AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-03-08, 11:16   Link #6461
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Either no one has the ability to procure guns (including tools of the government and criminals who will stop at nothing to keep arming themselves regardless of the law), or everyone should. Since the former is impossible, the latter is the only option I accept.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-08, 13:50   Link #6462
chikorita157
ひきこもりアイドル
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey, United States
Age: 25
Send a message via Skype™ to chikorita157
Another Earthquake strikes again, but this time, outside the ring of fire which measured 6.0 magnitude. It seems to be a very active year for earthquakes thus far.
Quote:
Official: 57 dead in earthquake in eastern Turkey
By SUZAN FRASER (AP) – 9 hours ago

ANKARA, Turkey — An official says the death toll in the strong earthquake that hit eastern Turkey has reached 57.
A mayor says 57 people have died in the quake that struck six villages in Elazig province.
The quake struck Elazig at 4:32 a.m. (0232 GMT) and was centered near the village of Basyurt. It was followed by several aftershocks, including one measuring 5.5.
The quake was felt in the neighboring provinces of Tunceli, Bingol and Diyarbakir, where residents fled to the streets in panic and spent the night outdoors.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — A strong earthquake, with a preliminary magnitude of 6, hit eastern Turkey on Monday, killing at least 41 people and knocking down houses in at least six small villages, the government said.
The quake affected villages near the town of Kovancilar, toppling stone or mud-brick homes and minarets of mosques, officials and media reports said. The worst-hit area was the village of Okcular where some 17 people were reported killed and homes crumbled into piles of dirt.
The government's crisis center said around 100 people were also injured in the quake, which occurred at 4:32 a.m. (0232 GMT, 9 p.m. EST Sunday) in Elazig province, about 550 kilometers (340 miles) east of Ankara, the capital.
It caught many people in their sleep. It was centered near the village of Basyurt, and was followed by more than 30 aftershocks, the strongest measuring 5.5, the Kandilli seismology center said.
Emergency workers were trying to rescue four people from debris, Gov. Muammer Erol said. CNN-Turk television said the dead included four young sisters trapped in the rubble.
"Everything has been knocked down, there is not a stone in place," said Yadin Apaydin, administrator for the village of Yukari Kanatli, where he said at least three villagers died.
Authorities blocked access to Okcular village, to facilitate the entry and exit of ambulances and rescue teams on the village's narrow roads. Relatives rushed to the village for news of their loved ones.
"The village is totally flattened," Okcular's administrator Hasan Demirdag told private NTV television.
The quake was felt in the neighboring provinces of Tunceli, Bingol and Diyarbakir where residents fled to the streets in panic and spent the night outdoors.
Some of the injuries occurred during the panic, when people jumped from windows or balconies. Dogan news agency footage showed people bringing in the injured to hospitals by cars and taxis.
Kandilli Observatory's director, Mustafa Erdik, urged residents not to enter damaged homes, warning that they could topple from the aftershocks, which could last for days.
Television footage showed rescue workers and soldiers at Okcular lifting debris as villagers looked on. Rescuers could be seen digging into dirt and then removing an elderly man. The man had died and his body was quickly covered with a sheet.
Two women sat on mattresses wrapped in blankets. Turkey's Red Crescent organization began setting up tents in the region.
Earthquakes are frequent in Turkey, much of which lies on top of the North Anatolian fault. In 1999, two powerful earthquakes struck northwestern Turkey, killing about 18,000 people.
In 2007, an earthquake measuring 5.7 damaged buildings in Elazig, briefly trapping a woman under debris. In 2003, an earthquake measuring 6.4 magnitude collapsed a school dormitory in the neighboring province of Bingol province, killing 83 children. The collapse was blamed on poor construction.
Source
__________________
chikorita157 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-08, 14:11   Link #6463
Joojoobees
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
Either no one has the ability to procure guns (including tools of the government and criminals who will stop at nothing to keep arming themselves regardless of the law), or everyone should. Since the former is impossible, the latter is the only option I accept.
That's insane, dude. Just because it is impossible to keep weapons away from every psychotic criminal, you think all psychotic criminals should be allowed to buy guns? There has to be some common sense ability to say, "look, this person has attacked a person with a knife, because the moon-men told him to, and he got off because of a technicality (or served his time), so don't sell him a gun."

As far as being able to resist the US Armed Forces by stockpiling weapons, I don't believe it can be done. David Koresh tried, and just look at what that dangerous fantasy did for him. Those who argue that they are 'ensuring against tyranny', or whatever might be well-intentioned, but I do not think their plan will work if it ever gets put to the test.
__________________
Experience the fist of justice!
Joojoobees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-08, 14:27   Link #6464
Joojoobees
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Shooting at North Dallas Office Tower

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/030...s-Office-Tower

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxDFW
According to police, an armed man shot a 63-year-old father and his 39-year-old son at a financial services business they own on the third floor. He also pointed his gun at arriving police, who fired at him and missed.
Joojoobees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-08, 15:46   Link #6465
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942 View Post
so what's this anti-gay state senator doing in a gay nightclub


Update:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ay-dui-arrest/
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-08, 16:58   Link #6466
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
Yes, but the fact of the matter remains that guns are much more lethal even in the hands of a novice. The only thing you need with a gun is a good aim, a steady hand and a reasonable level of fitness.
There are plenty of other things that area "lethal in the hands of a novice".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
Anyone who is a target for criminals. It could be you, it could be me. I am generally speaking when I say that guns are dangerous tools which were designed to kill from the very beginning.
Again, arms in the hands of the law-abiding are a greater threat to those who intend to do harm than are arms in the hands of those who do harm are against the armed innocent. Throughout history, the victims have violence have almost exclusively been the prey of those with greater power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
Let me emphasize the fact the the reason people use guns for "self-defense" is because people started using guns for all the wrong reasons in the first place. As much as you can deny it, the easy availability of guns in the US is a bigger threat to the innocent. If criminals didn't threaten innocent people with guns, they wouldn't feel the need to use guns in the first place. In Japan, it's rare even for policemen to use guns, and I don't know anyone in Italy who carries guns for self-defense either. The only other reason innocents would own a gun is for sport, and they wouldn't carry those around in public places to defend themselves anyways. I'm not saying people wouldn't cause harm to others if they didn't have a gun. What I'm saying is that normal citizens shouldn't have to carry such weapons of warefare in times of peace. They are not meant to be in anyone's hands. Their purpose was for the military, for war. We do not live in a society where the warrior class is glorified like they were in the middle ages anymore. Times have changed now.
You are once again speaking as though violence does not exist without criminals having firearms. There's an old quote you've probably heard. "God made man. Samuel Colt made them equal." That came out of a climate where innocent people were glad to be able to arm themselves so that something other than a firearm determined their ability to prevent victimhood.

Yes, Japan has fewer firearms in the hands of police officers. Japan simply has less crime. The argument that their lack of firearms contributes to that might hold some water if there weren't other nearly gun-free areas that have frighteningly high violent crime rates... But there are.

You are mixing your arguments talking about "warrior class". We were discussing self-defense. "Warrior class" doesn't enter into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
I don't deny that normal people need to defend themselves as well. As a matter of fact, I believe it would be wrong for people to be completely reliant on police forces to protect them and not do anything for themselves. The fact that crime prevention isn't part of US police's job description is what doesn't sit well with me.
You can keep saying that the police don't attempt crime prevention, but it doesn't get any more true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
You've been making it sound like people need guns to protect themselves from the government. Just because politics are brimming with lies and corruption doesn't mean that the state will suddenly carry out re-enactments of Stalin's purges. That's no reason for people to carry guns.
Things change, and change fast. In times past and in time present, governments have turned on their citizens. It was rarely anticipated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
I would've believed you if:

1. You didn't quote wikipedia
2. You had studies on illegal ownership in addition to legal ownership. No smart or sane criminal (unless we're talking about Yagami Light kind of smart ) is going to buy a gun legally. It would make them easy to be tracked down by the police if they committed a crime with said guns.
1. Wikipedia has references. I specifically mentioned the references being available on the Wikipedia page, and I did not quite anything that was not supported by reference. I don't know how you missed it. Go look.
2. As I said, I don't know of any studies documenting it accurately, but to dismiss it out of hand is to imply that the rates of criminal gun ownership compares in any significant way to such a large portion of the US population. A quarter of the US population owns firearms. Almost an eighth of the population owns them primarily for self-defense. Are you really suggesting that, even without hard numbers, that criminal gun ownership rivals an eighth of the population?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
I'm not saying people are not justified to carry guns. When so many normal citizens carry them for the wrong reasons, it is no surprise there are those people, like your grandfather, who can only feel safe if they also have adequate weapons. But as I said, the fact that there are so many people who use guns to cause harm is the reason people carry guns to defend themselves in the first place. If gun control was much more strict, people wouldn't feel compelled to carry weapons of war to feel safe.
Again, my primary point: Violence does not require firearms. My grandfather would feel quite threatened by ANYone intending to do him harm, arms or not. I'm in decent shape, myself, but I would personally feel threatened by anyone with a rock or a pipe, or even just their fists and serious intent. To us, a firearm isn't a "weapon of war". We don't let our emotions override our sensibility, so to us it's simply a tool for defense.

But logic didn't get you here, and it won't get you out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joojoobees View Post
That's insane, dude. Just because it is impossible to keep weapons away from every psychotic criminal, you think all psychotic criminals should be allowed to buy guns? There has to be some common sense ability to say, "look, this person has attacked a person with a knife, because the moon-men told him to, and he got off because of a technicality (or served his time), so don't sell him a gun."
I'm sure you know already, but in the US there are laws to prevent felons/the insane from legally owning weapons. I think that the argument was that the prevention of criminals from owning weapons illegally was nigh impossible, that the law abiding should have access to them. (After all, they're law-abiding.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joojoobees View Post
As far as being able to resist the US Armed Forces by stockpiling weapons, I don't believe it can be done. David Koresh tried, and just look at what that dangerous fantasy did for him. Those who argue that they are 'ensuring against tyranny', or whatever might be well-intentioned, but I do not think their plan will work if it ever gets put to the test.
No single person could stand against the might of an entire military, but even an entire military would have trouble standing against an armed populace.

In the US, the active military makes up 0.5% of the population. Yet with a much larger ratio of soliders to the general population, the US had severe troubles maintaining some semblance of control in Iraq when they were opposed by a small number of poorly trained opposers. An armed populace is a good deterrent, even against the US military.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-08, 18:21   Link #6467
JMvS
Rawrrr!
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 30
On Guns and Crime

Given my personal experience, I'd say criminality is way more linked to the cultural and social context than widespread gun ownership.

In this regard my country would be a prime example, with extremely high gun ownership (virtually every male Swiss citizen is given a military grade weapon by his 20's, and sometimes even as early as 16), but also low crime and murder rates (I would even rate Switzerland much lower on the scale, as statistics are most likely inflated by the Euthanasia tourism).

More so, in Switzerland, the gun and militia culture makes it that gun ownership is much more widespread over the whole population (25-30% would be a minimum estimate, as virtually all male adult citizen are concerned).
Yet legally held guns involved in murders are confined to suicides and family dramas.
__________________
JMvS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-08, 23:04   Link #6468
Joojoobees
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
I'm sure you know already, but in the US there are laws to prevent felons/the insane from legally owning weapons. I think that the argument was that the prevention of criminals from owning weapons illegally was nigh impossible, that the law abiding should have access to them.
Actually ChainLegacy said Either no one can buy guns, or everyone should be able to. I was arguing that existing US laws, as you describe, should not be repealed, and that it is very reasonable for society to restrict some people's access to guns, because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy with such responsibility.
Joojoobees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 02:15   Link #6469
MeoTwister5
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS View Post
Given my personal experience, I'd say criminality is way more linked to the cultural and social context than widespread gun ownership.

In this regard my country would be a prime example, with extremely high gun ownership (virtually every male Swiss citizen is given a military grade weapon by his 20's, and sometimes even as early as 16), but also low crime and murder rates (I would even rate Switzerland much lower on the scale, as statistics are most likely inflated by the Euthanasia tourism).

More so, in Switzerland, the gun and militia culture makes it that gun ownership is much more widespread over the whole population (25-30% would be a minimum estimate, as virtually all male adult citizen are concerned).
Yet legally held guns involved in murders are confined to suicides and family dramas.
This is the reason why you have the cliched saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. You can have everyone armed to the teeth with assault rifles, grenade launchers and grenade launchers that shoot assault rifles but if the social culture isn't one of violence that teaches people to shoot now, take their stuff and ask questions later, then you really won't have that much crime per licensed weapon.

Stopping gun ownership isn't going to stop crime and neither will arming every law-abiding citizen. If you want to stop crime, stop the culture that creates criminals.
MeoTwister5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 02:58   Link #6470
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
No single person could stand against the might of an entire military, but even an entire military would have trouble standing against an armed populace.

In the US, the active military makes up 0.5% of the population. Yet with a much larger ratio of soliders to the general population, the US had severe troubles maintaining some semblance of control in Iraq when they were opposed by a small number of poorly trained opposers. An armed populace is a good deterrent, even against the US military.
If the US decided to go all oppressive on the population, the military would likely be expanded. Don't forget the national guard and police either. Not to mention a good chunk of the population would likely SUPPORT the government because they're not the ones being oppressed, so don't forget civilian informents who sell out their friends for some type of reward. One of the main ways an oppressive government stays in power is through building a domestic surveillance network and coming down hard on people who oppose them. It won't be US military vs US civilian population, it's be US military, intelligence agencies, police, and a good chunk of the civilian population vs a small portion of the ones being oppressed who decide to fight.

Further, it wouldn't matter at that point whether they ever owned guns before. Most of the actual effective weaponry such a hypothetical insurgency would use would be smuggled in by international arms dealers backed by foreign nations that don't like the new US government now with 450% more oppression if such a thing happened. Except for civilian versions of assault rifles and some high powered hunting rifles that could be used by snipers, most currently legal weapons aren't exactly useful on a battlefield. They'd need RPGs, shoulder fired surface to air missiles, stuff like that which are already illegal. Even most of the assault rifles and sniper rifles would be smuggled in. Of course they could make their own explosives. Oklahoma City showed what a fertilizer bomb could do.
__________________

Last edited by Kamui4356; 2010-03-09 at 03:09.
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 03:21   Link #6471
0utf0xZer0
Pretentious moe scholar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS View Post
Given my personal experience, I'd say criminality is way more linked to the cultural and social context than widespread gun ownership.

In this regard my country would be a prime example, with extremely high gun ownership (virtually every male Swiss citizen is given a military grade weapon by his 20's, and sometimes even as early as 16), but also low crime and murder rates (I would even rate Switzerland much lower on the scale, as statistics are most likely inflated by the Euthanasia tourism).

More so, in Switzerland, the gun and militia culture makes it that gun ownership is much more widespread over the whole population (25-30% would be a minimum estimate, as virtually all male adult citizen are concerned).
Yet legally held guns involved in murders are confined to suicides and family dramas.
Okay, I'm curious, in what situations are Swiss citizens allowed to carry their weapons and when is it legal to actually shot someone? To me, the difference between Canadian and American laws on how you can use guns are more striking than the difference in weapons you can own. In Canada, using a firearm against another person is only permitted if your opponent is threatening you with a weapon, and in most situations you're not supposed to be carrying a gun on you period.

I'm also curious as to whether you have much trouble with drunken idiots doing stupid things with their weapons. We actually discussed personal anecdotes concerning guns in one of my political science classes, and aside from the prof who had been robbed in South Africa, the only story we had was from one guy who had a drunk with a rifle stop him while he was driving home at 1AM and ask him if he was the one who drove on his lawn because his car was the same colour as the one that did that.
__________________

Signature courtesy of Ganbaru.
0utf0xZer0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 08:07   Link #6472
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joojoobees View Post
Actually ChainLegacy said Either no one can buy guns, or everyone should be able to. I was arguing that existing US laws, as you describe, should not be repealed, and that it is very reasonable for society to restrict some people's access to guns, because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy with such responsibility.
I think you've inferred too much from my post. If someone has used guns in the past to commit heinous acts few if any people are going to support their legal ownership of weapons. I mean to say there should never be widespread gun control for the citizenry, for the reasons I gave and others have elaborated on.

Though there's also the cautioning thought in my mind right now that yes, some restriction is obviously necessary for those known to misuse firearms, but at the same time we don't want restrictions/qualifications to gun ownership to be so numerous that the average person effectively cannot purchase a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
If the US decided to go all oppressive on the population
No one's going to argue it wouldn't be a bloody mess, but hell if that'll stop me from trying to defend myself.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 10:06   Link #6473
JMvS
Rawrrr!
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0 View Post
Okay, I'm curious, in what situations are Swiss citizens allowed to carry their weapons and when is it legal to actually shot someone? To me, the difference between Canadian and American laws on how you can use guns are more striking than the difference in weapons you can own. In Canada, using a firearm against another person is only permitted if your opponent is threatening you with a weapon, and in most situations you're not supposed to be carrying a gun on you period.
Our legislation would be more like that of Canada, with this twist: you won't be prosecuted if you were being threatened by a weapon carrying aggressor.
Peoples working in the security business and a few individuals do carry weapon on them, but of course they have to justify for it and have a formation.

Otherwise, almost every male citizen in his 20's (and a fair part of those younger than 40) will carry their military weapon (unloaded) about 3 times a year: to go to the mandatory shooting practice, and to go to and come back from their yearly weeks of military training. The man pictured here is not out of the ordinary (except he's not totally abiding the rules, as the magazine shouldn't be in his weapon), as are all the young peoples in uniform you'll find in Swiss railway stations on Friday evening or Saturday morning.

Maybe another thing to factor is that formation and security standards are very high when it concern guns, be it in the military or in the civilian society. Your practice is even more controlled than your driving licence would be (cars are way more deadly weapons BTW, and I'm much more frightened of holding a steering wheel than a loaded automatic weapon), as every year you go to monitored shooting practice, and every year you go to military training, where maneuvering under real fire is not uncommon (and even when you are practicing various firing modes and stances with your squad, I assure you that you look carefully where you are pointing your barrel, as well as your neighbor).

Quote:
I'm also curious as to whether you have much trouble with drunken idiots doing stupid things with their weapons. We actually discussed personal anecdotes concerning guns in one of my political science classes, and aside from the prof who had been robbed in South Africa, the only story we had was from one guy who had a drunk with a rifle stop him while he was driving home at 1AM and ask him if he was the one who drove on his lawn because his car was the same colour as the one that did that.
I don't recall any significant incident involving any drunken or angry idiot, safe for a few where either in a traffic or family dispute, one would shot in the ground or such.
These past 10 years, (out of suicide and family dramas) I recall only of 3 significant tragedy, premeditated by deranged individuals (2 using service weapon) and one accident.
First is the infamous spree killer who made a bloodshed in a regional parliament (didn't use service weapon, and given his mental health records, one can wonder how he was able to buy so many weapons).
Second is an emotional guy who went on a killing spree in a porno theater in my hometown.
Third is a deranged guy who went on sniping a random girl after finishing boot camp (had the army had access to judiciary records, he would never got in).
The last accident involved a youth (about 16), who got killed at home after shooting practice due to an non unloaded bullet (I don't know whether he smuggled it out of the practice or the gun wasn't correctly controlled).
__________________
JMvS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 10:41   Link #6474
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS View Post
The last accident involved a youth (about 16), who got killed at home after shooting practice due to an non unloaded bullet (I don't know whether he smuggled it out of the practice or the gun wasn't correctly controlled).
Probably didn't check clear. Intentionally or not, that is a stupid place to put a bullet unless you plan to engage: right in front of a firing pin in a chamber.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 10:48   Link #6475
Joojoobees
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I think you've inferred too much from my post. If someone has used guns in the past to commit heinous acts few if any people are going to support their legal ownership of weapons. I mean to say there should never be widespread gun control for the citizenry, for the reasons I gave and others have elaborated on.
Okay, so you would agree, then, that people should undergo a background check before being allowed to purchase weapons. I was confused because what you said sounded like what I heard so much of in Tennessee, that background checks should be repealed, that they should not be extended to cover the gun show loophole, and last year they even passed a law claiming the state was exempt from federal firearm laws.
Joojoobees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 14:07   Link #6476
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
I'm just also cautioning that we need to keep an eye on these people performing background checks because it is far too easy for such restrictions to escalate.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 15:30   Link #6477
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I'm just also cautioning that we need to keep an eye on these people performing background checks because it is far too easy for such restrictions to escalate.
Given how often criminals with prior convictions are caught with guns, I would say that the people performing background checks are not restrictive enough. Your concern is completely unfounded.
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 17:42   Link #6478
TooPurePureBoy
Socially Inept
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Retracing my steps.....
Quote:
Given how often criminals with prior convictions are caught with guns, I would say that the people performing background checks are not restrictive enough. Your concern is completely unfounded.
And how many of those criminals caught with prior convictions in possession of a gun actually acquired and own that weapon legally?
__________________
"Do what I do in every friendship and relationship, give 5%" - Ron Bennington
TooPurePureBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-09, 19:54   Link #6479
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy View Post
Given how often criminals with prior convictions are caught with guns, I would say that the people performing background checks are not restrictive enough. Your concern is completely unfounded.
They're not unfounded if you believe in small government without that kind of power and ability. In fact if you hold that stance we're already way off course in the US.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-10, 00:32   Link #6480
Haruka_Kitten
The AnimeSuki Pet kitten
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: A furry den
Age: 21
Send a message via MSN to Haruka_Kitten Send a message via Yahoo to Haruka_Kitten Send a message via Skype™ to Haruka_Kitten
The little company that thought it could has shown that it really can't. Metro Trains Melbourne, a joint venture whose majority is owned by successful rail operator MTR Corp, has seen just how hard it is to run a network without the resources they had in Hong Kong.
Metro fails to meet performance targets for third month running amid more cancellations and commuter pain
Quote:
UPDATE 4.07pm: NEW train operator Metro has failed to meet its performance targets for the third month running, as Herald Sun readers rated their service a dismal one out of 10.

In an online reader poll almost 25 per cent of people rated Metro's performance over their first 100 days as one of of 10. Just over 11 per cent gave Metro a score of three out of ten, while 10.6 per cent gave them five out of ten.

Just six per cent of readers thought Metro had delivered a 10 out of 10 performance.

Metro's performance results means some commuters will be able to apply for compensation, in the form of a free daily ticket, because of the poor service.

During February, only 83.4 per cent of trains ran on time, which is below the target.

In January, 13.1 per cent of trains were late, over the 12 per cent performance target in Metro's contract with the State Government.

This morning's cancellations came barely hours after a molotov cocktail was thrown at a train last night.

The molotov cocktail was thrown through a train window and triggered a fire last night, damaging another train as eight others were taken off the rails due to brake problems.

Three Siemens trains were taken out of action yesterday after failing to brake when required.

The Herald Sun has also revealed the Flinders St viaduct is in desperate need of repair.

And plans to restore the Flinders St bridge - so rundown trains have to slow to 15km/h - have been shelved until at least January next year.
I won't ask of the state government anymore. This is pathetic, turning a reputable company into the new Connex Scapegoat.
__________________
"That bus! It has an awesome ring to it!"
Haruka_Kitten is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.