Also, all used firearms sold through an FFL require a background check just like new guns. What is left out is that many states have firearm permits or concealed carry permits which mean the holder has already passed a background check and doesn't need to be submitted for new ones. So a firearm permit in Nebraska from 2014 can be used to buy 5 firearms in 2016 and not a single background check would be done for those 5 sales since the holder is already validated.

I think that phrase from the "study" says it all. 350 million+ guns in the nation, 40%+ of households have guns, and they post results of a web survey of 4000 anonymous people? Also we have Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg, and The New Venture Fund from Bill and Melinda Gates as the folks involved with this. Um. No.

Guesswork? Fine. According to FBI stats the murder rate of 3.8 per 100,000. Simple math shows this is 26,315 years on average before being killed. Different studies show 70%-90% of murder victims have an arrest record, so that means the murder rate for law abiding citizens ranges from 1.14 to 0.38 per 100,000 for law abiding citizens, which means a range of 87,719 years to 263,158 years on average before being murdered. Since the murder rate in England is about 1.8 per 100,000, it's very possible that the rates are comparable to England's. No studies I know of for England saying how many murder victims are already felons, but considering they have a much lower gang problem than the inner cities of America I presume it's lower. So yeah.. that part is guesswork. Feel free to start a study.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. The average person would live to be something like 26,315 years old before being murdered in America - and if you aren't a drug dealer or gang member it's probably closer to 70,000 years. In fact, the murder rate for a law abiding American is probably equivalent to the murder rate for a law abiding Englishman.

You do realize that the murder rate in the USA is now at almost an all time low from the last 115 years? Except for 3 years in the 50's where it was fractionally better, the US has fewer murders per 100,000 than any time prior to this.

The idea that America has "war zones" is purely propaganda.

This is a good point. Obama is telling the DOJ to prioritize the prosecution of gun sellers they deem to be "in the business" and beefing up an ATF division to monitor online gun sellers who they deem should have an FFL. There is no change in the actual law concerning who is in the business of dealing firearms, but the threat of having to defend yourself in court is a substantial one due to the cost and potential penalties. This could turn out to have a beneficial affect if it ends up going to a court that will define an actual set of tests to determine who is in the business or not.

Much of America has little interest in what the rest of the world thinks about us. That kind of dates back to 1776. Trying to get rid of any of the Bill of Rights could very possibly start another civil war in the US. I'll pass on that.

According to the CDC, in 2013 there were a total of 505 accidental deaths due to firearms. A total of 69 deaths for ages 0-14. Are you arging that there are less than 505 defensive uses of firearms in the US per year that saved a life? And you are also arguing that gun locks will stop gun owners from committing suicide?

From Heller vs DC: "Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." So, as of today and until the Supreme Court overturns Heller, well-regulated has nothing to do with government regulation and everything to do with what it actually mean in the late 1700's.

Yes, flamethrowers are perfectly legal under federal law. They're just big versions of a Bic, ya know.

It's always about the money, and where it can be funneled. State paid out $6 billion without anything even close to adequate contracts just while she was Secretary of State. Think of the opportunities for redirection with a massive government led redo of the electrical grid.. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The taxes in this case just end up as higher prices passed along to consumers. Is the intention to make the poor and elderly who are on fixed incomes use less electricity for cooling or natural gas for keeping warm in the winter? These are the ones that the tax will hit the hardest. The rational given is that the taxes will be returned to the citizens so there won't be any out of pocket expense to the "people". Just that higher CO2 generating businesses will have their products artificially cost more. But after watching how they managed that return of taxes to the people with Social Security, color me skeptical (on gov't, not on climate change). :-) Anybody with a 3rd grade math education can still see that the result is that everybody is going to be pushed to products that cost more - and thus it will hurt the poor and elderly the most even if they do return 100% of the money to the people. And there is NO realistic way we can tax China or India in a way that will change their behavior significantly. If you think we can just impose tariffs on their products, that's grossly optimistic in my opinion. China's not even making significant inroads on getting their pollution problems under control, and we think we can affect their electrical grid?

Create a tax... Because politicians have never raided tax coffers or pillaged the treasury before? The only thing a carbon tax is going to lead to is massive graft and pork projects (see Solyndra), and meanwhile China/India/Africa/South America is going to be generating far more CO2 than North America and all of our attempts will amount to nothing. China already generates almost double the CO2 that the US does according to the numbers I see, and they are climbing FAST while we are dropping. Skip the taxes and put some money into new technologies. And get the greenies to quit hyperventilating every time Nuclear or Hydro is mentioned. Otherwise, you're just wasting years and vast amounts of money. Jmho.

So on one hand we have right-wing and tabloid outlets shouting "New Mini Ice Age", and on the other hand we have leftwing sites saying "No Possible Solar Changes Can Influence Climate" and referencing papers that are years old and don't even know of the new theory. How about going to the source? Interview with the scientists directly yesterday: http://www.iflscience.com/envi... Link to the paper being talked about: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004... She's an astrophysicist and seems pretty sure temps will be dropping due to noticeable solar activity drops. “During the minimum, the intensity of solar radiation will be reduced dramatically. So we will have less heat coming into the atmosphere, which will reduce the temperature.” Now we need some climate scientists to look at the new theories and new proposed solar activity levels and say how that will affect the AGW models.

Didn't say anything along those lines. But any paper talking about theories from 2 years ago can't be used to deny new theories presented this week. It "may" be that the new theories show solar changes exactly identical to those that the 2 year old paper is talking about, but that's just guessing on your part.