More guns doesn't mean more gun violence, just ask the Serbians.
America has (or had) the most guns per capita by far (#1 at 89 guns per 100 people) but was 13th in gun deaths with 10.9 per 100000 people.
Serbia , (#2 in per capita guns at 58 per 100) had only 3.9 gun deaths per 100000 people.
Honduras only had 6.2 guns per 100, but had 64.8 gun deaths per 100000 people!

This quite clearly proves it's not the number of guns per person that's an issue, it's the culture the people live in. Guns aren't the problem, people pointing (and shooting) them inappropriately is the issue.
That said, when a populace has proven it can't be responsible with a dangerous device, it's reasonable to make it more difficult to own the device and require prior training for it's proper usage, and punishment for improper usage. Too bad reason has left the building.

More info here - http://avherald.com/h?article=46d32419

Initially they had to hold because of a Cessna disabled on the Kilimanjaro runway, but it actually sounds like they just landed at the wrong airport afterwards. They had been cleared for landing at Kilimanjaro, but Arusha's runway was visible from their position and with the same orientation as their intended destination.

The passengers were initially told they had in fact landed at Kilimanjaro, 50 km away, and were then stuck on board the aircraft for 3.5 hours until stairs could be brought from there.

Reader N writes:

At least 100 people (police, fireman, military, airport officials) were on the runway, taking pictures with their phones, and no one gave us any explanation, no words from the pilot, nothing.

Funny now, but it was not quite funny 2 weeks ago.

Ralph & Paul, What you're looking for is giving our allegiance to the long 1st Nation sovereignty here. Humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generating') 1st Nations cultivated local power by organizing the 'economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home') through multihome living with critical-mass of 100 people in each Longhouse/apartment, Pueblo/townhouse & Kanata/village. Such grouping enables local livelihood economies of mutual aid multiplying time, resources & money for women-men intergenerationally. 70% of people in the USA & worldwide live in multihome dwellings but aren't organizing their livelihood economies because we are programmed as colonists. Here's a software development we're working on for neighbourhood web-based Human Resource Catalogues, Resource Mapping & accounting in a Community Investment & Exchange System. Lets become indigenous to our time & place. [url redacted]

Did you just compare fucking people on camera to working at Walmart?

Being a porn star isn't "employment" at all. You cannot even begin to compare Walmart hourly workers to a porn star.

However, I have zero sympathy for Walmart employees who continue to work there despite the supposed questionable employment practices. For every person that quits Walmart, there are 100 people in line waiting for that job. If you are working at or near minimum wage in retail or food service, you might want to reevaluate your life before getting all self-entitled demanding perks.

And the anti-progress crowd will be here soon right on cue to decry the corporation removing jobs for the sake of profits. I like the video, it shows how making food(if chips count) has been made much cheaper by said progress. Yes, it maybe did used to require 100 people to produce the same amount of food, but that doesn't only mean 100 jobs missing. It means cheaper food for a lot more than those 100 people. That translates into other opportunities.

Is it so wrong?? To let the herd cull itself ?? Johnny can't use his hammer correctly so he beat himself in the face and needs stiches. Ban Hammers.
Billy slipped on dish soap in his kitchen wearing defective non-slip soles, ban those, we're too fucking stupid to walk around in our own ki9tchen.
Little Timmy threw a rock and it entered the man's brain through his temple. BAN ROCKS.

This argument is as sound as any that have spewed from all on this subject with a fear of the unknown and a severe lack of basic motor skills and critical thinking-

It is wrong to rely on what is reported and what is not reported by news media, local blotters, etc. to shape one's understanding of the constitution and the history of the United States. YOU PEOPLE WATCH TOO MUCH FUCKING TELEVISION (in whatever country you're in) AND KNWO DICK ABOUT RECENT HISTORY, MUCH LESS ANCIENT.!! The fact that this shit is even up for vote, retooling, or added restrictions boggles, man. Short of a constitutional amendment, the shit reads clearly and plainly in the 2nd and 4rth-If you amend the 2nd you have fucked the thing up, which will consequently, screw the 4rth.

More laws for idiots and imbeciles, less for the operations managers of a realistic unfolding of our immediate future.

A fastidious child with an hour of training and two of practice could kill 100 people with a .22 pistol before the police come or someone wrestles her to the ground, be it school, mall, fast-food joint or post-office line.

Fuck, give morons a goddamn tattoo so we know who to keep sharpened toothbrushes away from

A few Korean merchants 20 years ago justifies the deaths of 100+ people (at least) due to spree killers in the intervening years. A man of principles not doubt.

I also like how he alludes that the mother of this spree killer wasn't responsible enough. This is exactly the point Morgan is trying to make. We need laws to dictate RESPONSIBLE gun ownership such as it being legally enforced to have them in safes locked away from those who are mentally ill. Its not rocket surgery.

Nothing but creating gun scarcity will work, which is what the rest of the developed world does, and with 89 guns/100 people that will not happen in this lifetime. I suggest getting used to it already or emigrating.

http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/total-gun-ownership.jpg

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control

>> ^alcom:

Excellent point. Drone use, according to the video, began in 2004. It doesn't matter who's in power, drones are here to stay until reporting of civilian casualties breaks into mainstream media.
>> ^Hive13:
Honestly, saying they are living under "Obama's" drones is a bit trite don't you think?



I think you are a very blind if you think civilian casualties are being under reported when it comes to drone strikes. Admittedly, I spend more time on Al Jazeera than most, but still. How many civilian casualties in tribal Pakistan from Taliban and extremists militants make the news here? Maybe 1 per year? How many civilian casualties due to drone strikes make the news here? Probably monthly?

Here is the reality though. For every single person killed in Pakistan by drone strikes, almost 100 people in Pakistan are killed by the Taliban and religious extremists. That's some pretty unbalanced and poor reporting out west don't you think? And it doesn't even take into account the painstaking hours and effort made by America to target Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders with their strikes, while the Taliban proudly and publicly declare that women and student civilians are among their intended and preferred targets for killing.

Sure, using Drones to kill people is bad. Unfortunately we live in a bad world, and the alternatives are a ground war against the Taliban(more deaths) or ignoring them(more deaths). The choice is between bad and worse, and so yes a 'bad' choice has been accepted.

^@ bobknight33

Your 50 million is way off the # was 30 Million and that doesn't divide who can afford but choose not to get it and whose who really cant afford healthcare. (At least with the individual mandate those who can pay but choose not to are required to pay back into the system).

That # is reported around 12 million. (Where did you find this percentage i have yet to see it in an official report?).

Now is it worth you paying 2600 more in insurance just to cover 12 Million? (Covered below).

Amount of Deaths due to the absence of healthcare: More than 26,000 working-age adults die prematurely in the United States each year because they lack health insurance, according to a study by the consumer advocacy group Families USA, estimates that a record high of 26,100 people aged 25 to 64 died for lack of health coverage in 2010, up from 20,350 in 2005 and 18,000 in 2000. also 22,000 deaths nationwide in 2006.

"Lives are truly on the line," said Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack, who supports the reform law. "If the Affordable Care Act moves forward and we expand coverage for tens of millions of people, the number of avoidable deaths due to being uninsured will decrease significantly."

What is the republican healthcare solution?.

Source: Reuters, 6/20/2012 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47892292/ns/health-health_care/t/report-uninsured-americans-die-each-year/#.UEKmKdbiZO8.

the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation has analyzed census data to provide a closer look at the people without health insurance in the U.S. Its report, focused on people younger than age 65, found 45.7 million "nonelderly" uninsured people in the U.S. last year (including the elderly, the number of uninsured was 46.3 million). Low-income adults without dependent children — who generally do not qualify for government programs like Medicaid — were hit hardest. Despite heated rhetoric on the issue, immigrants are not driving the problem; 80% of the uninsured under age 65 are native-born or naturalized citizens. The uncompensated cost of providing health care to the uninsured last year was $57 billion, three-quarters of which was picked up by the Federal Government.

Most uninsured Americans work: Of those under age 65 without insurance, 8 in 10 are members of working families. Only 19% are in families with no one working. However, 62% of the uninsured have no education beyond high school, limiting their ability to boost their incomes or advance to jobs that may offer health care. The uninsured were three times more likely to have trouble meeting basic monthly expenses like rent and food.

Of those without health insurance, 11% reported being in fair or poor health, compared with 5% with private coverage. Nearly a quarter of the uninsured say they've forgone medical care in the past year due to its cost, compared with 4% who receive private care. As a result, the uninsured are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems.

Government programs are making a difference for children: Despite overall increases, the number of uninsured children last year fell by 800,000, to 8.1 million, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and state programs covering minors. (The total in 2006 was 9.4 million).

Young adults with no children are especially vulnerable: Programs such as Medicaid and Medicare insure millions of parents, children and disabled people. But low earners without dependent children are offered few resources when it comes to health insurance; they comprise 58% of uninsured Americans as a result. At 30%, those ages 19 to 29 have the highest uninsured rate. Racial minorities are also disproportionately represented; about one-third of Hispanics and one-fifth of blacks go without insurance, compared with 13% of whites.

Most people know that millions of Americans lack health insurance, but this report helps give that enormous group a human face. That many unemployed workers lack health insurance is not a surprise, but many of us may not realize that so many working people do as well — a troubling fact that lends credence to the reform efforts under way.

Source: TIME, Oct. 14, 2009 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1930096,00.html#ixzz25GkXZCFq

The linear no threshold model for low dose exposure cancer risk is falling out of favor in the scientific community btw, imma upvote because all of this other illustrations are really excellent. The correlation between amounts of cancer and low dose radiation in many new and old studies seems to point to some threshold where low dose presents no harm. More studies need to be done to find exactly what this is. LNT is still ok for determining upper bounds of risk, but shouldn't be used for lower bound analysis. Which means to say a study could say 100 people have a risk of cancer deaths, but there is also possibility that the number could be 0. More studies into thresholds or even hormesis need to be conducted

I like your answer.

It's interesting that the average tax rate paid by the companies in your study was almost exactly the 30% corporate tax rate in Australia.

The U.S. tax system would be progressive in a world where everybody draws a salary, which is their only income stream, and where anyone earning more than the national average refuses to take their allowable tax deductions. As this is not the situation people generally describe, I'll assume your system isn't quite as progressive as your answer, talking only about federal income tax, tried to imply.

Your point about the lower 50% of wage earners paying 5% of Income taxes also fails to prove that the system is progressive, due to wage disparity. Assume a regressive system where you pay 50% tax until your income reaches $100,000, then a rate of 5% applies. If you have a population of 100 people, 99 of whom earn 5 dollars per annum and one earns $1,000,000 per annum: $2.5 x 99 = $247.50, $50,000 x 1 = $50,000, the total tax is $50,247.50 and the bottom 50% in a regressive system have paid 0.25% of the total taxes.

Most western democracies have laws trying to prevent the corporate cronyism you point out as the real problem, with varying degrees of success. Super-pac's for instance would be illegal in most parts of the world.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

[...]

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.

I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?


I'll be honest...I don't give a shit I just want you to shut up.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.


I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.



No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.

Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.