Willie71

I'm not making an assumption. You are making arguments beyond the scope of the research you are citing. That is fact. If you are educated to interpret or evaluate research, you are not following your training. You have been provided several examples by others already of how you have misused this research to support your claim. Please address them. The argument from authority is not what is happening here. No one is suggesting that an authority be accepted without question because of their authority. People, myself included, are saying we have looked at the reports, and see they have used appropriate methodology, and the conclusions are based within the scope of certainty that these methodologies support. Nothing unethical, or misleading is being promoted. This is good science.

You are misusing the information in the reference you listed, coming to conclusions beyond the certainty the references assert. A little bit of information is a dangerous thing. Those of us with a science background have the skills to check the validity of the IPCC research/reports, and know that they are scientifically valid. Unfortunately, these skills come at minimum an undergraduate degree, but for most at the graduate level. This makes it easy for politically motivated groups to sway uninformed or misinformed people. When over half of Americans fail to learn algebra, statistics is way beyond their grasp.

Here is some really good info on how, when, and where accidental gun deaths, over 600/year, occur. This is over 30 times the number of people killed by terrorists in the US yearly, a major concern for 1/2 of the country. The perspective seems off. http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/ What about the 25% of accidental gun deaths occurring in other people's homes, or vehicles? Over 60% do happen in the owner's home though. If only the owners killed themselves, I'd say have it any way you want, but these are dead people who never chose this.

Even if your assertion is accepted, which Is a subjective stance, not having a gun in the home reduces the risk of being shot by your own gun to zero, a lesser risk. People who own guns, depending on area, and specific study looked at are between 200-500% more likely to die of a gunshot than those who don't own a gun. Your cutoff for risk is your own choice, but the effect of guns on those who didn't choose is very real, such as kids, innocent bystanders etc.

As research progresses, sentience is not limited to humans.

Where do you think the guns in the hands of your so called bad guys came from? They were purchased legally at some point, then either sold to bad guys or stolen. This ends that discussion. Next.

What about all of the other species that cannot adapt? Do we not have an obligation to take all life on earth into account, not just us?

You said the stats are BS. The stats come from peer reviewed research in respected journals by respected scientists.

This video clarifies how the sources the denialists work. Watch this, then go back up your source, and you will be seeing the denialists for what they are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLUZvxcfs21-i5JxWIb19RATki3vF4IG_8&v=gh9kDCuPuU8

How do we have a discussion, if facts are optional? There is legitimate research showing guns have a much greater risk than benefit to a family. If we can't agree on reality, the rest is nonsense. You don't believe the research? Am I getting that right?

Another example of the typical gun owner confronting an intruder. The stats on how this occurs much more often than getting a 'bad guy." (I love the schoolyard good guys/bad guys delineation as its so childish and absurd) should be sobering for ammosexuals. It's like refusing to wear your seatbelt because it might lock in a car fire, possibly killing you, ignoring the prevention of death and many injuries in countless other scenarios. The risk of not using it far outweighs the risk of malfunction. As Jim Jeffries says, the only real argument is 'Fuck off, I like my guns!" The rest is BS when measured statistically. Time to start being honest about it.

The hiatus isn't a lack of warming, just a lower rate of surface temperature warming compared to predictions.what does this mean? 1 climate science is BS. Not likely. 2 CO2 sensitivity is lower than initially though. Partially true, the upper range has been lowered. 3 the heat isn't where it was thought to be. Partially true. We have less information on the oceans, Arctic, and Antarctic compared to continental land mass. Evidence is suggesting that these areas are warming faster than predicted. 4 warming isn't a linear shift. Very true. When the record is updated to include data up to and including 2015, the hottest year on record, the hiatus all but disappears. Give it a few more years, and I suspect we will have to reconsider CO2 sensitivity upwards as more data comes in.

An undue burden on the seller? Not really. Put the responsibility on the government. Cars are licensed, and when I sell a car, I cancel my registration, and let the registration office know the car has been sold. I keep a copy of the bill of sale. This protects me from liability which could have happened last spring. A car I sold was stolen that evening, and was involved in a dangerous driving incident. The new owner hadn't registered the car yet. I had a copy of the bill of sale, the new owner was tracked down, and the car was returned to the new owner. If the new owner doesn't register the vehicle, he is breaking the law by operating it. Same thing could work for guns.

...and with the more accurate understanding of CO2 sensitivity that has been established over the past decade. The probable range is much narrower than the ranges considered a decade ago. I would reconsider Watts as a source. I can't remember if he was one of the guys who were associated with Phillip Morris and denial of the tobacco/cancer link, but he is well studied on the strategies that group used. In fact, the same corporations and think tanks that were employed by big tobacco are now employed by big oil. It's not a coincidence. Notice how these people are always criticizing others' work, rather than publishing their own legitimate work in respected journals? There is a reason for that as well.

That's not what happens though. Someone gets ahold of the owners gun and kills or injures them.

Please explain then why people are more likely to be shot by their own gun than shoot a "bad guy?"

These are nonsense posts to you? Bizarre. 1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the false positive problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid. Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445. Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10. Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debates new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469. 4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective. Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267. 5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense. Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable. Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272. 6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime. Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns. Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91. 7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense. We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense. Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400. 8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals. We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a law-abiding citizen. May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com 9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there. May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132. May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

There is no rational argument against these policies, so fear mongering straw man arguments are erected to control the discourse. It's like Ben Mankiewicz from TYT says, having a discussion with right wingers requires spending 80% of your time undoing the crazy before discussing the issue. Even most NRA members support these policies. You conflate two unrelated issues. Discussing Liberty is not being scorned. It's equating guns with Liberty that is being scorned. Guns =/= Liberty. Guns are used by oppressive forces such as military and police. You think your handgun is defense against the most powerful military in the history of the world? Delusional. How does it work out for people holding guns when interacting with the police, or even being suspected of having a gun? Being dead isn't Liberty. How about the number of guns used in domestic violence situations? Liberty, or oppression? Self defense use? Sketchy annecdotal reports. Difficult to verify. If there weren't hundreds of millions of guns floating around, why would you need to defend yourself with a gun? Civil disobedience has been shown to be much more likely to result in policy change than an armed standoff. I know, facts get in the way of the preferred narrative, the John Wayne fantasy. Time to grow up and move beyond grade three schoolyard sophistication.

If you hear something often enough, like guns are needed for Liberty, you eventually accept it as truth without really thinking about it. It's batshit crazy when you think about it, but people blindly accept it.

This is the only thing sadder than the gun violence itself. Prosecutors who defend the murderers. On what planet was it reasonable for the officers to fear for their lives in this situation, outside of their own stupidity for violating every standard of effective engagement in a risky situation? Minimum negligent homicide, and that is being generous.

The good 'ol USA is its biggest threat to itself. Corporate short term profit will crumble the American culture over the next few decades.

See the real world, the one where there is a murderer around every corner requiring me to live in fear, desperate for a gun? No thanks. I much prefer to look at the probability someone wants to harm me or my family, and not put them at risk for a gun accident. You can keep your fear and paranoia. It's the liberals who reinvent meanings, such as well regulated militia=every individual, independent citizen? Good Flying Spaghetti Monster, give me patience.

I think those of us who do not worship the supposed safety of guns need to get a copy of the dictionary the gun lovers use. They seem to have very unusual and highly selective definitions of words and phrases that the rest of us don't use. It makes communicating with them very difficult as they speak a different language to everyone else.

Xenophobia is inherently biological. We can strive to overcome it. Great video on this, but it's over two hours long. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YZLlvc9rviM

It goes back before Bush. America has traded military support for cheap oil for decades. The Embargo is the early 70's showed how dependent the US was on this alliance. The politics in the region are massively complex and nuanced, but the constant has been oil/military support. As oil became a major commodity, moving from the gold standard to the petrodollar shifted the centres of power throughout the world, and helped the Americans rise to the superpower they have been since the end of WWII. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_States_relations I guess nobody has ever moved from the US to live somewhere else? More seriously, some people are more motivated by dreams of wealth than other people. Oppression occurs in every society too. It would make sense that those two groups would try to leave. I've been to Cuba three times, and have been impressed with the more laid back lifestyle, lower stress, higher contentment, and strong relationships.