DJL

Good job not entrenching people into their point of view, that's a very un-stupid and non-venal way of communicating.

Sounds like he's reacting in a way that makes him "feel" better, just as pro-gun people say that people want "feel good" legislation. I live and work in rougher sections of Richmond, it was actually an improvement to the street in front of my office when the parole office went in down the block because then, even though there were more criminals, at least there were more eyes. I park across the street so that my female co workers don't have to walk the additional 15 feet when they leave. My guns are in a closet in my apartment, I'm not really worried about it. Seriously, any scenario will put the power way more into the attacker's hands if they have a gun. I have no options over someone who is willing to use a gun if they get the jump on me. I have many more with any other weapon.

Can we shake on that? I asked once, this it twice.

I already addressed the numbers. The messenger is also a hack but let's not get side-tracked. Tell me what you think about the fact that the top 10 hottest years (in global average) of the century are all within the last 20 years.

Your source is using 1998 as it's benchmark, a year that was so anomalously high (0.6 C above the century average) that it still ranks within the top 10 hottest years of the century. That's what you're using to show that the remaining 9 years are not that big of a deal?

So the black dot needs to jump above the trend of the year having the third hottest average in a century in order for Global warming to be validated? Global warming is entirely invalidated if 2019 is only the third hottest year? Edit: Would you mind drawing the dot where it need to be for crow eating? Edit2: But the black line is already not on top, it's the third one down. So doesn't that mean that we already should be eating crow (Even though it's higher than the 2018 line)?

This is ground I'm already covering with friends of mine, they say it was a decision between two bad choices. Now they have a bad choice and a very wide field of Democrats who in any measurable quantity are not bad choices when compared to either Trump or degree to which HRC was slandered into being a worse choice. Pick any bad thing about a current Democrat and Trump has already done worse. With the exception of not liking Bernie because he's too close to being a Socialist and Beto because he's basically the drummer from a boy band there's not much you can say negatively about any of the democrats that can really stick. (OMG Kamala had sex with someone 20 years ago. OMG Spartacus admitted to feeling a drunk girl's breast. OMG Biden has a creepy history of invading personal space.)

I can get away from from any weapon that doesn't fire projectiles.

Just so we get it straight and referencing the source you site above for serving crow, can you tell us what serving crow will look like on the chart I posted of global averages?

Then let's make ourselves a handshake that the information from NOAA regarding global averages and their interpretation of global trends is a solid foundation for the action we need to take. Also, can you link you location you're referring to who has stated that they will publish the global temps. EDIT (Found it): https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201904 Currently we're in the 3rd hottest Jan-April trend since records started in 1880. The first warmest period was in 2016, the second hottest 2017, the 4th 2015. The 10 hottest have all been in the last 20 years.

But how about the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? There's a middle ground were we realize in order to limit people's ability to kill we have to limit our ability to have the specific weapon they prefer to use. There are many more ways you can keep from getting killed other than having a firearm at your side especially since we don't know who is going to do the killing, we don' t know who should or shouldn't have that weapon. Edit: It's even a basic principle of warfare (Art of War) that you're only ever going to have a stalemate if you use the exact same strategy and force as your opponent.

No, I'm certain. If we only had muzzle loaders and bolt action weapons we wouldn't have mass shootings. That's just not realistic because we're never going to do that. So it's not a matter that we can't eliminate mass shootings, we're just unwilling to.

So the one month of US temperatures bears more weight than the 60 month average?

I'm not sure, maybe you can help me with this. I scrolled down the page and at the bottom it said we're in the hottest 60 month period since 1920. Am I reading it wrong?

It's a statistical fact that cities have more D voters than Rs so that's an oversimplification of the "why" for violence in cities. As for 60 years, nobody is off the hook for the cultural segregation that persists to today. Just start with the White-Flight from urban school systems after integration and move forward from there. As for policy, Republicans have fought tooth and nail against programs that bring minorities out of the blue collar workforce whether it be penalties for racist practices or affirmative action. So Candace Owens can spout off as much as she likes but when you line up what the Republican Party has done vs what the Democratic party has done there's a profound difference.

Except he didn't. And what radar? And I'm certain that if single shot bolt action weapons were the only choice available to the civilian market then this guy might think it would just be easier to go on a nice vacation and jump off a cliff somewhere rather than gun down the people he had worked with for years.

Lego my ego.

I'm trying to picture what it was like for the human who is basically traditionalism-in-flesh trying to explain to the President of the United States that he's not being a conservative, he's being an idiot: Trump says 'climate change goes both ways' https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48531019

Yeah, nevermind those inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The best we could do is put laws into effect that doesn't require confiscation and let time do its work. Require all sales to be through a FFL holder at penalty of X dollars if the weapon is found out of that person's control (Wups, didn't know it got stolen = $XXX.XX fine). Yes, there will be a period in which law abiding people have some more difficulty in having a firearm but that statement isn't accurate. Almost all weapons used in the perpetration of a crime started in the legal market and got out of it because of lax oversight. There are also many examples of legislation restricting the type of weapon that's available that consequently restrict it in the criminal world. Take fully automatic weapons for example, 100 years ago we made laws that tightly restricted their use, now they're an anomaly in the crime world. If you think one type of gun is great for home defense, please explain how a machine gun wouldn't be even better. Same can apply to semi-auto weapons with X bullet type, X magazine size. (And before anyone says you can just add a drum clip to any receiver, all new weapons, not existing. No more bottom/open clip receivers.) Edit: This doesn't address the issue of mass shootings, simply gun crimes. There simply is no quick fix for mass shootings considering the quantity of firearms in the US. The only measures we could make are for magazine size and gun type and that would still take a long time to work it's way out and would only help in making the outcomes less severe.

Oh good, "thoughts and prayers" is being replaced with "Hey look, the libtards don't care unless it's a right wing nutjob".

Don't forget that he thinks Mexico will do something that the US didn't have either the political or financial backing to do. And they know that the US as a whole does not support what the the US President is trying to force them to do.

I'm saying a place like the Va Beach Govt Building. They don't want people to bring weapons in but you feel as if there's even a chance then why not have a gun. But we've already established that someone can take out an entire room full of people before anyone can react so why not go to metal detectors and security?

Everyone deals with those odds every moment of their life yet chooses not to have a firearm nearby. If that's the order of magnitude then metal detectors and trained dogs at every door.

Actually, I know where no fewer than four firearms are at my DZ inside of the hangar (depending on who is there). The question is whether they would do any good before everyone had already either fled or been shot in the first wave of shooting.