Pakistan are 95%+ Muslime They follow a higher power..
371 murder cases, 28 cases of gang murder, nine of abduction for ransom, 4 terrorism incidents were registered in 2015,
not quite as violent as America.

Then look at who is doing the shooting?
Lone nuts--- insignificant
Pissed off spouses -- insignificant
Inner city gang bangers -- root cause of American gun violence

Inner cities have excessive gun violence. Why is that?
No jobs?
No respect for life?
No desire to educate oneself to get out of the situation?
No real deterrent for gun use?

Would a strict gun free zone in such high gun use are be an OK solution that carries the strictest punishment for those that commit crimes with guns ( as apposed to guns being used to defend)? Ho about a 1 year of PSA on the local media before it goes into effect? then strictly enforced?


Until you can get people to respect life and or use the strictest punishment -- I think this will continue.

Better mental health links to ATF where friends and worker can nark to the ATF? This also might help send a flag to re investigate and or to investigate even more on the background check.

Longer waiting period to give ATF more time to do more thorough background check.



What would you propose?

You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol.

If someone wanted to kill with each shot on moving targets at 3-400 yards in the dark, yeah, 5 seconds+- per shot still seem reasonable, maybe half that for someone who practices on living, moving targets often. Your claim some people can continuously do that 120 times a minute including mag changes is just laughable. They might shoot that fast, but not hit anything accurately at that distance.

You have to prove it to convince me...better? If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't.

My claim is you will have more control at full auto than absolute maximum possible finger speed.
My other claim is you will put more lead down range with most full autos. In a crowd situation where missing is basically impossible and aiming wasted effort, like this one, more bullets means more damage. Once the crowd dispersed, aiming a high powered rifle would probably be more effective, but not before. Were this not the case, why would any military allow them, ever?

In this Turkey shoot situation, you get more hits on target in full auto. In target shooting, you won't. This was not a series of targets at 20 yards, it was a target zone at 3-400 yards in the dark.

Bwaahahaha!

Both infrastructures destroyed, but PRs is much better, yet they got less. PR is American, and begged for help during the storm. Haiti almost had no government after the earthquake, we just showed up to help.
You know SOME damage will happen, so prepare....but that ignores the point, Haiti had no warning and no preparation, but twice the help in 1/8 the time, even though they're also an island, surrounded by water, big water, and even though near 100% of structures were destroyed in Haiti with roads blocked and bridges impassable.
FEMA spent millions preparing in Texas and Florida...what's different?
PR requested FEMA help before landfall, and haven't stopped begging for it since.
Really, federal agencies cannot go where they aren't specifically requested by locals even in emergencies...and you think declaring the island (and San Juan specifically) a disaster zone and requesting FEMA and the military isn't a request....who's a moron again?
Couldn't that be 'Joseph Curl admits he hasn't met with San Juan mayor'? It's his job to provide emergency services and supplies, he's failed completely. Hypothetically, if she were killed, incapacitated, or trapped, San Juan just gets abandoned? Besides, pretending they don't have permission to enter town or knowledge of the need without her in person properly formatted request is just ludicrous and moronic.
They have permission, they need drivers that aren't there. They blame locals for not answering their phones and showing up to drive....but 95% don't have electricity, most cell towers are destroyed, and most roads are impassable because FEMA and the military continue to do little....but sure, it's those lazy Puerto Ricans that are the hold up.

Your ridiculous hyper politically biased opinion article actually discredits your contention. She has met them, is in constant contact, and her subordinates are stationed in the FEMA headquarters...she just hasn't wasted her time visiting that headquarters personally because there's no reason to besides a photo op, and she's busy trying to save lives. I'm sure Trump will play that game though, he likes having his picture taken.

I know many people that always swear their old cars are safer in a crash because they're heavy and "solid". "The other car is my crumple zone."... I'll have to share this video to them.

In those cases, they're being douchey.
I didn't read you to mean a perceived problem meant it wasn't a real problem, now I get you.

Children will be children, but can still be incredibly annoying to some, even if they're well behaved....like a baby on an airplane, it's often not the child's fault. I can support them thinking that all children are annoying (at times), and even communicating it to each other with, say, a knowing wink, but the open, blatant derision is uncalled for.....usually.

That said, there should be child free zones in public spaces imo. Just Tuesday we used our once a year passes to the United Airlines club in SFO to have a nice, quiet place to relax between long flights, and a family came in with two <5 year olds and instantly turned it into the loud, raucous environment everyone there paid to escape. Their children weren't being bad, just being loud children in a quiet place. That's the parent's being douchbags imo. Just as the childless shouldn't insist on no children in public, parents shouldn't insist they must be allowed to go everywhere. Don't take a baby to an adult movie.

It's hard for me to know why Putin is doing what he's doing. When he moved on Crimea, was he doing it because of the advance of European influence closer to Russia's borders? He's short on good allies unlike 'the west', so can he let people chip away at his comfort zone? Or is he a crazed imperialist?

I don't know. Why don't I know?

Because my government have shown themselves over the years to be a bunch of twats who will literally tell bare faced lies, whilst smiling, and when confronted with the horrors of what they've done they throw their heads back and laugh like a fucking sea lion swallowing a fish whole. And that's what they've done to their OWN PEOPLE. To other countries countries we declare war and send in the multinationals to rape their resources. I consider the invasion of Iraq equally dodgy as the invasion of Crimea. So my moral compass for what's ok and not ok no longer has a baseline.

On the other side, a bunch of people who used to know how the world worked back in 1970 probably thought propaganda was the best way to whip up some nationalistic pride and resentment toward the reds, but in 2017 the majority of young people don't trust a single word they say. So these 70 year old media mogul billionaires can't even tell a believable truth anymore - even if Putin's tanks were half way down my street i'd have to clap eyes on them before i could be sure.

Plus Russia's leadership is Putin himself, he's the spearhead, and he's very cunning. Our leadership is spread across a set of democratically elected people, half of which are both incompetent and self interested, while half of those remaining are merely one or the other. It's easier for one person to look competent and assured. Someone like Merkel has to share the associated incompetency of whatever the German equivalent of her 'cabinet' is.

Someone who knows that letting vehicles, cattle, poultry, or objects stop you in a possibly hostile place is putting you into a static kill zone for an ambush or IED.

Yet this probably enrages the regular population too.

So it's lose/lose

Was gone for the weekend and it turned into word fights (almost)...

It is so hard to carry on a discussion... the heat too easily turned up. Sorry if I contributed in the heat.

Thing is, I don't think any of us need to argue for God's omnipotent or his non-existence. God can select to do or not do anything he wants. He can choose to reveal Himself to a believer or a non-believer, or NOT to. What's the point. It has been argued for millennia and I doubt we are "The Chosen One(s)" to end this. And I think, most of us in our Western society, whether you're Christian or not, we know quite a bit about the Bible CONTENT. But the 99.99% of us non-Bible-scholars probably don't know the exact CONTEXT of the tough stuff. The churches avoid them too for obvious reasons.

For me the important things is, there are really horrible things done in history (and present) in the name of religion. Allow me to be a bit self-serving and consider these terrible, inhumane events as evil beings hijacking their religions so they can get away Scot-free. We can't allow that in this day & age. Hold the evil doers & hypocrites accountable, not the religion.

When I read the Bible, I see all the crap that makes no sense too, but I see the discrepancy as humanity making progress. There are so many years between us & the Bible's original writings (or oral pass-me-downs), words & meaning invariably changed (and not always for the better). Could it be the clear-as-day word "gossip" (its Hebrew equivalent) was not part of its language yet? Therefore Paul said those sexist things (in our modern eye)? Or just people speak funny in those days? I can't be sure.

So, I *try* to figure out the meaning of those difficult Bible verses by keeping the context of Jesus' teachings in mind. I mean, come on, all he want is us all having compassion towards each other, be respectful of God and oh, there's the promise of heaven. Like, THAT'S IT, that's the gist of it. Anything else is pretty secondary & incidental to me. The part that concerns between human-human interact? Yes, it's hard to put in practice. But it's not hard to understand what's needed to be done. E.g. If someone offends my religion, should I go on the defensive and then all Super-Saiyan retaliation mode? Or should put my focus into finding out why he offended me and try to understand the reasoning behind it, and if possible, do something positive about it? I believe Jesus asks of us the latter.

Thing is, as a Christian (granted, some Christian might not consider me one that much, maybe?), I'm OK to leave a lot of things in the Bible in the "gray zone"... because it is *I* that haven't the smarts to comprehend what's written fully. But I do think I understand its purpose enough to know what I need to do to be better. The world is full of hurt, we can't just standby and focus on sometimes pointless fights (ironically I'm typing this post, lol, mea culpa, but hope it's worth it), better put more energy on making things better -- like Jesus, arguably the most progressive thinker/doer of its time, wanted to make the world a better place. Jesus didn't spend his time setting up a religion, he was there for a peace & compassion revolution.

Seriously sad that when the topic touches on religion, there're way too much stereotypes & presumptions on every sides. I see the reality as far more nuanced. I can understand, and in fact conditionally support, a lot of the abolition of "Religion" with its ritualistic practices in today's society. I really don't trust anyone loudly proclaiming themselves "devout" but support sexist/racist/unjust policies. The smell of hypocrisy, ulterior motives & power corruption are too great. Don't sheepishly give them the political & God forbid... military power to do great harm to humanity. History has proven that time & again.

That makes sense....only if you don't understand carpool lanes.
They are designed for that lane to safely move much faster than traffic...that's why they exist at all. They have zones where you may enter or leave, nowhere else for exactly this reason. If you would counter that it's only safe if people follow the rules of the road, I'll counter that that is always the case on any road at any speed.

Some places have 80 mph limits...but they don't have carpool lanes there. Even at 65, slower than normal unimpeded traffic, he would have wrecked imo. Slowing down to the speed of non-carpool lane traffic defeats the purpose of the special, separate lane and is actually blocking traffic.

I make no assertion about any other video he posted, only this one situation. His being an asshole or not has no bearing this time.

key terms:

Defense in depth: multiple layers of anti-tank guns interwoven with mines, trenches, infantry, and artillery already registered and aimed at killing zones in front of the obstacles. No single hard crust; rather, more like the layers of an armored onion; as you peel one layer, the next one pops up.

"Pak belt": the reference term for anti-tank guns.

Commissar: the political officer who will shoot any man who retreats from their defense of the motherland.

"Shoulders": the sides of the place in the line pierced by the first plunge of the blitzkrieg that have to held by the defense in order to slow it and give the counterattack a wide open flank to punch into.

Reliability: new German tank models were rushed into battle at Kursk at Hitler's direct insistence before they had been debugged. The battle started 6 days after the last just-barely-not-a-prototype Panther had been delivered to the front. The battle began with 184 Panthers on the rolls; by day two, there were 40 operational; by day 5, there were 10 total...

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/

Ironically, the decision to delay the battle by two months, giving the Soviets time to build up all of their defenses (digging trenches and anti-tank obstacles takes time)--was made to make it possible for the Panther to get to the front..

Stay out of the White Zone!

@kir_mokum has a point.this is dennis prager,from the illustrious (sarcasm) prager university.

you are not entirely incorrect when you state that this appears to be "fact-based",and it is..up to a point,because those 'facts' have been carefully cherry-picked to lead you to a pre-determined conclusion.

this video,in a nutshell,is propaganda.

he uses the word 'evil" as if somehow it is representative of communism.this is a canard,communism is not "evil",those who wielded power in their respective communist systems,perpetrated those "evil" acts.

communism itself,is not inherently evil.
failed and ultimately destructive and oppressive,but not inherently evil.

we can apply pragers logic to our own economic system of capitalism and come to the exact same conclusion that he did with communism.capitalism also causes immense hardship and suffering,and also death.deaths by the tens of thousands.

is capitalism "evil"?
of course not.

he also states without evidence,or supporting sources,that the "liberal" intelligencia from our higher educational system refuse to admonish communism as "evil".of course they don't,because communism is not inherently "evil",but stalin and moa WERE despotic tyrants,who were responsible for perpetrating immense hardship,suffering and death.a.k.a=evil.

i find it interesting how prager will state,and with zero sense of irony,how communism is "evil" and yet ignore how capitalism,and america's neoliberalsm policies across the globe kill millions.how even here in america,we have cities and towns laid waste by these policies of capitalism.they are called "sacrifice zones",and they look like beruit more than an american city.

i mean,if you are going to blame an economic system for being "evil",at least be philosophically consistent.

but no mention of that at all.
because prager is an ideologue who prays at the altar of neoliberalism and capitalism.he has an agenda,and manipulates facts to fit his own narrative to convince you that his argument is righteous.

it is not.
it is propaganda.

@ChaosEngine
then we disagree,but as eric pointed out some things do not translate well on a comment thread.

maybe i just have a different idea what a friend zone actually is and you are totally correct.

to me a "friend zone' is a place the man puts himself in,and is not the women's responsibility.she was straight up and honest.it was the man who deluded himself that if he just gave enough attention,or was patient enough,she would come around.

if anyone should feel shame,it is that pathetic dude for being such a pussy.

ah well..maybe i am just an old fart and no longer get the plot.

@enoch.... dude, PLEASE edit your posts. Seriously, that is just painfully difficult to read.

And yes, the term "friend zone" is an invention to shame women. The implication is always that a woman is being unkind or hurtful or even stupid by not realising the "nice guy" is the one she "should be with". It's patronising at best, creepy as fuck at worst.

Also, your anecdote has nothing to do with the "friend zone".

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant