Brings back memories of the trapped miners in Chile on August 5th 2010 that were rescued.

https://youtu.be/Tv8unnxymUs

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, October 30th, 2010 4:27pm PDT - promote requested by Zawash.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010 4:10pm PDT - promote requested by geo321.

In 2010 this was how Mike Edwards, one of the founding members of ELO died.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/08/article-2229854-15EA90C8000005DC-485_634x366.jpg

It is 2010 movie, this trailer is from 2014.

Is this just a new re-release? It looks nearly the same as the 2010 movie, which got a US release in 2014.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, December 20th, 2010 10:23pm PST - promote requested by Nephelimdream.

It would be interesting if puddles continues the show as an actual contestant, but then at the same time not surprising? Yes he has his youtube following, and he has his own performances, but he doesn't have any contracts, no endorsements, he isn't exactly making mad bucks. He may not even have an agent. Around 2010 he was the lead singer in a band called kingsized which seemed to exclusively be an entertainment crew that does covers of older songs. For now it seems the band is defunct.

My guess is during the app process, established musicians can skip the first round (musicless singing) and go right to the public performance round. And puddles is doing this so he CAN get more exposure and help nail a music contract. Saddly I prefer puddle's covers over any original content. Some of us have songs that they really like and would prefer just to hear different versions of it.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, March 27th, 2010 12:46pm PDT - promote requested by lurgee.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, April 4th, 2010 10:00am PDT - promote requested by ant.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's from here:
This quote is attributed to Nobel laureate Baruch Blumberg. In a late 80s PBS documentary, he said half of all human deaths 'may' have been due to malaria.

While it sounds astounding, it's plausible when you think about it. 93% of all humans ever born are dead. But it's a highly speculative business starting from how many people have ever lived.

Prof Carl Haub has come up with an estimate of 108 billion people since 50,000 BC. And only 6.5% of these are alive today. How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?

So did malaria cause the death of roughly 54 billion people? We can speculate. More than 96 billion of these 108 billion lived between 8000 BC and 1900 AD. For malaria to have caused the death of 54 billion people, it should have kept up a phenomenal rate of 5.4 million deaths per year in the last 10,000 years.

WHO estimates of 650,000 deaths per year now seem wildly off the mark. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded a study to find out how many deaths occur due to malaria in today's day and age. The number was 1.24 million in 2010! http://www.bbc.com/news/health-1...

So it's certainly plausible that malaria could have killed five times as many in an age pre-dating modern medicine when most of the world lived as communes along with their cattle and herds.

Also, the longevity of the parasite plasmodium, which causes malaria. Studies have revealed that it's been around since the time of the dinosaurs. And certainly been around from the beginning of our story. http://www.malaria.com/questions...

Entirely plausible!

https://www.quora.com/The-Human-Race-and-Condition-Is-it-true-that-mosquitoes-have-killed-more-than-half-of-all-the-people-who-have-ever-lived

No, I didn't confuse anything. Almost every single country benefits from 'illegal' immigrants as well as regular ones. France, for example, has thousands of illegal immigrants from mostly Islamic countries that provide services to it's mostly aging native population. We benefit no more and no less than any other nation from illegal immigration, as @newtboy mentioned, if you import food products or grow them locally you probably are benefiting from illegal immigration.

As far as your evidence, I hope this will suffice as 'some':

Steven A. Camarota, PhD, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, in a Jan. 6, 2015 article, "Unskilled Workers Lose Out to Immigrants," available at nytimes.com, stated:

"There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and we also admit over a million permanent legal immigrants each year, leading to enormous implications for the U.S. labor market. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that there are some 58 million working-age (16 to 65) native-born Americans not working — unemployed or out of the labor market entirely. This is roughly 16 million more than in 2000. Equally troubling, wages have stagnated or declined for most American workers. This is especially true for the least educated, who are most likely to compete with immigrants (legal and illegal).

Anyone who has any doubt about how bad things are can see for themselves at the bureau's website, which shows that, as of November, there were 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans working than in November 2007, while 2 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) were working. Thus, all net employment gains since November 2007 have gone to immigrants."

Jan. 6, 2015 - Steven A. Camarota, PhD

George J. Borjas, PhD, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, in a Sep./Oct. 2016 article, "Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers," available at politico.com, stated:

"[A]nyone who tells you that immigration doesn't have any negative effects doesn't understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable...

We don't need to rely on complex statistical calculations to see the harm being done to some workers. Simply look at how employers have reacted. A decade ago, Crider Inc., a chicken processing plant in Georgia, was raided by immigration agents, and 75 percent of its workforce vanished over a single weekend. Shortly after, Crider placed an ad in the local newspaper announcing job openings at higher wages."

Sep./Oct. 2016 - George J. Borjas, PhD

Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., PhD, Emeritus Professor of Labor Economics at Cornell University, in an Oct. 14, 2010 briefing Report to the US Commission on Civil Rights, "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers," available at usccr.gov, stated:

"Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major looser [sic] in this competition are low skilled black workers…

It is not just that the availability of massive numbers of illegal immigrants depress wages, it is the fact that their sheer numbers keep wages from rising over time, and that is the real harm experienced by citizen workers in the low skilled labor market."

Oct. 14, 2010 - Vernon M. Briggs Jr., PhD

There are more educated people than I that hold the same opinion, but let me give you an easier to understand, and absolutely true, example. How do I know it is true? When I was a much younger man, I worked for a roofing company. So I lived it.

The company I worked for was owned by a family friend, who had worked for most of his life in the field and had an excellent reputation. However, in the 90's around the time NAFTA was passed and (not related, I hope) illegal immigration spiked in Texas, he began to lose out to other companies. He did some snooping around and found out they were often charging hundreds of dollars less in their estimates than he could possibly offer, at least while still making a profit. He also found out that the two companies that were taking most of his business were staffed with illegal workers, being paid much lower wages than he could give to his legal employees.

Fast forward a year and he was close to declaring bankruptcy. Just like any type of labor where you pay your employees little to nothing comparatively to their compatriots in the same field, you cannot compete fairly. Net result, he was forced to let us go one by one, replacing us with illegals.

Obviously, I moved on, learned a different skill and began to make far more than I would have as a simple laborer. But the fact remains that an entire industry was undermined and radically changed by the inclusion of cheap illegal labor. This will not change if we simply ignore illegal immigration because it is the 'nice' thing to do. What it will accomplish is that young people will slowly find that certain jobs are out of their selection. It also will get worse the more accepted and commonplace illegal immigration becomes. I know for a fact that while I worked at Apple there were entry level support techs that were illegally here. Perhaps you will say that it is a benefit because it would prevent offshoring, but I disagree. What it does is make the working class poorer and doesn't solve the other issues brought about by illegal immigration, such as Emergency Rooms being flooded by people who can't afford insurance. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it is common to go to the ER and see people stacked like cordwood because they can't refuse patients unless they are a private hospital.

As far as The Jungle, and my statement about it and it's author, I was merely pointing out that as much as you try to put forth that illegal immigrants have a bad life here in the USA, the fact is that we used to treat legal immigrants far worse. Perhaps it was a reach on my part, but it seemed logical at the time.

I doubt we will agree on any of this, but I respect your opinion. I live in a state that has a very large proportion of illegal immigrants, and while you are correct that they are generally not a criminal negative to society, they do have severe effects which I think you are overlooking. I do think that legal immigration policy needs massive change and businesses that exploit the almost slave like labor of illegals to make more profit should be punished severely. In the meantime, when we do catch illegals, they should be deported, not protected by a sympathetic politically motivated law enforcement group.