US, Yemen Lead the World in Guns (Infographic)

[Pilsung]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/intera ... 87596.html

Shows soaring firearms and ammunition sales in the US. From the article:

Gun ownership and gun death rates vary greatly by state: In Wyoming, more than 60 per cent of people own guns; whereas in Washington, DC, fewer than 4 per cent own guns. The gun death rate is also highest in Washington, DC, and lowest in Massachusetts.

[KentsOkay]

What the hell is going on in Nevada?

[Regular Guy]

What the hell is going on in Nevada?

Methamphetamines and gangs trying to control the manufacture and trade.

[KentsOkay]

What the hell is going on in Nevada?

Methamphetamines and gangs trying to control the manufacture and trade.

Fucking drugs man! People need to learn to go jog or golf or something.

[Regular Guy]

What the hell is going on in Nevada?

Methamphetamines and gangs trying to control the manufacture and trade.

Fucking drugs man! People need to learn to go jog or golf or something.

Nevada is a big state with about 5% of the land populated with a 24 hr culture and a transient population looking to party HARD and go home. Meth fits into all of those niches. There are lots of places to cook it but very few places to sell which brings the gangs into close contact with each other.
It's a major industry there as well as a major problem. They have around 15 meth lab busts a day. When I was there they were the meth capital of the world, may still be.

[Blacksmith]

Source: Al Jazeera

Although exact figures are difficult to come by, the Arabian Peninsula state of Yemen - which has a deeply ingrained gun culture - probably has the second-highest number of guns per capita.

Legal guns maybe. Illegal guns who knows?

Good to know Al Jazerra has joined the fight for tighter US gun control laws.

[ArmchairRacer]

Am I the only one who's take away from this was: We're number one! Go America

[Rev]

At least the article mentions the huge surge in ownership yet the homicide rate is dropping.

[Blacksmith]

At least the article mentions the huge surge in ownership yet the homicide rate is dropping.

UNPOSSIBLE! How could higher gun ownership, looser gun laws and easier carry laws lead to a lower homicide rate?

[Uncle Chuck]

Am I the only one who's take away from this was: We're number one! Go America

Nope!

[Czechnology]

Al Jazeera seems to be where BBC reporters go when they bail out of the mothership. I've seen some decent reporting, to be honest.

[Blacksmith]

Al Jazeera seems to be where BBC reporters go when they bail out of the mothership. I've seen some decent reporting, to be honest.

I have seen decent reporting out of the Washington Post and the American Rifleman. However I don't delude myself about their intentions.

[Vicarious_Lee]

Al Jazeera seems to be where BBC reporters go when they bail out of the mothership. I've seen some decent reporting, to be honest.

I have seen decent reporting out of the Washington Post and the American Rifleman. However I don't delude myself about their intentions.

Actually, it seems that Al J's newest intentions over the past 2 years is to fill a completely empty role: That of the Gold Standard for correct and unbiased reporting.

Haven't they been racking up praise and prizes pretty heavily in the recent past?

[Blacksmith]

Al Jazeera seems to be where BBC reporters go when they bail out of the mothership. I've seen some decent reporting, to be honest.

I have seen decent reporting out of the Washington Post and the American Rifleman. However I don't delude myself about their intentions.

Actually, it seems that Al J's newest intentions over the past 2 years is to fill a completely empty role: That of the Gold Standard for correct and unbiased reporting.

Haven't they been racking up praise and prizes pretty heavily in the recent past?

That would be a big shift from when I last talked to one of their reporters in 2009 and she told me that she would really "like to" print and say certain things but it never made it past the editors. Most Arabs that I know see AJ as the Arabic version of CNN from Qatar. Of course there is also Press TV if you want the Iranian POV.

In March 2012, Al Jazeera’s Beirut office saw the resignation of local correspondent Ali Hashem, as well as the station’s producer and managing director of the news bureau. The purported cause of this mass exodus: Al Jazeera’s biased coverage, particularly in Syria and Bahrain. One year ago, Ghassan Ben Jeddo resigned as head of the Beirut bureau for similar reasons.

A source told Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar that Ali Hashem quit after the station refused to air video footage of rebel troops clashing with the Syrian Army, led by President Bashar al-Assad, in the Wadi Khaled Valley, and his Al Jazeera superiors branded him as a shabeeh (regime supporter). The source also said Ali Hashem was outraged when supporters of HM Sheikh Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, King of Bahrain, carried out atrocities against Bahraini civilians—and Al Jazeera remained mum on the subject.

Mousa Ahmad, the producer who resigned, reportedly did so because Al Jazeera failed to report the Syrian reform referendum in late February. A 57 percent voter turnout was reported, with 90 percent voting for a new constitution, which would essentially end 50 years of single-party leadership by the Ba’ath Party and pave the way for multi-party presidential candidacy.

Not surprisingly, regional politics have played a role in the controversy. Many suspect the company is currying favor with the current Qatari government, which owns Al Jazeera through the Qatar Media Corporation, and which has long opposed the Assad-led Syrian regime. In the wake of the scandal, journalist and author Afshin Rattansi told RT that notions of favoritism have grave implications on Al Jazeera’s favorable standing in the Middle East.

http://socialmediachimps.com/2012/al-ja ... oming-end/

[Czechnology]

Al Jazeera seems to be where BBC reporters go when they bail out of the mothership. I've seen some decent reporting, to be honest.

I have seen decent reporting out of the Washington Post and the American Rifleman. However I don't delude myself about their intentions.

Actually, it seems that Al J's newest intentions over the past 2 years is to fill a completely empty role: That of the Gold Standard for correct and unbiased reporting.

Haven't they been racking up praise and prizes pretty heavily in the recent past?

^^

Blacksmith: I've seen tons allegations against them of having both pro and anti-western bias, all depending on the source of the allegations. Since being called a commie asshole and a neo-con fascist in the same thread is how I know I'm doing an ok job as a moderator, that leads me to believe that they're likely closer to riding the rail than jumping to either side.

[MacAttack]

I don't see anything wrong with the article.


It didn't seem to be blaming anyone for anything and seems to pretty fair.


I have seen FAR FAR worse out of AJ.

[Blacksmith]

^^

Blacksmith: I've seen tons allegations against them of having both pro and anti-western bias, all depending on the source of the allegations. Since being called a commie asshole and a neo-con fascist in the same thread is how I know I'm doing an ok job as a moderator, that leads me to believe that they're likely closer to riding the rail than jumping to either side.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with the article. But in order to believe that AJ is unbiased you would have to believe:

The CIA boogeyman is managing drug running in Mexico

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 28181.html

Iran does not want to destroy Israel (despite saying it repeatedly in AJ interviews )

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/ins ... 44338.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 96919.html

And I have not even touched on their editorial page where they give a podium to every whack job in the ME (and there are a few of them). All I am saying is consider the source.

[Czechnology]

Iran does not want to destroy Israel (despite saying it repeatedly in AJ interviews )

On that one in particular there may be some merit.

The president of Iran is an elected official (ostensibly) who (again ostensibly) must maintain the "correct" attitude towards various countries to be re-electable. (throw a huge grain of salt in there)

Take also into account that he has no control over foreign policy, the military, or nuclear policy, and it's easy to see why he's the one saying all that crap about destroying Israel. He can't actually effect those policies, so it's safe for him to go on and on about it so long as the people actually in charge find it useful for him to do so.

All the Iranians I know who are affluent enough to not have gotten dragged into fundamentalism (which is all of them because I've only met immigrants) agree with this perception, and constantly deride Ahmadinejad as a marionette who keeps the extreme element happy so the real govt doesn't have to do anything crazy like attack Israel and get themselves "wiped off the map".

[Vicarious_Lee]

Iran does not want to destroy Israel (despite saying it repeatedly in AJ interviews )

On that one in particular there may be some merit.

The president of Iran is an elected official (ostensibly) who (again ostensibly) must maintain the "correct" attitude towards various countries to be re-electable. (throw a huge grain of salt in there)

Take also into account that he has no control over foreign policy, the military, or nuclear policy, and it's easy to see why he's the one saying all that crap about destroying Israel. He can't actually effect those policies, so it's safe for him to go on and on about it so long as the people actually in charge find it useful for him to do so.

All the Iranians I know who are affluent enough to not have gotten dragged into fundamentalism (which is all of them because I've only met immigrants) agree with this perception, and constantly deride Ahmadinejad as a marionette who keeps the extreme element happy so the real govt doesn't have to do anything crazy like attack Israel and get themselves "wiped off the map".

Yeah that's spot-on from all the Iranis I know as well, so it's accurate to say that "Iran" doesn't want to attack Israel, even if that one asshat ostensibly in charge keeps saying they do. Or, as several of my Irani friends have said (paraphrasing) "Yeah we're pretty modern except out in the sticks, and most of us like freedom and don't like the idea of starting a nuclear war with Israel. We don't even really dislike Israel".

[Evan the Diplomat]

I am not saying there is anything wrong with the article. But in order to believe that AJ is unbiased you would have to believe:

The CIA boogeyman is managing drug running in Mexico

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 28181.html

Iran does not want to destroy Israel (despite saying it repeatedly in AJ interviews )

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/ins ... 44338.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 96919.html

And I have not even touched on their editorial page where they give a podium to every whack job in the ME (and there are a few of them). All I am saying is consider the source.

You seem to draw interesting conclusions. The other day you concluded that NBC was somehow calling for the United States to arm the Syrian rebels. In this AJE laundry list, you somehow deduce that the CIA controling the drug trade is somehow their editorial policy when AJE is just giving video time to a conspiracy crank who happens to be a governor. Do different than the air time that some conspiracy theorist (Trump mayhaps?) get on U.S. media.

I'm not so naive to believe that there is not personal or editorial bias in news organizations. There is, and I've had both good and genuinely cringe-worthy experiences with AJE and AJ. It' good that they are trying to professionalize, all news organizations should be trying to improve.

[Czechnology]

I am not saying there is anything wrong with the article. But in order to believe that AJ is unbiased you would have to believe:

The CIA boogeyman is managing drug running in Mexico

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 28181.html

Iran does not want to destroy Israel (despite saying it repeatedly in AJ interviews )

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/ins ... 44338.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 96919.html

And I have not even touched on their editorial page where they give a podium to every whack job in the ME (and there are a few of them). All I am saying is consider the source.

You seem to draw interesting conclusions. The other day you concluded that NBC was somehow calling for the United States to arm the Syrian rebels. In this AJE laundry list, you somehow deduce that the CIA controling the drug trade is somehow their editorial policy when AJE is just giving video time to a conspiracy crank who happens to be a governor. Do different than the air time that some conspiracy theorist (Trump mayhaps?) get on U.S. media.

And you are ignoring that AJE has an ARABIC NAME! It's right there in plain english! They're clearly crazy militants!

[Blacksmith]

You seem to draw interesting conclusions. The other day you concluded that NBC was somehow calling for the United States to arm the Syrian rebels. In this AJE laundry list, you somehow deduce that the CIA controlling the drug trade is somehow their editorial policy when AJE is just giving video time to a conspiracy crank who happens to be a governor. Do different than the air time that some conspiracy theorist (Trump mayhaps?) get on U.S. media.

I'm not so naive to believe that there is not personal or editorial bias in news organizations. There is, and I've had both good and genuinely cringe-worthy experiences with AJE and AJ. It' good that they are trying to professionalize, all news organizations should be trying to improve.

In that part of the world if it is not Israel's fault it was the CIA. Or both of them in cahoots. There are no other possibilities.