I agree with you.

I do though, have the experience of playing violent vids since the mid ninetys and do not feel it makes me any more violent.

I understand that killing an animal "for fun only" is on the way to psyco ville but I truly don't think this is where shag is coming from. Farmers, hunters I've found are much more realists. life and death happen daily on farms (barn kittens getting stepped on by milk cows That gets me but my then dairy farm GF didn't bat an eye. All part of life.

"Oh I, I'm so sohhry. This all-eh my fault. I should've-a shut my water park-a down when it reached-a ninety percent-a pee!"

I'm sorry....Who goes to a place like this and calls, "fun?" Aren't there some inland lakes or ponds in the provinces somewhere you can reach by bullet-train er sumpthin'? How about, save up yer train-fare for a day at the coast?? Thenna you donna-always a-still gotta be-a thinkin' about-a the pee-pee, si??

Actually, he said, "do you think that she could learn 50 words (..later raised to 99 words) in UNDER one sentence?" (@ 20 s).
He then said to her, "count from one to ninety nine."
That is exactly one sentence.

He looses the bet.

Dogs and kangaroos are one of the few interspecies mixes that can sustain a pregnancy through to viable young of a normal lifespan. (Tigers and Lions are another, the most famous mix perhaps.) I was fortunate to work in the lab with a very sweet dogaroo for three years in the late nineties.

If I read correctly "online" ( who knows the source)

The nickel back thing comes from them apparently SUCKING because they sound like every other band.

Which is complete and utter bullshit because ...

*enters way back machine*

When nickel back came out in the nineties, they had an original sound and rocketed up the charts because of it (still do for the most part) and in 2000/2001/2002 etc. bands like puddle of mud and ahhh.. I forget the name and the other one, all sounded like NICKLE BACK. I mean what are people comparing them too ? bands from the early nineties ? and this is a joke for 2011 as if that is a relevant premise for the joke... NO if you are to use that argument " they sound like every other band " You are either stupid, too young to know your shit, or just ignorant. because all the bands that " young" retarded 20 year olds think nickle back sound like, they sound like nickle back. so fuck . FUCK YOU STUPID young fuckers.

/end rant

Its been building up. I am not even going to read it in true RANT fashion, just let it all go.

Judging by the video quality I would guess this was filmed in the early nineties. That means she is over 40 by now... just saying

my fav Flea moment was seeing him in the film, "Let's Get Lost" hanging out with Chet Baker whom they tracked-down resurrected for a recording session for the film months before he was gone.
Flea has always been about the music-Funny though, never really dug on the Chilli Peppers heavily, ignored most popular music from the nineties altogether-Ex saw them in PDX back in the late 90's on a bill with the Beastie Boys, said it was the best show she'd ever almost been trampled at!

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not sure who's disagreeing with who here.
The fact that you can teach a child in order to make their access to guns safer doesn't mean that every child that has access to guns will be taught this in a sufficient way. Besides, how many children had lots of training and still ended up shooting themselves or someone else.
You can get very detailed statistics from the CDC, unfortunately I can't link to them because they are generated by a search and the URLs generated are session specific. The statistics, as detailed as they are, don't state weather the child was educated in the use of firearms, but accidental firearms death in children is quite low. According to the CDC, between 1999 and 2010 the leading cause of accidental deaths to children ages 1-4 is motor vehicle accidents (28.9%), poisoning is 8th (2.4%) and firearms is 12th (1.0%). Going up to the 5-9 age range MVA is still the leading cause of accidental death (46.7%), with poisoning still 8th (1.8%) and firearms still 12th (1.5%). You can look them up yourself at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention & Control.

>> ^L0cky:
If you don't think having a gun in your home would automatically make it the most dangerous thing in that home then you're either being disingenuous or you have some freaky shit going on in your house.
Having a gun in your home does not make it the most dangerous thing in the house, and the statistics I posted above back me up. There are plenty of things even in a gunless household that are lethal if a child gets its hands on it. I would argue that a gun is far safer because it can be unloaded and therefore be rendered harmless if a kid gets a hold of it. A bottle of drain cleaner, bug spray, bottle of medicine, etc. is always going to be dangerous if a child gets a hold of it. With those items, all you can do is lock them away in a safe place where a child can't get them until they are old enough to understand that they are dangerous. Any responsible gun owner would treat a gun the same as any other dangerous object in the home, by unloading it and/or locking it up until the child is old enough to be taught that it's dangerous and not something to play with.

I don't understand your objection to teaching a kid how to properly operate a firearm when the're old enough. I was taught by my father as his father taught him, and I've never killed anyone on purpose or accident.

>> ^L0cky:
So my question is: despite the fact that some kids can be taught to be careful with a firearm, what is the justification of owning one...
I can't speak for every gun owner, but I have several reasons. I personally own four guns, two rifles and two pistols. It's a hobby, I like to shoot them, but I also own them for self defense. I also like archery and own a bow. A bow is also an instrument of war and designed for the taking of human life as well as hunting, just as a rifle, but how come no one pitches a fit about bows like they do guns? I don't hunt, but I have friends that do, so there's another reason for you.

I also have gone through the steps to acquire a license to carry a concealed firearm in my state. I think of it as insurance. I have car insurance, but I don't intend to get in a wreck, and I also have home owners insurance though I don't intend for my home to get damaged or destroyed. I don't carry a gun intending to kill someone, but just like car and home insurance I have it just in case.

>> ^L0cky:
I'll play devil's advocate and say 5: to defend your property and family against an armed burgler. Yet if you take a look at the rest of the world, at countries where guns are not prolific, gun assisted burglaries are so rare that it doesn't even bear thinking about.

The fact that you need a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun is because you both have guns. - Captain "Circular" Obvious

From everything you've posted, you seem to be thinking that someone needs a gun to defend oneself from an attacker with a gun. The majority violent of crimes do NOT involve the use of a gun, and up to 2.5 million reported crimes (many are unreported) are prevented by lawful gun owners each year, most of which do not involve discharging the weapon.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired." [source]

>> ^L0cky:
I can't really budge on this unless you can somehow convince me that it's not preferable to live in a western society where almost all people have never even seen a real gun, therefore removing all their associated problems.
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not have to deal with people's irrational fear of them. You seem to have some delusional idea that removing guns from society is going stop crime and violence. Removing guns isn't going to magically stop people from being violent and committing crimes. The UK and Australia did ban personal ownership of guns and their crime rates went up because the only ones left with guns were the criminals. [1][2][3][4]

>> ^kymbos:

@jimnms - link for your last para?
Meanwhile, I think you're missing the point: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/america-is-a-violent-coun
try/
Over to you and your next move: the 'data must be wrong' argument.


Here's your source, and it didn't come out of my ass like Bill's shit.

What point I'm missing? Your linked article doesn't mention guns anywhere, it shows that America is more violent than other advanced countries, which is even more of reason to carry a gun for self defense. I think you're the one missing the point.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired. Can the average citizen be trusted to judge accurately when he or she is in jeopardy?...

A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." [source]

As for the U.S. vs other countries in gun homicides, the U.S. isn't #1:

Of course, it is not surprising that where there are more guns, there tends to be more gun-related deaths, but northern Latin America (Brazil in particular) breaks from this trend in a major way. The area has a massive homicide by firearm rate, with some of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world and the highest homicides by firearm count...

Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador combine for more homicides by firearm than Mexico, the United States, South Africa, the Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, India, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, Argentina and Jamaica put together. That is every other country with over 1,000 homicides by firearm. You would imagine that gun control would be very lax in the area, but as the top chart here illustrates, that is not the case. Brazil, for example, has roughly 255 million fewer guns (and about 115 million fewer people) than the United States and a much more strict and effective set of firearm regulations. So, while it is true that where there are guns, there is gun violence, that is clearly not the only determining factor. [source]

Several other sources [1] [2] show pretty much the same data.

In this particular case it's just a culture gap rather than needing to think about it. In the nineties there was an advert in the UK for Ferrero Rocher chocolates that was widely parodied and quoted.

As a probationary user I probably can't link the advert, but I can try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs7gAxsfK5U

The movie "Cass" is based on a true story and has similar themes.>> ^chingalera:

There's a book by Bill Buford called, "Among the Thugs" which is his personal account of his infiltration of the seedy world of football thuggery in the UK in the early nineties-These Brits would attend matches throughout Europe with the purpose of inciting riot in order to commit crimes like looting, shoplifting, etc. Cause a panic at a match, take it out into the streets and the city is ours was the plan. Great read.
http://www.amazon.com/Among-Thugs-Bill-Buford/dp/0679745351

There's a book by Bill Buford called, "Among the Thugs" which is his personal account of his infiltration of the seedy world of football thuggery in the UK in the early nineties-These Brits would attend matches throughout Europe with the purpose of inciting riot in order to commit crimes like looting, shoplifting, etc. Cause a panic at a match, take it out into the streets and the city is ours was the plan. Great read.

http://www.amazon.com/Among-Thugs-Bill-Buford/dp/0679745351

@Porksandwich:

According to Zimmerman, he was carrying his weapon in plain sight. So if he's telling the truth, I assume Martin would've seen it. Now, this is still all just speculation, but whatever the events leading up to the confrontation, if I felt I absolutely needed to hit someone who I knew had a gun, I would absolutely make sure that person was unconscious before the end of my assault. All this shit about how Martin had a responsibility to back off once he'd subdued Zimmerman is crazy. As if you would hit someone who had a gun and then back off and tell them to calm down.

Anyway, I could speculate forever, but what I don't have to speculate on is this: I support an American's right to carry a gun, even in public. There's a reason though, that most (practically all) neighborhood watch groups have policies about patrolling unarmed and in groups. The reason is to avoid vigilante justice, and even just unfortunate confrontations or misunderstandings that end in tragedy. The recommendation in ninety-nine percent of watch groups is that even if you have a license to carry a gun, you do not carry it on patrol and you always patrol in groups to avoid situations that escalate to unnecessary ends.

All that said though, the law is still open to interpretation. Even if Martin loses a murder trial, he could still appeal a conviction in a higher court and bring the whole thing back to square one. Unfortunately, this tragedy is just a another messed up event in a sometimes shitty world that people sometimes have to learn to live with.

Don had me spending my allowance on Mowtown and Stax 45's along with all the great rock n' Roll during the same time-Never got to see black folks showin' out before on television before the Soul Train started making regular stops-Where I lived it was usually on Sunday afternoon at about 4-5 pm, after Wide Woirld of Sports or right before another great Sunday favor4ite, The Lawrence Welk Show, which showcased some of the hottest white-bread talent ever to thrill the perennial, un-hip.

See, geeks in the old days children, listened to some really square shit. Don Ho.
Burl Ives or some Frankie Laine or Montavanni. Oh, and allll of someones parents had at least three soundtracks from some popular musical from the 60's in their musty collection, along with one or two lame folk records recorded BY white folks(coked-up) in America, for the same (Joe and Mary blow), kind of like you youngsters all do now , but with a much more socially acceptable veneer of status-quo wholesomeness(terminal squareness)-

Oh and Don Cornelius? What most folks never dreamed was how, before there was internet porn or white folks wandering into black churches for the music and hip-shakin', you were able to land the longest-running syndicated (35 seasons, 2nd only to Pat Robertson's, The 700 Club) weekly television show where a LARGE MAJORITY of the viewing audience were white males between the ages of 12 and 67, tuning in every week after getting pumped-up on testosterone to watch some fine-ass, booty-groovin', soul sisters command the nation with gyration.

Sad to know you couldn't take the pain any more Don-Watched your last broadcast back in the mid nineties. Amazing brother indeed. Almost never missed a show for ten years straight.