News Stories

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The Arabs and the Persians rather do not like each other. I can't say for the other Muslim counties that are niether Arab, nor Persian...like say Indonisia.

most of Indonisia's Muslim population are Sunni.
so no, they don't like Iran any more then the Arabs do.

[ganbaru]

Hospital fire kills at least 84 in eastern India
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7B80EH20111209

[Haak]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

^ Wouldn't that be rather hard as the arabes are said to distrust ( at the very least) or even be scared of Iran ?

As the article notes though, they are slowly getting Iraq on their side, so I think it can be done with Arab countires that have a predominantly Shia government.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Well Ireland has a little over 6 million people in it.

Califoria has over 37 mllion people at about half again the density. And heavy concentrations in the cities.

That's like the weakest argument for pro-guns. Compare population density in California to that of east asia, like Tokyo area, Seoul, Shanghai, Taiwan.....

[konart]

Protests in russia:

Spoiler for pic:

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Ireland is a small country with strong borders... meanwhile, Switzerland has plenty of guns and little problem -- it's a cultural issue.

Britain is exactly the same. That's not such a small country. Remember those London riots? Any substantial gun violence occur? Not a bit. Imagine if London had been a gun filled city in those circumstances...

The huge borders, the tremendous amount of cargo (too much to scan), plus the tremendous number of guns already here. Couple that with at least half the country firmly against you and its the Prohibition-failure again.

Britain gets similiarly huge amounts of cargo coming in and out. Smuggling weapons in substantial amounts isn't so easy, unlike drugs or alcohol.

You're thinking Irish law. US law has set firmly in stone that the police are under no obligation to protect you or to prevent crime. Their function is to record the crime and capture *afterwards*. Too late for the home invasion victims.

Obviously they can't be everywhere at once, and even if it's not enshrined in law, it's their duty to eliminate criminality and hence protect the public. One follows from the other.

Frankly, if there were a magic wand to make all guns go poof, people could manufacture them in 'prohibition speakeasy' cellars... I'd be utterly fine with no guns (I know how to use other weapons for self defense) ... but no one is willing to disarm the public *first* and leave the criminals armed.

Sure you could manufacture guns in speak easy cellars, they'd be as likely to backfire on you as actually work. Guns are not like crystal meth, they require a certain level of ... equipment to manufacture. I'd say at least a million's worth of industrial machining equipment to consistently manufacture them in any quality or numbers. And then there's Ammunition, that stuff is impossible to make outside a factory.

Improvised guns and ammunition would require people going back to musket quality guns, not something i'm particularly worried about.

Also, if you looked at my plan, the public isn't disarmed first, the supply of weapons is eliminated first, while the supply of weapons is being eliminated, the police continue to eliminate criminal's weapons (as they already currently do), eventually, with no new guns coming in, then the only guns left will be those still held by citizens.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Well Ireland has a little over 6 million people in it.

Califoria has over 37 mllion people at about half again the density. And heavy concentrations in the cities.

Again, the UK is exactly the same. The police there don't carry guns. And it has one of the most densely populated megacities in the world, london. London Bobbies don't carry guns either. The only police force in the British Isles that do carry guns is the Northern Ireland police, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

That's like the weakest argument for pro-guns. Compare population density in California to that of east asia, like Tokyo area, Seoul, Shanghai, Taiwan.....

Absolutely true. Japan doesn't have guns either, I'd guess. Nor does China.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Ireland is a small country with strong borders... meanwhile, Switzerland has plenty of guns and little problem -- it's a cultural issue.

As Don pointed out, the UK is the same as Ireland, and there's also the argument of Japan, China and other countries with dense populations. Indeed, Japanese police officers also aren't allowed to carry guns (such that I remember a story of a Japanese police officer subduing a criminal with a bokken). I imagine the US has borders just as strong if not stronger than either Japan or the UK, where guns are outlawed even for law enforcement agents. Neither of those are by any means small countries.

Originally Posted by Vexx

You're thinking Irish law. US law has set firmly in stone that the police are under no obligation to protect you or to prevent crime. Their function is to record the crime and capture *afterwards*. Too late for the home invasion victims.

I remember this argument popped up a while ago here. I'm still in disbelief that the police forces in the US don't have the responsibility to protect the people from crime, but only to deal with the aftermath. Sure, the police forces in the US are stretched thin, but I at least don't find it right that police don't have to do anything but sit by and watch as criminals are doing what they do best. As Don said, it's their duty to eliminate criminal activity. To me, it almost sounds like police forces wait for something bad to happen so they have something to do.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Frankly, if there were a magic wand to make all guns go poof, people could manufacture them in 'prohibition speakeasy' cellars... I'd be utterly fine with no guns (I know how to use other weapons for self defense) ... but no one is willing to disarm the public *first* and leave the criminals armed.

I can't imagine guns made in your garage or backyard could compare to a top quality Desert Eagle. Those kinds of guns aren't really something to worry about. If people could make guns in their backyard as easily as they can brew alcohol drinks, people wouldn't need to buy guns and there wouldn't be the strict laws of gun control that exist today.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Depends who you ask. Plenty of politicians who built the EU thought that if there was a common currency, the rest would follow. Part of our problems could be blamed on the fact that it hasn't. Half-measures generally get you the worst of both worlds.

(Personally, I don't care all that much if the ones making the call are national politicians or European politicians.)

Interesting. I suppose that's evidence that the United States of Europe couldn't possibly work. As I said, the European countries have operated independently even long before the birth of the US. When you have countries like that, which have had their own standing economy and currency for generations, it is difficult to unite them under a common banner the way the american states were.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Interesting. I suppose that's evidence that the United States of Europe couldn't possibly work. As I said, the European countries have operated independently even long before the birth of the US. When you have countries like that, which have had their own standing economy and currency for generations, it is difficult to unite them under a common banner the way the american states were.

Not really. It's just evidence that things weren't going to do themselves, common currency or not. But it's not like anyone, even the most optimistic, expect for the UE to become like the USA overnight. (Or, really, wish for it. It's about economic and political integration, not cultural.)

[Ithekro]

The UK and Japan are islands....they don't have borders with anybody besides the sea. The only land border the UK has is with Ireland at Northern Ireland.

The China example doesn't follow because it was totalitarian.

As for removing the guns via getting the manufacturing first? Well that would hurt a bunch of political districts economically, since I doubt the remaining gun industry can get by on just military and police contracts alone. Especially with international competition like Glock (Austria) and Buretta (Italy).

(Browning, Barret, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Winchester (are now made in Belgium and Utah by other companies), Kel-Tec, and Colt are just some examples.)

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The UK and Japan are islands....they don't have borders with anybody besides the sea. The only land border the UK has is with Ireland at Northern Ireland.

The China example doesn't follow because it was totalitarian.

As for removing the guns via getting the manufacturing first? Well that would hurt a bunch of political districts economically, since I doubt the remaining gun industry can get by on just military and police contracts alone. Especially with international competition like Glock (Austria) and Buretta (Italy).

(Browning, Barret, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Winchester (are now made in Belgium and Utah by other companies), Kel-Tec, and Colt are just some examples.)

The US is virtually isolated like an island as well. As a matter of fact, the US was never invaded in the same fashion as the UK was, and is in much less of a risk of being attacked the way Japan could be. The UK was attacked by Germany by air during WW2 and was even invaded by Denmark and Rome before them in ancient times. However, no foreign military ever managed to step foot into the US with the intention of occupying its lands in modern times. Canada and Mexico certainly don't have the manpower to do so.

As for the gun industry, companies involved with defense contracting can always outsource their activities, which is something they're already doing. Raytheon has plenty of activities outside of the US, for instance, even in Saudi Arabia. They could also get into other industries in order to spread the risk of their business and have some kind of insurance if they were to lose civilian contracts within the US.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Interesting. I suppose that's evidence that the United States of Europe couldn't possibly work. As I said, the European countries have operated independently even long before the birth of the US. When you have countries like that, which have had their own standing economy and currency for generations, it is difficult to unite them under a common banner the way the american states were.

The concept of the nation state is a lot younger than the US. While some European countries have existed for a long time, there has not been a national unified identities until the 1800s. Even today Europe is as much a collection of regions than countries.

The largest obstacle against further integration is the lack of mobility of the people in Europe. Language, legislative, and social barriers prevent people form taking up work and residence in other member states easily. It's slowly changing, but it's still mostly restricted to the highly educated who work for international corporations. The US never had this problem.

[Frenchie]

England needs to get out of the EU before it causes more resentment. That would be more gentleman-like than fucking over the EU when it's trying to do the only sensible thing as far as keeping itself alive goes.

English interests are fine by me and a great majority of the English public are euroskeptics anyway. Just get out already.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

The US is virtually isolated like an island as well.

Nope..... the island countries mentioned above have it real good these days.

The Southwest U.S./border mexican states is riddled with sophisticated tunnels to transport illegal substance and arms.

and what's crazy is that federal agents like ATF were "encouraging" honest American gun dealers to arm criminals down south... crazy indeed!!!

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

England needs to get out of the EU before it causes more resentment. That would be more gentleman-like than fucking over the EU when it's trying to do the only sensible thing as far as keeping itself alive goes.

English interests are fine by me and a great majority of the English public are euroskeptics anyway. Just get out already.

I agree, they need to get out. Mind you, it isn't the United Kingdom's fault that the whole thing blew out of proportion. Europe didn't used to be the United States of Europe with unelected bureaucrats in Brussels imposing policies on all of it's members.

Keep the trade agreements and easy travel/immigration. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

Keep the trade agreements and easy travel/immigration. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Or, you know... not. I mean, the whole opt out thing is part of the reason for the resentment. Maybe it's time for some good all or nothing.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The UK and Japan are islands....they don't have borders with anybody besides the sea. The only land border the UK has is with Ireland at Northern Ireland.

The China example doesn't follow because it was totalitarian.

It's not very hard to ship things over by sea, if you wanted to. Certainly citizens of Ireland and Britain have no trouble getting drugs. The English channel is quite ... porous. You could literally cross it with a row boat at points. Likewise there's such huge volumes of freight coming in and out, that it's impossible to screen even a fraction of it. And yet gun proliferation is not a major problem.

As for removing the guns via getting the manufacturing first? Well that would hurt a bunch of political districts economically, since I doubt the remaining gun industry can get by on just military and police contracts alone. Especially with international competition like Glock (Austria) and Buretta (Italy).

(Browning, Barret, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Winchester (are now made in Belgium and Utah by other companies), Kel-Tec, and Colt are just some examples.)

That goes without saying. I guess people will switch to buying other things. Frankly, I would consider the arms industry in the same breath as the tobacco industry. Merchants of Death.

Originally Posted by flying ^

Nope..... the island countries mentioned above have it real good these days.

The Southwest U.S./border mexican states is riddled with sophisticated tunnels to transport illegal substance and arms.

and what's crazy is that federal agents like ATF were "encouraging" honest American gun dealers to arm criminals down south... crazy indeed!!!

The key is eliminating the supply. It's easy to smuggle all those weapons because there's so many weapons floating around. As for the US's southern border, the arms trade is entirely one way. I don't really think any significant number of guns are manufactured in Mexico.

The illegal arms trade can only exist because of the presence of the legal arms trade. Once a gun is sold legally, it can no longer be kept track of. Likewise, once a dealer is dealing in thousands of legal arms, it's not so hard for him to sell some illegal guns on the side.

It's very difficult to eliminate something like drugs on the supply side, because any piece of land can be used to grow it. For guns, you need advanced factory equipment, that only exists in a few hundred locations worldwide. Very easy to keep track of and regulate.

Now I can admit, there may be an ethical argument regarding gun control, but there are no practical issues with it, so long as the elimination is near total. In Britain and Ireland, there are still people who can legally own guns. These are mostly farmers and people with hunting and game licenses, and they're mostly rifles and shotguns.

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Or, you know... not. I mean, the whole opt out thing is part of the reason for the resentment. Maybe it's time for some good all or nothing.

That could work, just saying not everything about Europe has been bad. If they want the whole project to go down with the sinking ship that is the Euro, then so be it.

[DonQuigleone]

I don't think the UK wants to sink the whole European project, the UK has received special treatment in the past, and I see nothing wrong with it. It's a large enough country to merit it if it's required, and I think it's better for them to be half in, then totally out.

[Anh_Minh]

If the UK does get out, I think all such treaties should be renegotiated, with the understanding that it would be a negotiation between foreign powers, rather than a union deciding internal rules for itself.

It might not change much - the EU is for free trade and all, anyway. But it's the principle of the thing.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

I agree, they need to get out. Mind you, it isn't the United Kingdom's fault that the whole thing blew out of proportion. Europe didn't used to be the United States of Europe with unelected bureaucrats in Brussels imposing policies on all of it's members.

Yep, the UK should please take a hike. It's about time to end England's traditional "balance of power" game, supporting any smaller faction against the bigger ones, to keep Europe weak and divided. Either sh*t or get off the pot. You don't feel like participating? No problem. There's the door. Unfortunately, I doubt it will happen. Cameron's next plan is to use the veto against having the Eurozone countries use European institutions for their "inner" treaty. And demand ransom for these hostages. Lovely.

What really annoyed me with Britain all the time were their constant attempts to have the cake and eat it. Paying just a minimal share compared to their size. Opting out of reasonable treaties like Schengen (so much for all this "free market" mantra - Britain is all about protectionism when you look closely). Always trying to prop up those countries who wanted their pseudo-veto bribed away. And finally, using the Euro crisis to get a veto blank cheque for anything financial in the future. This isn't the bazaar of constantinople here.

I need to giggle at the "unelected bureaucrat" meme though. It's very popular in the anglosphere media, but it's BS. They're anointed by people who have democratically been elected into office. Very much like ministers are assigned in other countries, too. Those unelected bureaucrats.

If they want the whole project to go down with the sinking ship that is the Euro, then so be it.

Doesn't it feel strange to you that even the other European countries who are not yet part of the Eurozone refused to stand by the UK with their veto? And that they rather decided to stick with the other Europeans? Are they all stupid or suicidal?

Nah, the Euro won't sink. In the end, when push comes to shove, the ECB will just take the easy US way out: Print more Euros and call it "quantitative easing". That was the whole point of the summit (and I'm surprised that this isn't understood by most English news sources): Germany demanded that efforts were be made to make sure that opening the ECB coffers would NOT result in wild spending in Club Med et cetera. So, controlled financial union against relaxation on the ECB valve.

Example: Do you remember how George Soros was railing like mad against Germany, and how they were wrecking the Euro, and how everything would be going to hell? He just recently bought Euro bonds for 2 billion. Go figure.