News Stories

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by aohige

This is simply not true.
There are plenty of nations having success with banning guns leading to far less gun crimes.
Mine included.

Just because "gun crime" is reduced doesn't mean ALL crime is reduced.
I don't care if I'm shot, poisoned, beaten with a hammer, or stabbed; all can kill me, the tool used doesn't matter and I'd rather be able to defend myself than be a victim.
If you don't mind me asking, what's your country?
I'd like to find its worldwide violent crime ranking.

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Eh, both JPFO and Stormfront selectively use data to the point of falsification for their own agenda. That's why I put them on the same level.

Hah!
Sumeragi, that is the standard in American journalism.
FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, Time magazine, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the DailyKos, MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress,....all of them fudge data to fit their own agenda.
You just have to wade through the eye-ball deep mass of crap to find the few gems that all of them occationally put out.

Well, I do have ammo back in Japan, it's just that I didn't bring them to Canada (and I'm not willing to go through the hassle of trying to do so). My gun was from the Russo-Japanese War, and is passed down to me.

It's a very nice Japanese pistol.
I like the whole Schofield line of break-open revolvers, they were very reliable, accurate, and rugged.

That aside, I also have a M1 Garand in Korea, it being from my fiancé's grandfather.

Now I'm insanely jealous.
The M1 Garand is a beautiful rifle and a pleasure to shoot even with its kick.

Eh, let's just say that it's not as good as it sounds like..... heavy compared to its size, and personally the lack of recoil makes it actually harder to hit things with. I'm used to longer, lighter, and stronger guns. The Daewoo K2 is my choice if I could choose an assault rifle.

Really?
I didn't know that.
The Daewoo K2 is supposed to be quite the rifle from what I hear.
Never fired one, but it gets rave reviews from people I know who've owned them before they were banned from import here in the US (can't get them anymore).

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

More and more I think one solution to the problem of irresponsible gun usage is a requirement that gun owners purchase insurance. Most US states require insurance of some form to operate a motor vehicle. Why not guns?

Not going to happen.
Cars are driven on the public road and thus government claims the right to demand you get insurance to use your vehicle on the public roads.
Guns are not used like cars, thus they are the proverbial "apples and oranges" and do not require "insurance."

What's especially egregious about the Florida law, which is the model for the law in other states compliments of the American Legislative Exchange Council and the National Rifle Association, is that stand-your-ground is not promoted as an affirmative defense against a murder charge. Rather it enables to shooter to claim self-defense and avoid investigation or prosecution entirely. I believe, in the case of the Florida law, that it also immunizes the shooter from civil suits as well.

Ah I see you've also read Paul Krugman's conspiracy theory suggestion that ALEC is why these laws exist.
To bad for Krugman, and the gun-control crowd, that gun laws of this nature pre-date ALEC's existence by decades (ALEC was started in 1973).
Many citizens want these laws for their own protection and thus groups like the NRA, GOA, and JPFO successfully push for them to pass.
The problem is not with Florida's law, the problem is that the police didn't do their job and failed to enforce the law properly, thus things went awry.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Hey, a 20mm is no joke. I have seen a real Oerlikon CIS in action before - the firepower is practically an overkill for almost anything - for most situations a .50 can suffice.

True...true, but it still is an impressive rifle nonetheless.

__________________________________________________ ____________

Supreme Court begins review of health-care law


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...0bS_story.html

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

As much as I lke your idea, it will probably impossible in the current context to put as requirement to own insurance for the ownship of a gun, the republican and the NRA will never let this one pass, just look at all the problem than the healthcare reform is still getting.

What if someone convinces the NRA to be one of the first to sell such insurance?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Dextro

What if someone convinces the NRA to be one of the first to sell such insurance?

The NRA (I used to be a member til around 2000) stopped being a "gun hobby and gun rights organization" almost 20 years ago. It was hijacked by ultra-right corporate-puppet extremists who use the single issue to scare gun owners into voting for their political puppets. Their monthly magazine has turned into a tinfoil hat shrieking disaster. A politician could literally eat children, rape old ladies at the bus stop, all while passing hideous anti-people pro-corporate laws, but if they vote once or twice against closing a gunshow loophole or requiring background checks they're A+ for the NRA.

It took me several years to get off their rolls even though I stopped paying dues and wrote a letter. It took almost 10 years to get them to stop listing my father-in-law (life member) who had died long ago. I took that as them simply pumping up their supposed membership list but it also appears they want their shrieking little magazine to float all about like "Watchtower" and "Awake" pamphlets.

Believe me, the NRA doesn't "represent" gun owners in the slightest, far from the majority of actual gun owners (and there are other more sane groups to belong to).

The ALEC group, I view as a direct threat to the general citizenry of the United States - basically a corporatist (or more accurately, closet fascist) group.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

JAh I see you've also read Paul Krugman's conspiracy theory suggestion that ALEC is why these laws exist.

ALEC's involvement in the passage of the Florida statute is well-known; I didn't need to read Krugman to learn that. The NRA is not in the habit of writing template legislation; ALEC is.

Not all "stand-your-ground" laws are the same. Florida's seems especially badly written to me because it provides vague criteria for deciding when a person is threatened. I also object to the fact that it can exempt someone from prosecution rather than simply offering an affirmative defense at trial. If someone is shot, there needs to be an investigation and, if necessary, a criminal proceeding; simply wiping the slate clean after obtaining a statement from the shooter, as happened in Sanford, is totally unacceptable to me.

[Paranoid Android]

Prostitution in Ontario, CA now conditionally legal.
http://www.canada.com/news/Some+anti...950/story.html
Not too much of a concern, but it's a change. And from my perspective: for the better. They should bring it out of the dark and really dig deep into more criminal acts like child prostitution and forced prostitution.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Android

Prostitution in Ontario, CA now conditionally legal.
http://www.canada.com/news/Some+anti...950/story.html
Not too much of a concern, but it's a change. And from my perspective: for the better. They should bring it out of the dark and really dig deep into more criminal acts like child prostitution and forced prostitution.

Yup. Just because something is legal doesn't mean the government sponsors it. I've never really understood why prostitution is illegal; as "the oldest profession" it's never going to go away, so why not make it safer and less tied-in to other criminal activity by legalizing and regulating it carefully. It's really a no-brainer in my eyes; safer for the women healthwise and in many other ways too.

[Ithekro]

Just for one's information there is a Ontario, CA....as in California, as well as Canada.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Yup. Just because something is legal doesn't mean the government sponsors it. I've never really understood why prostitution is illegal; as "the oldest profession" it's never going to go away, so why not make it safer and less tied-in to other criminal activity by legalizing and regulating it carefully. It's really a no-brainer in my eyes; safer for the women healthwise and in many other ways too.

Why is prostitution illegal? Religious zealotry comes to mind...

[Ithekro]

And Madam Orr has such a wonderful house....

[AnimeFan188]

"Microsoft continued its war on botnets last week with a raid that involved seizing
servers controlling millions of zombie computers caught in the spell of the ZeuS
malware.

Under a court order, Microsoft employees, accompanied by agents from the U.S.
Marshals Service, raided two web hosting companies in Pennsylvania and Illinois on
Friday, disabling web servers used as command-and-control centers for the botnets
and seizing some 800 web addresses that allowed cybercriminals to infect
computers in order to steal banking credentials and siphon money from victims’
accounts."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...tnet-takedown/

[ganbaru]

"Pink slime" ire prompts key producer to close plants
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82P10720120326

Beef Products Inc, the top producer of ammonia-treated beef product dubbed 'pink slime' by critics, said on Monday it had halted production at three of its four plants in three states for 60 days from Monday.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

And Madam Orr has such a wonderful house....

There were two or three of these James Garner western comedies... they remain amongst my favorite

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The NRA (I used to be a member til around 2000) stopped being a "gun hobby and gun rights organization" almost 20 years ago. It was hijacked by ultra-right corporate-puppet extremists who use the single issue to scare gun owners into voting for their political puppets. Their monthly magazine has turned into a tinfoil hat shrieking disaster. A politician could literally eat children, rape old ladies at the bus stop, all while passing hideous anti-people pro-corporate laws, but if they vote once or twice against closing a gunshow loophole or requiring background checks they're A+ for the NRA.

I also left the NRA (as a member) in 2000 after they opposed Amendment 22 of the Colorado constitution.
Emotions were high back then due to Columbine, but the law was a good one since it allowed people to voluntarily use the CBI background check services to sell guns and simultaneously protect themselves from liability should that gun(s) end up being used in a crime later.

It took me several years to get off their rolls even though I stopped paying dues and wrote a letter. It took almost 10 years to get them to stop listing my father-in-law (life member) who had died long ago. I took that as them simply pumping up their supposed membership list but it also appears they want their shrieking little magazine to float all about like "Watchtower" and "Awake" pamphlets.

Same here, I don't get the NRA-ILA letters anymore, but they sent them for years after I left.

Believe me, the NRA doesn't "represent" gun owners in the slightest, far from the majority of actual gun owners (and there are other more sane groups to belong to).

Actually, the sad fact is that they do represent the sentiment of many, many gunowners.
The reason for that is the hostility to gun ownership in the media, and Washington.
The hoplophobia of some politicians, celebrities, and media pundits has created an environment where ALL proposals for gun safety and better enforcement of gun laws are viewed as "infringement."

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

ALEC's involvement in the passage of the Florida statute is well-known; I didn't need to read Krugman to learn that. The NRA is not in the habit of writing template legislation; ALEC is.

After 1973, yes ALEC has helped write much of the conservative agenda.
The problem is, ALEC wouldn't get anywhere if it weren't for the ridiculous gun laws, and gun-control bills, being passed and proposed since the GCA of 1968.
Pissing on people's rights is the surest way to drive them into the arms of extremists.

Not all "stand-your-ground" laws are the same. Florida's seems especially badly written to me because it provides vague criteria for deciding when a person is threatened. I also object to the fact that it can exempt someone from prosecution rather than simply offering an affirmative defense at trial. If someone is shot, there needs to be an investigation and, if necessary, a criminal proceeding; simply wiping the slate clean after obtaining a statement from the shooter, as happened in Sanford, is totally unacceptable to me.

I agree that not all of the "stand-your-ground" laws are the same.
Some are far to strict to be effective, and others are quite good.
However, unless the police and DA are total idiots, it should be clear what constitutes self-defense and what does not.
The Florida law is fine IMO, and really it is only the hoplophobic types that are blaming the law itself.
Like I've said this whole time, we need to wait and see what the Grand Jury, and FBI discover in their investigation before we start pointing fingers and accusing people of murder.
My opinion is that Zimmerman violated the "Stand-Your-Ground" law by chasing after Treyvon and the cops should have arrested him on the spot.
The Flordia law does not allow you to hunt someone down and shoot them.
You are only protected in that law if you are in mortal danger.
As far as I can tell by the evidence thus far, Zimmerman put himself into harms way and thus should not be eligible for protection under the Florida law.
Hopefully the Florida attorney general will see it this way and the Grand Jury will indict Zimmerman on charges of at least involuntary manslaughter, or higher.
Taking away this guy's right to keep and bear via a felony is a must IMO.
Normally I wouldn't say that about anyone, but from what I read in the police report and heard on the 911 tapes, this one individual needs to lose this right.
He has proven he is irresponsible with it in my humble opinion.

[flying ^]

FRESH NEW REVELATIONS out of Sanford, Fla. today...


Serious school infractions, facebook/twitter profile should add a bit more 'character' to Treyvawn's squeaky-clean image that the media is currently portraying...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...t-trayvon.html
http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/mar-26-tr...-here-1725679/
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/th...artins-tweets/

Some in the media biz (and millions of Americans) are wary of the direction of this local-matter-turned-undeservedly-national, is going...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/...180103647.html

"The media is getting the Trayvon Martin story wrong," Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote on BusinessInsider.com, comparing it to the 2006 Duke lacrosse case, in which three members of the lacrosse team were accused of rape, resulting in a media firestorm and public outcry. The accuser's case unraveled, and the charges were eventually dropped.

"Oh how little we have learned," David Shane wrote on PolicyMic.com. The media has rushed to judgment yet again. Now, it's quite possible that Zimmerman is guilty of everything his worst foes accuse him of. There is plenty about this case that troubles me. But that's exactly the point—I don't know. Neither does anyone else, and both the scope and tone of the media coverage ought to reflect that fact."

Treyvawn's mom sure was quick to get into trademark biz... cha-ching!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...demarks-769123

[aohige]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Just because "gun crime" is reduced doesn't mean ALL crime is reduced.
I don't care if I'm shot, poisoned, beaten with a hammer, or stabbed; all can kill me, the tool used doesn't matter and I'd rather be able to defend myself than be a victim.
If you don't mind me asking, what's your country?
I'd like to find its worldwide violent crime ranking.

It makes me laugh everytime someone says "but anything can kill not just guns duhh".
Yes, anything can kill, including a pen or a piece of wood.
That's NOT the issue here. Simply, guns can kill more, easily.

Guns don't kill people? No s#!t Sharlock, we all know that.
The logic is very simple. Guns are effective at killing. Guns make higher casualty count easier.
When someone snaps with a knife, and when someone snaps with a gun, the outcome is very different in sheer casualty count.
No one is saying it's the cause of the crime, so please, stop with your BS strawman and derailing of the problem you've been doing so frequently recently.

People on that side of this topic ALWAYS twist the argument to direction it has nothing to do with.
Might find a cozy job at FOX.

You can find out where I'm from by lurking in Asuki, or a quick search.

To be clear, I'm not entirely against guns. Look at Canada, they do fine with craptons of guns around.
However, the fact is, guns bring the damage higher. This is unavoidable due to the nature of the weapon's effectiveness.

[Vexx]

Actually, where Aohige is from (if I remember correctly), casualty counts are done with cars, trucks (driving through crowds), or knives (moving quickly through a crowd), or gas (crazy cult in a subway station).

There's no really disputing that a gun can produce more casualties than most other weapons. The philosophical dilemma is how to permit people the ability to defend themselves because its a simple fact the police do not protect or deter, they clean up and arrest afterward.

My 100 pound wife knows some nasty martial tactics her dad taught her... but once the perp is that close it is probably going to go badly for her. A firearm means she has the chance to keep them at a distance (she is a trained marksman). Where we live, the best response time from police is about 20 minutes - totally useless for any preventative action. It isn't much better in the urban district (10 minutes).

OTOH.... the US lets people buy guns without requiring any training at all or having them be part of an citizen's civil defense organization. That *is* stupid... but it used to be that you could depend on parents to teach their kids proper gun safety and use. We have a huge pack of people here now that have not been taught many things for a couple of generations -- much less about firearms :P

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually, where Aohige is from (if I remember correctly), casualty counts are done with cars, trucks (driving through crowds), or knives (moving quickly through a crowd), or gas (crazy cult in a subway station).

There's no really disputing that a gun can produce more casualties than most other weapons. The philosophical dilemma is how to permit people the ability to defend themselves because its a simple fact the police do not protect or deter, they clean up and arrest afterward.

That's only viable when gun control is not realistic.
It's far too late for US to actually reduce guns, it's already out there.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by aohige

It makes me laugh everytime someone says "but anything can kill not just guns duhh".
Yes, anything can kill, including a pen or a piece of wood.
THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.
Guns can kill more, easily.

No they don't kill more easily, and that shows how ignorant you are with regard to firearms.

Guns don't kill people? No shit Sharlock, we all know that.
Guns makes higher casualty count easier.
When someone snaps with a knife, and when someone snaps with a gun, the outcome is very different in sheer casualty count.
No one is saying it's the cause of the crime, so please, stop with your BS strawman and derailing of the problem you've been doing so frequently recently.

No actually any weapon can create a mass murder.
The largest mass murder in recent history was done with poisoned kool aid and was known as the Jonestown massacre.

Try killing 909 people with a gun, you won't get very far before the cops fill you full of lead.

People on that side of this topic ALWAYS twist the argument to direction it has nothing to do with.
Might find a cozy job at FOX.

Fox would never hire me as I tend to use facts and tell the truth.
They aren't interested in that.

[GundamFan0083]

City May Sell Historic Landmarks


http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/0...ric-landmarks/

[Kokukirin]

Here is what a relevant statistic look like:

Around 65% of murder victims are killed by guns.

Why is there even a debate that gun is the murder weapon of choice in US? Sharp objects are a distant second and poison does not even have its own category.