alanschu

That's too simplistic of a viewpoint. A gun is a very effective tool. Such an effective tool that it allows formations of scrawny weaklings decimate armies of muscular professional men-at-arms. If you could snap your fingers and magically (I say magically because this IS impossible) make it so that it was impossible for every person that has any criminal intent from possessing a handgun, while still allowing those that do not have criminal intent to use handguns, you'd see a decrease in crime. If I see a law-abiding citizen holding is .45 Colt 1911 and I am looking on robbing someone and all I have is a knife, I am not going to pick the guy with the pistol unless I can find a different way to get an advantage. Or I'd go for someone else that I feel is less capable of defending themselves. As a different example, if I'm looking on breaking into a house, and I see that every house has a moat with piranhas swimming in them, lions guarding the lawn and so on, I'm probably not going to try to rob any of those houses, because the risk involved is way too high. Especially if I myself don't have a weapon to deal with them.

Least restrictions, lowest crime. The funny thing was that after doing this, I realized that the information was essentially useless, but I figured I'd post it specifically to see if anyone would draw any conclusions on it, even though I stated straight up that "After doing all of it, I realize that it doesn't really say anything, but since I did it, I figured I might as well post it." I wasn't expecting that it'd be you though :sad: I figured it'd be the District of Columbia one that was brought up, but I guess not.

You didn't answer the question, which leads me to believe you are just being argumentative. And you didn't really answer mine The question was asked in response to your question, since it provided an alternative viewpoint of the perspective. I was also hoping that it would demonstrate the notion that I do not feel the two were compatible situations. The situations will still exist even with just legal immigration, unless you severely curtail immigration. Which, ironically, I think would be going against part of the values of the United States. I suppose that would depend (since I like to make things fun and interesting in an argumentative way). First off, if I was an exchange student, I'd likely be an exchange student because I want to learn more about the host country's culture, and part of the best way to learn about it would be to experience it. If I was someone that wasn't particularly willing to adapt, I probably wouldn't be looking for a temporary opportunity to learn abroad. Having said that, I'd be surprised if the host family didn't offer any concessions in my favour either. You can also look at it the other way as well. If you were a host family, would you force the exchange student to do everything your way? Assuming your family had a tradition of going to a Christian Church every Sunday, would you force your Hindu exchange student to do the same? The problem with the example posed in your question is that your scale is too small. It's possible for someone that does not know how to speak English very well to still go to parts of America and integrate themselves very nicely. Even a legal immigrant could still struggle reading English Only government documents that are often laced with obscure legalese that many ESL people would not be accustomed to. Another problem with the example would be whether or not the role of the government is equivalent to the role of the host family in the student exchange situation. Part of the reason why my own family took part in the student exchange program with our local High School was to get a perspective of Canadian Culture from a different part of the country. He was from Amos, Quebec. If we weren't willing to make concessions for the Quebecer coming here in certain ways, we probably would never have been accepted. Heck, we probably wouldn't have even gotten involved in the program to begin with. I suppose the government can do the same thing with immigration, if they feel that their culture or whatever is in danger. Though IMO the thing that I find fascinating about American (and even Canadian) culture is the fact that it's a sum of the plethora of cultures that make it up.

Since I wasn't feeling well, woke up at around 11 PM (after sleeping all day), and have nothing better to do, I was bored and went here and here and had some fun. After doing all of it, I realize that it doesn't really say anything, but since I did it, I figured I might as well post it. The number is the rate per 100,000 inhabitants of violent crime. The symbols are based on Gun Laws found at the CNN site, though there are some annotations I didn't bother, since I was getting lazy. Alaska: 566.9 * Alabama: 486.2 * Arkansas: 445.3 * Arizona: 531.7 * California: 621.6 CON, AR Colorado: 334.0 CON Connecticut: 324.7 !%* Delaware: 684.4 CON Florida: 812.0 * Georgia: 504.7 * Hawaii: 243.8 !@%^* Iowa: 266.4 %* Idaho: 252.5 CON Illinois: 656.8 Fooked up, see below Indiana: 349.1 * Kansas: 389.4 *, but not CON Kentucky: 294.5 * Louisiana: 681.1 CON Massachussets: 476.1 #%&*, FC required for rifle purchase Maryland: 786.6 * Maine: 109.6 #%&*, FC required for rifle purchase Michigan: 555.0 %^* Minnesota: 280.8 %* Missouri: 490.0 %, No concealed Handguns Mississippi: 360.9 N/A for Handgun Permit Montana: 240.6 CON North Carolina: 497.6 %* North Dakota: 81.4 CON Nebraska: 327.6 %*, but no concealed Handguns New Hampshire: 175.4 * New Jersey: 383.8 ! with ID, #$ with ID, %&* New Mexico: 757.9 Concealed Weapons Forbidden Nevada: 524.2 CON New York: 553.9 %^&* (New York City is all 8 !@#$%^&*) Ohio: 334.1 Fooked up, see the CNN Link Oklahoma: 497.8 * Oregon: 350.7 CON Pennsylvania: 420.0 * Rhode Island: 297.7 * South Carolina: 804.9 * South Dakota: 166.8 CON Tennessee: 707.2 * Texas: 545.1 * Utah: 255.7 CON Virginia: 281.7 CON Vermont: 113.5 (not a thing! Wow!) District of Columbia: 1507.9 !@#$%^&* Washington: 369.7 * Wisconsin: 236.8 N/A for Handgun Permit West Virginia: 316.5 * Wyoming: 266.5 CON ! - Permit to Purchase Rifles @ - Rifle Registration # - Licensing Owner of Rifle $ - Permit to Carry Rifle %, ^, &, * Same as above, except applied to handguns. CON - Registration required for a concealed weapon AR - Assault Weapons must be registered FC - Firearm Card Required to Purchase Illinois: ID Card required to purchase any gun, Municipal Control throughout. Chicago requires registration

I believe the term you used was something along the lines of not thinking for themselves. I hope you aren't so quick to label all that disagree with you.

Well, the first article was a pleasant surprise. The second article was much more in line with what I expected.

The book should still have references however.

Booooo, boo boo boo boo boooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Speaking of the Yamato, I finally found her. And her sister ship the Musashi. And about 5 other battleships and heavy cruisers. It was funny, I was making preparations to invade Ponope (Pohnpei) which would give me another land base with which to perform air missions over Truk. Near the northwestern coast of New Guinea, patrol boats spotted a fleet of heavy cruisers heading towards Rabaul. Unfortunately land based bombers from Hollandia and Amboina were unable to find the task force and perform bombing runs. So I sent out CV Saratoga, CV Yorktown, CV Enterprise, and CVL Independence to intercept her. This carrier task force was currently at the Kwajalein Atoll, in the central Marshall Islands, covering transports carrying troops heading to Kwajalein to prepare for the invasion of Ponape Atoll. Since the boats were close to Kwajalein, combined with virtually no Japanese LBA on any of the adjacent Atolls, with another CVTF with 4 Essex-class Carriers in it a few days away, this task force loaded up with Fuel from Kwajalein, and sped away at full speed (31 knots) in an attempt to intercept the cruiser task forces. It involved a large detour around Truk, since intelligence and recon have shown there to be significant air forces stations there. As a precaution, each carrier set its Hellcat wings to contribute 90% of its wing to daily CAP coverage, to ensure the protection of the carriers. Since it was an all cruiser fleet discovered, it was determined that the need for Hellcat escorts would be minimal. As luck would have it, the cruiser fleet was not moving particularly fast, which allowed extra time for the Carrier fleet to intercept it. Unfortunately, it made a sudden turn eastward, towards Rabaul on the East side of New Guinea. My fleet was anticipating an intercept near Guam and the rest of the Mariana Islands. This meant a rather risky venture of heading near both Truk, and Rabaul, in order to intercept the fleet. I decided to take my chances, hoping that the 100+ Hellcats could provide sufficient air coverage. Since numerous Japanese Aircraft carriers have already been sunk, there was little concern that I may run into one. Hence, it was deemed appropriate to pursue, since all bomber squadrons would only be utilized to attack naval vessels, not bases. I was able to get within 120 miles of the Cruiser Fleet, just west of Rabaul, but unfortunately bad weather prevented carrier operations. The next day, recon spotted the fleet in the harbour of Rabaul, which would undoubtedly have large CAP presence, but then some luck happened. Recognizing a big juicy target, the desparate Japanese attempted an airstrike consisting of Nells, Bettys, with Zekes flying escort. The combined flak fire, with many wings of Hellcats flying coverage, decimated the air group. Only a handful of Nells and Bettys were able to get off attacks, none of them hitting. I destroyed over 70 planes in that engagement. Naturally, this made me more confident in getting close to Rabaul. The next day, it was discovered that the fleet of warships had departed north, and was heading between Truk and Ponape. Since my invasion of Ponape was a day away, I could not afford to allow the fleet to provide cover. It was this day that I had my first successul attack on the surface fleet. And to my surprised, instead of just the 7 or so Heavy Cruisers, SB2C Helldivers spotted an additional 7-10 battleships! Recognizing an opportunity to inflict further heavy losses to the Japanese Navy, and effectively eliminate their remaining presence on the sea, Admiral Halsey felt that the invasion of Ponape was going to be successful, and that the presence of 13 US Battleships off the coast represented a combined AA value that would be able to repel any piecemeal attacks from Truk. Land Based P-38Js would also provide air coverage, taking off from Kwajalein. So Halsey took his 4 Essex-class Carriers (Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid, and Franklin) south of Ponape, on a perfect intercept course for the fleet of heavy surface ships. I do not think that the Japanese Navy will be able to recover from this blow. Initially attacks were not particularly successful. Hits were scored from bombs and torpedoes, but in only relatively small numbers. By the time Halsey's Task Force arrived however, there was something very wrong with the Japanese Task Force. They had expended all of their Antiaircraft Ammunition. At this point, airstrikes immediately became more effective, and numerous hits with 22" torpedoes and 1000 lb bombs commenced. This picture represents the first significant attack on the Japanese fleet. This picture represents Day 2. In total, the fleet suffered sustained bombing for roughly a week. At one point, PB4Y Liberators out of Kwajalein were able to drop limited payloads on the task force as well. While current intelligence suggests that the bulk of the fleet was able to escape (it seems as though amidst the chaos, some ships were able to outrun the more damaged ships. As far as I'm concerned, they disappeared into the night because after the 7th or 8th day of bombing, there were no more heavy ships to be found, and I know I didn't sink them all. However, the losses were still extreme. At least 4 Battleships were sunk, including the Yamato and her sister ship the Musashi (and the biggest surface ships ever built). Heavy Cruiser losses are estimated at around 5 or 6, with additional Light Cruisers and Destroyers sunk. And these are of confirmed kills. Multiple hits were scored on virtually every ship, so here's hoping some lady luck will send them to the bottom of the ocean due to damages inflicted. In the Southeast Asian front, Allied Forces have finally closed into Malaya. After cutting it off from Siam and Indochina by taking Bangkok sometime ago, heavy land forces have pushed into Malaya at the beginning of December 1943. Just in time for Christmas, Singapore was liberated on December 24th, with only pockets of Japanese resistance remaining in the city. With one more city to Liberate on the penninsula, forces have already begun preparations of the liberation of the Dutch East Indies. The first step will be to take Palembang back, and then lift the yearlong siege of Soerabaja on Java Island. The Chinese also are attempting to move eastward, but have met with stiff Japanese resistance outside of Changsha. Commanders in Singapore are considering the idea of dispatching bomber divisions to provide assistance, but Dutch Leaders insist on liberating Palembang and other parts of the Dutch East Indies first. Some also suggest that additional assistance to China should only be sent in the case of Japenese counterattacks, and that unless that happens, a more stable supply route to China through Indochina (rather than the Burma Road) should be attained. The Japanese Greater Coprosperity Sphere just got a little smaller.

Eddo, you'd be better served posting an actual link where you collected said statistics.

I'm kind of the same way. I've always enjoyed research weapons technologies and seeing some of the innovative ideas that come out.

What happened?

To be honest I'm not really looking forward to anything. Which seems weird. Back to crushing the Japanese.

I enjoyed Die Another Day for what it was. A typical James Bond gadget action movie. I enjoyed Casino Royale, because I actually thought it was a good movie.

Couldn't you apply this same logic to governments? When you are a guest in someone else's house, do you try and force them do things your way? Are governments supposed to force people to act a certain way, or represent the people of the constituency?

Cherry has never been a fan of Crosby, so it's not surprising he doesn't stick up for him. (To be honest, I don't even know what incident we're talking about, but if it involves Crosby, there's a good chance Cherry will be against whatever it was Crosby did).

So? The fact of the matter is that there are communities of predominantly Spanish speaking people in the US now (at least according to you). You have commented yourself on how there's more Spanish newspapers in Miami than English newspapers. Mandating that all government interaction be done in English, and only in English, will piss people off. Including legal immigrants that live in those areas. You'll anger ESL residents, as well as leftist Liberals, in addition to Libertarians (to be honest I'm surprised to be having this discussion with you, a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party). Given I am considering Graduate School, I'm trying to get into the habit of commenting [sic] if I'm quoting a spelling mistake, since it's something I'll need to do in my thesis.

Couldn't you apply this same logic to governments? Especially seeing as one could argue it's already too late. If you have people in an area all speaking Spanish, complete with Spanish television and more Spanish newspapers than English newspapers, the all English government centre is what's going to look out of place, and it's what's going to make local residents unhappy. You mention Quebec and its issues. Imagine if we suddenly told them that all of their government interactions had to be done in English.

By making it unnecassary to learn the language here we are already encouraging them to do so. Like I said, if you made it impossible to get by in this country without leaning the language, those who want to come here will learn it. I wasn't asking about whether or not it's encouraged to do so through illegal aliens. You say you'll always welcome legal immigrants. Wouldn't this still subject the United States to the dissolution of your culture and language? It wouldn't necessarily be as fast, but one of your big concerns about the illegal immigrant situation is preservation of culture. This does not go away with legal immigration. Even if you make them learn the language. Put a few thousand Mexicans in the same part of town, even if they knew English coming in, and there's no guarantee that they aren't going to start speaking more Mexican.

Wouldn't you still run the risk of legal immigrants imposing their culture and language on your country?

I'm not. It was just an observation. The economics of it are still in order though. There is such diminishing returns on increased sales that staffing more people is not economically viable. 1. I'm not sure. Unskilled labour is called unskilled labour for a reason. Is stacking shelves in a grocery store done better and more efficiently by better paid and better trained people? 2. I am very open to the idea of machines taking on tasks. I know some people are scared of them because they can replace jobs, but I'm of the mind that if they replace a menial job, it will create a new job. I guess a concern is whether or not you still have the same pool of unskilled labour. It's a straight forward job stacking shelves. Repairing and maintaining the robot that stacks them is a bit less trivial. I wonder what would happen in the world if tomorrow every menial task was automated. No more gas jockey, no more stockboy, no more cashiers. I can understand that life can be cruel, and if you're not motivated and unable to adapt to this change, the world is going to leave you behind. However, the loss of jobs will adversely affect government coffers. Even if the State does not have any welfare support programs, they'll still suffer from less tax income. 3. Is it better to not have people doing garbage collection and taking it out of town to the local landfill? I understand that, especially in the example of fast food that I used earlier, it's not really a great loss if some businesses are no longer able to operate. But some stuff has to be done. Unfortunately, we're not at the stage where automatic garbage removal is economically viable. In Edmonton, the cost of Snow Removal for the city has shot up, because people that typically performed those jobs made so much more money in the energy sector. The only way to make it enticing was to throw more money at the people, which has a negative effect on public coffers. You could put this responsibility purely into the hands of business and home owners, but then you get into the Tragedy of the Commons. You'll only get people taking care of the small part of road in front of themselves, and that's only if they feel it's necessary. The guy with the 4x4 SUV is less affected (and has less vested interest in clearing his part of the road) than the guy driving the Honda 3-Door Civic. Since I mentioned cashiers, an interesting aside is that with the labour shortage, many large stores such as Walmart have gone to automated cashiers, where people ring in their own purchases. A neat idea and not one I am against. It may result in increased shoplifting, but it's probably easier to swallow if you're not paying for the labour of the cashier.

How quaint. Ah, I shouldn't have said that. That what happens when I'm working all night on a Friday, I get grouchy. The first one that jumps to mind is the Western Roman Empire. At it's zenith no matter where you went in the Roman Empire, the language of business was latin, and every citizen identified themselves as roman. At the end, in the west the provinces spoke their own languages and idetified themselves by their ethnicity. They did not think of themselves as roman citizens and did not owe any fealty to that institution. That is one of the biggest reasons for it's ultimate fall. So even the Gauls, Britons and Numidians identified themselves as Roman? At the same time, in both referendums the people of Quebec voted to stay in Canada. I'm not really convinced that Quebecers really want to separate, but rather they see threats of separation as being an effective way of getting what they want from the Federal Government.

I think one issue though, is that many people don't want to do those jobs. Alberta is suffering from a "labour shortage," which also has the unfortunate side effect that people would rather hold out for an opening for a $20/hr job, than take the $12/hr job working at 7-11. It's gotten pretty crazy, that places like 7-11 are offering a $700 bonus simply for taking the job. Most of our fast food restaurants only have their drive through window open now.

I'm a human.

How quaint. Such a road would be undoubtedly easier to take if you could get the ball rolling. Give an example.