I think I could just paste my comment on half of the discusions around here. I think I will.

Here in Portland Oregon, A kid with a AR-15 walked into Clackamas Mall on Dec 11 to kill as many people as he could. He shot 3 people and his gun jammed, while he was fixing his jam, a citizen with a conealed carry permt drew his weopon and confronted the shooter, The shooter fled down a stairwell and shot himself. The mall was a gun free zone (the guy with the CCW was breaking the rules) and filled with thousands of holiday shoppers. The rampage was ended because one person could defend himself from the cowardly nutjob. You will not see the real story in the mainstream media.

Here in Portland Oregon, A kid with a AR-15 walked into Clackamas Mall on Dec 11 to kill as many people as he could. He shot 3 people and his gun jammed, while he was fixing his jam, a citizen with a conealed carry permt drew his weopon and confronted the shooter, The shooter fled down a stairwell and shot himself. The mall was a gun free zone (the guy with the CCW was breaking the rules) and filled with thousands of holiday shoppers. The rampage was ended because one person could defend himself from the cowardly nutjob. You will not see the real story in the mainstream media.

>> ^CreamK:

You deny their entrance. They have now sufficient proof that a crime is being committed right now since you refused a look-around (it's defined in the law, they can enter but not touch anything, can't open doors or drawers etc.) and the previous six months minimum limit is thrown out of the window...


The "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind being searched" people you refer to don't understand how the state/cops/browncoats/whatever can abuse that law. They don't understand that even though they are law-abiding citizens, they can still be victimized/harrassed by police. I don't trust cops AT ALL. They are revenue-raising, lying pieces of shit as far as I'm concerned, and the last thing I would agree to is a voluntary search of me, my car, or my home, whether I have something to hide or not. Here, we can refuse searches, unless they have a warrant.

Here's a case where cops right here in Oregon were using thermal imaging to detect homes that had heat signatures that indicated pot growing. Went all the way to the Supreme Court. Even though the police didn't enter the home, the action was considered an unreasonable search, and therefore unconstitutional. Scalia actually got one right.

>> ^L0cky:
I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).
It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.
I took a look at the pdf, and while the charts are nice, they cover various date ranges and present their results in different formats, and I think you're misinterpreting them. What I did was use the search feature and look at the raw data. You can also search for non death injuries, but gun related non deadly injuries, accidental or intentional, doesn't even make the top 20, and it doesn't show anything below that.

>> ^L0cky:
In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.
You just said that your source doesn't show non death injuries, yet now you're claiming 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year. You claim to be getting your sources from the same place, but the data from the CDC shows that between 1999 and 2010 the average homicide by firearm is 12,807 deaths per year. If you add accidental deaths involving firearms the total comes to 21,146 which accounts for 9.6% of all accidental and intentional deaths (this does not include suicide, illness and disease related deaths).

>> ^L0cky:
Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.
We already have plenty of gun control laws. More laws are not going to stop someone that has no intention of obeying them. You obviously did not read the whole article I linked to as it points out that "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation.

>> ^L0cky:
I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.
No one said that you need to teach children to use guns to justify their existence. You were a kid once (or still are), and at a certain age didn't you do the opposite of everything your parents said? If there is going to be a gun in a house, even if they are told it's dangerous and not to be played with and you do your best to lock it up and keep it away from them, if they do get their hands on it wouldn't it be better that they knew how to properly handle it so they don't end up adding to the accidental death by firearm statistic? Cars are dangerous too, but we teach our kids how to be safe in and around cars (wear your seat belt, look both ways before crossing street, etc.), why are you so freaked out about teaching a kid gun safety?

Your philosophy that kids shouldn't be taught how to use guns because guns are bad is basically the same as abstinence only sex education, AKA teaching ignorance.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.
I said I own guns for many reasons, self defense being one of them. You still seem to be confused about why someone chooses to carry a gun for self defense. It looks to me based on what you've written is that you assume someone carries a gun only to protect themselves from other gun owners. As I already pointed out, only 10% of violent crimes involve the use of a gun. I carry to protect myself from 100% of crimes.

>> ^L0cky:
That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.
You can't pick out a small portion of a larger statistic to base your argument on, you need to take into account the whole picture. That's like saying 2001 was a slow year for terrorism, if you don't count the World Trade Center attacks.

>> ^L0cky:
This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns.
I don't know what more you expect, a crime was in progress, a lawfully armed citizen stopped it and it was reported to the police. What your asking isn't possible as the only way to know what would have happened in the other situations is to invent a time machine.

>> ^L0cky:
I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.
What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.
If guns don't reduce crime, then why do we give them to the police? Once more back to that article you didn't read:

"In 13 states citizens who wish to carry arms may do so, having met certain requirements. Consider Florida, which in 1987 enacted a concealed-carry law guaranteeing a gun permit to any resident who is at least 21, has no record of crime, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, and who has completed a firearms safety course. Florida's homicide rate fell following the enactment of this law, as did the rate in Oregon after the enactment of a similar law. Through June 1993, there had been 160,823 permits issued in Florida. Only 530, or 0.33 percent, of the applicants have been denied permits. This indicates that the law is serving the law abiding. Only l6 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been rescinded because of the commission, after issuance, of a crime involving a firearm."

>> ^L0cky:
You're right, if guns suddenly vanished tomorrow there would still be crime and violence. However, it would be crime and violence without guns; and I think, that (of itself) is preferable. How could it not be?
Are you fucking serous? Why is a murder with a gun any worse than a knife, baseball bat or even bare hands? A murder is a murder no matter what tool is used to commit it. Other crimes besides murder would be better off without guns, but what part of 90% of violent crimes do not involve the use of a gun did you not understand? If you take away guns from everyone, you're only removing 10% of the tools used by violent criminals, and that doesn't guarantee that violent crime will drop by 10%? In reality you wouldn't be removing anything from criminals because "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation. So you essentially want to take away every law abiding citizen's right to defend themselves with a gun without doing anything to stop criminals from committing crimes with guns.

>> ^L0cky:
Crime in the UK has reduced dramatically according to The Office for National Statistics between before then (1999/2001) and now, including firearm offences. In Australia assault is up, robbery is down and sexual assault is about the same according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Homicides involving firearms have continued to decline to their lowest on record.
From your source: "Provisional figures for the year ending June 2012 show that 5,507 firearm offences were recorded in England and Wales, an 18 per cent decrease on the previous year (6,694)." In 1997 when the ban was enacted only 2,648 crimes were reported involving guns. It looks like that ban has worked well.


>> ^L0cky:
I pulled it from the same source you are correcting me with
The CDC - Injury in the United States: 2007 Chart Book, page 24.
Statisticslol
This is where you have misinterpreted the graphs. The vertical portion of that graph is in deaths per 100,000 population. If you dig up the raw numbers from the search engine this is what you'll find:

Motor Vehicle Accident = 22%
Homicide by Firearm = 13%
Accident by Firearm = 0.5%

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^ant:
>> ^hpqp:
Aw man, that was pretty hilarious. You should post the Peta turkey one, I would totally upvote that sheet.

I haven't seen that one. I only watched the games I know and played like Oregon Trail! Why don't YOU submit it and I will vote it up? I have too many to submit.

Thanks, 'tis done!
http://videosift.com/video/Hilarious-Cooking-Game-Playthrough


Cool! Hopefully, it will be a good one for everyone. I will watch it later since I am watching OTHER videos at the moment.

>> ^ant:

>> ^hpqp:
Aw man, that was pretty hilarious. You should post the Peta turkey one, I would totally upvote that sheet.

I haven't seen that one. I only watched the games I know and played like Oregon Trail! Why don't YOU submit it and I will vote it up? I have too many to submit.


Thanks, 'tis done!

http://videosift.com/video/Hilarious-Cooking-Game-Playthrough

>> ^hpqp:

Aw man, that was pretty hilarious. You should post the Peta turkey one, I would totally upvote that sheet.


I haven't seen that one. I only watched the games I know and played like Oregon Trail! Why don't YOU submit it and I will vote it up? I have too many to submit.

>> ^Sagemind:

America is supposed to be that wonderland that everyone aspires to become - only it isn't.
The people around the world still hold on to that idea. By asking them to vote - they would project their vision of the ideal country upon the USA, instead of having the already jaded and defeated population do the voting.
It's always easier to see something from the outside.


The "jaded and defeated population" don't vote.

I can get a BBQ meatball sandwich delivered to my house if'n I don't feel like bothering with putting my shoes on. Just about any kind of food I desire is available to me. When I'm feeling olympic and must forage for food, I have my choice of 6 large chain grocery stores within three miles of my home. I have a car. I can go anywhere I please in this country without fear. I have 240 channels (60 HD) on my television. There's a convenience store two minutes in every direction from just about every square foot of this country (seemingly). I can hike in the wilderness far from "civilization" and not have to worry about bandits or terrorists, and because I have the entire fricking world in the palm of my hand, I'll never get lost. I don't have a computer. I have four computers with high speed access. I have running water; hot water on tap, a microwave, and more goddamn dishes and silverware and towels and t-shirts than any one person should ever need. I can go see the Blazers play, watch live jazz, a choice of music festivals during the spring and summer, live theater, short trip west to the beautiful Oregon coast, or trip south for the Timber Festival or one of several plays in Ashland at the Shakespearean Festival. When I opt to go see a movie over reading any damn book in the world on my Kindle, there's seven movie theaters in my area, and I can even afford the insane prices for soda and Raisenets. Education opportunities abound here, regardless of your age or income. You can learn how to fly a plane at several local small airports, or jump out of one. I have a "headphone drawer".

I make less money than the average American, and I'm RICH, and thankful that I was so damn lucky to be born in the United States of Wonderland.

hah, thanks for the additional vids eric. The Oregon duck one is interesting in that apparently saying "sexy lady" is against their school policy. Kinda sad when Korea has looser standards then american schools.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'towers, nuclear, Oregon, demolition' to 'cooling tower, nuclear, power plant, Oregon, demolition' - edited by calvados

Parody with the Oregon duck


Korean dancing gals

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/3358-new-spider-family-discovered.html

Adding "don't go into caves in oregon" to my don't do list. Christ! Fuckig spiders!

>> ^bovan:

I assume that was bike lanes which werent separated from the road?
Also, here in Norway.. people let you across the street if you want across.. noticed when I lived in Geneva that it was pretty much like playing Frogger, so I'm aware that things may be more dangerous in other countries..
>> ^Ryjkyj:
I know two people personally who have been riding their bikes in the bike lane when a truck drove up behind them and smashed the back of their head with an extended mirror.



I live in Portland, Oregon.

>> ^serosmeg:

I went on a manhunt once. I just got back from Nam. I was hitchhiking through Oregon. Next thing I know there's a bunch of cops chasing after me through the woods! I had to take them all out, it was a bloodbath!


That must have been so stressful! I recommend holidays in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Burma.