes in their air conditioned offices that wouldn't know a tree if they walked into one find it easier to blame global warming rather than their own incompetence.
-4 ( +4 / -8 )
Exactly right and sadly some people tend to think life will always work out for the good guys ala die hard, under siege, delta force etc.....
Sadly as events prove this isn't always the case.
And they tend to forget little matters like in the time it takes a SAS, delta force, seal team etc to get into position and ready a day or more could have elapsed. Hostages would have been killed and the terrorists could have (would have) reinforced their positions and it would have been a true blood bath.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
"But my point here was you called the Algerians third world and that these first world forces could do better...." No. They CERTAINLY could.
Lol, hilarious. So maybe, just maybe if western special forces could have got their in time to save them. You know it would take at least a day or more to get special forces on scene, briefed and ready to go. You really think the hostage takers would have waited that long?
And given the setback the French suffered just last week and that other forces have suffered in the past not every action has a successful outcome you know. Just because the movies make these special forces look invincible doesn't make it so....
"Yeah maybe they could," Yes, they could, well done.
Again hilarious, you assume that just because they come from the US or UK or France they are automatically better than these "third world" soldiers..... As l said the elite French special forces got their backsides kicked by a bunch of third world terrorists just last week. The US special forces got spanked in Somalia a decade ago. And again in Afghanistan recently. So maybe you shouldn't be so sure of anything.
"I.e French raid on Somalia last week, the black hawk down fiasco, Iran hostage fiasco. Etc, etc, etc." Tell me the glorious history of the Algerian special forces, and their impeccable record of hostage rescue then.
Well lets see, they managed to defeat the French, they managed to defeat the Islamic revolution in 2002. Just out of curiosity has the US defeated any other militaries since WW2?
Yeah, you're right. I was stupid to think that elite counter terrorist units, with decades of experience and training would have done better than the amazingly awesome Algerian military.
Lol good one. My whole point is you bag a nation as being third world standard for a terrible action that happens on their soil. Yet when someone points out that this same sort of thing has happened to the same forces you are blow hot air up you get snide and nasty.... Well done.
I mean, look at how it raid was planned in such a surgical manner! “The army bombed four out of five of the trucks and four of them were destroyed ... He presumed everyone else in the other trucks was killed ... The truck my brother was in crashed and at that stage Stephen was able to make a break for his freedom.” Nothing says "elite hostage rescue" better than bombing the convoy with the hostages in.
Yeah terrible nothing like this ever happens with well equipped well train forces right? Um the Russian cinema siege ring a bell......
Just out of curiosity how many of the hostages survived and where rescued from this raid? It is being reported that 130 people escaped prior to the raid or where rescued during the raid. But that isn't being reported here now is it.... Maybe because they weren't japanese?
Another question for you, as the oil terminal is close to the Libyan border. The same Libya that the west helped recently in their war maybe we could look at that angle too? Where did the terrorists come from?
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Pretty low when even reporting about some poor people's deaths some media outlets need to drop in their little nations tic comments about the disputed islands. Seriously what's more important the 3 dead or Japan's argument with china over these rocks.... Don't answer that its Japan l already know what the answer will be...
-7 ( +4 / -11 )
Are you trying to say that the Algerians did a better job than the S.A.S., or SEAL Team 6, or the French special forces could have?
Lol love the response... You realise there is more than one seal team ( 14 of them to be exact) and non are numbered 6. Been watching to many movies there....
But my point here was you called the Algerians third world and that these first world forces could do better.... Yeah maybe they could, maybe they wouldn't too. I.e French raid on Somalia last week, the black hawk down fiasco, Iran hostage fiasco. Etc, etc, etc.
See even the supposed first world militaries can get it wrong..... So my point your comments are a bit unfair and off target.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
Posted in: Japanese Recipe Adventures: Hiyashi chuka