Sunday, February 18, 2018

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms♥ 2nd AMENDMENT ♥ (self.The_Donald)

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00926% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence • 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation? • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year? • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT! • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good: • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.: Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."

Friday, January 26, 2018

Can Anything Good Come from CO2? From the Blogosphere

Jan 26, 2018

Friday, January 26, 2018

Can Anything Good Come from CO2?

Dr. Neil Frank

As much of America remains frigid, media headlines shout far and wide that catastrophic man-made climate change is to blame.  But is it true?

What are the basic facts about climate that people need to know?  Four questions can aid in the understanding of this complicated topic.

First, is the Earth warming?

Second, if it is, what is causing the warming?

Third, assuming that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, what is the cost of mitigating its impact?

And fourth, if CO2 has little or no impact on the Earth’s temperature, can anything good come from future increases of CO2?

So is the Earth warming?  Yes!  The Earth is warming, and it has been for over 150 years as the world emerges from the Little Ice Age.  Atmospheric CO2 has also been increasing since WWI.

What causes the warming?  That is a matter of intense debate.

In the 1980s, meteorologists observed that the Earth’s temperature was increasing at the same time as atmospheric CO2 concentration was rising.

A group at NASA concluded that CO2 is driving the warming.  They developed a numerical model of the atmosphere that projected an alarming rise in the Earth’s temperature and made public announcements of an impending disaster.  All the alarmist statements from the 1980s until today are based on numerical models.

But beginning in 1998, the Earth’s temperature plateaued (currently referred to as the “pause") while CO2 levels continued to spiral upward.  This caused a number of scientists outside the “alarmist” community to undertake an in-depth review of what has become a serious controversy.

These “skeptics” are convinced that meteorological data overwhelmingly show that CO2 is not a major factor in the global temperature.  Their belief is based on three primary reasons.

First, the pause has lasted for nearly twenty years, while atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to rise.  Second, there is a poor correlation between CO2 and the Earth’s temperature, as evidenced by the current pause and the fact that what correlations exist often show that temperature changes before CO2 rather than vice versa.  And third, failure of the numerical models, which predict double and triple the warming seen in real-world observations, suggests that the CO2 terms in the models are wrong.

Nevertheless, assuming that the alarmists are right and CO2 is causing global warming, what would be the cost to mitigate warming driven by CO2?

This brings us to the meeting of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in December 2015, when 194 nations agreed to reduce CO2 emissions by unrealistic amounts.

It was recognized that developing nations would need financial help to achieve their goals.  The conference agreed to establish a “Green Climate Fund” that would be distributed to developing nations.  The goal was to have $100 billion in this fund by 2020.  Of the 194 countries, 46 agreed to be donor nations, which means there would be almost 150 receiver nations.

At the meeting, the 46 donor nations made an initial pledge of $10 billion, with 90% coming from six countries: England, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the United States, with the U.S. carrying the heavy load of $3 billion.  It was agreed that pledges would be paid in two years.  Yet, two years later, only $3.4 billion has been collected, with over one fourth of it from the U.S.

In 2017, however, President Trump announced that the U.S. would pull out of the agreement.  If we were to rejoin the Paris agreement, we would have to pay over $2 billion immediately to satisfy our pledge, and that would only be the beginning, because the goal is to have $100 billion in the “Green Climate Fund” by 2020.  Without billions of dollars from the U.S., the Paris Agreement is doomed.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates that it will cost the world $7.4 trillion by 2040, and Bjorn Lomborg estimates that it will cost from $70 to $140 trillion by 2100 if all nations comply with the Paris Agreement.

In addition, there have been billions of dollars spent domestically on global warming.  The Capital Research Center estimated the United States spent $166 billion on global warming from 1993-2014, and the budgets for 2015-2017 were around $20 billion per year.

What does all this money buy us?  Estimates assuming that CO2’s warming effect is large range to as much as a 1.5-degree centigrade reduction in global average temperature at the end of this century.  But the most credible figure, generously based on the IPCC’s own assumptions of CO2’s warming effect, seems to be under 0.2 degrees centigrade.  That is a lot of money for an insignificant result.

Finally, if the skeptics are right, and CO2 is not a major factor in the Earth’s temperature, warming prevented by the Paris agreement would be even less, though the costs would remain the same.

Meanwhile, can anything good come from expected future increases of CO2?  The answer is a resounding yes!

We have known for years that CO2 enhances plant growth.  Over 1,000 scientific studies on a variety of plants have documented this growth, but only recently has there been an attempt to put a monetary value on the increases.

Dr. Craig Idso, in a fascinating investigation, used the results of these studies to determine the growth rate of 45 plants for the period 1961-2011.  These plants produce 95% of the food for the world’s population.  He then converted this growth into a dollar value.  For the fifty-year period ending in 2011, growth of plants by CO2 resulted in an increase of $3.2 trillion for the world’s agricultural community.

Dr. Idso then projected these results forward to 2050, assuming that CO2 would continue to increase at the current rate.  The world could realize an astounding $9.8-trillion additional bonus!

The great news is that it costs nothing to achieve this goal.  All we have to do is continue using fossil fuels at today’s rate.

In summary, the alarmists’ policies will cost trillions of dollars in a largely ineffectual attempt to mitigate warming, with no proof that mitigation is necessary and with current attempts proven to be utterly dismal.  The skeptics’ solution will result in a return of trillions of dollars in increased agricultural growth and, more important, will allow developing countries to continue using abundant, affordable, and reliable energy sources - namely, fossil fuels - to rise and stay out of poverty and avoid the high rates of disease and premature death that invariably accompany it.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

P.S. If you liked this article you might enjoy our Cornwall Alliance Email Newsletter! Sign up here to receive analysis on top issues of the day related to science, economics, and poverty development.

Posted on 01/26 at 12:39 PM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink