You replied to yourself here....likely because this wasn't meant for me, as your terrible English, impossibly bad for an American, would tip us off that you're not an American and are nothing but another Russian troll stumping for Trump, willing to spout any nonsense no matter how it contradicts reality. Really, Bobski, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to learn English better than the Nigerian princes who need your help with international banking.
*facepalm

You must be completely insane if you think protecting a targeted group of American citizens from clear attacks against their constitutional rights is the racist move, but trying to remove their constitutional rights, that's not.

You are apparently willfully ignorant, so you have zero idea what poor people, who are mostly minorities, face. I have been one, living in East Palo Alto in the late 80's. When you work 16 hour days +3 hours on the bus getting there just to scrape by with zero savings, asking them to spend a full day at the dmv and a voting tax of $50+ (the cost of a license), you make the right to vote conditional on having a day off, the required documentation for a license/ID, and $50 to spare. Make getting a license/ID free and under 5 min online, you might have a point. As it stands, you're just being intentionally dense and trying to hide from the obvious, clear, unambiguous racist nature of ALL voter tests. There's a reason the states implementing these laws were precluded from making voter laws before 2011.....they had been found to be unconstitutionally and blatantly racist by the supreme court.

Republicans want id laws to disenfranchise minorities because they don't represent minorities and don't expect their votes, they're clear and open about it behind closed doors, have been since the Southern Strategy, and it's 100% obvious when you look at their implementation, they ALL effect minorities at a rate 4+ times over whites in areas where whites are 3/4 the population....that's by design, they have been repeatedly caught testing to ensure those results when crafting the laws.

Illegals don't vote, that's nonsense you got from the liar in Chief with not a shred of evidence that a single one successfully voted after his 2 year red herring investigation that wasted (tens of?) millions of dollars over something he made up to excuse his losing the election by 3000000+- votes. It's pure bullshit, you and we know it, that's why you never heard the results of his investigation.

Today, Trump declared publicly he's a proud nationalist.....another word for neo Nazi. There goes Republican's humanity.
He's also added more to the deficit than anyone ever, during a period of growth! Obama did better, consistently reducing the deficit, during a recession! So much for fiscal responsibility.
Now Republicans have organized and paid central Americans to march towards America to rile up their base and blame democrats without evidence, knowing under 100 will even be allowed to apply for asylum and none allowed entry. Any semblance of honesty gone, fear and hatred of anyone "different", that's all the right has left.
I'm guessing you're still on board, because nothing but tribe matters to you, not truth, not rationality, not even supporting a proud Nazi.

This is based on the 2011 French movie, The Intouchables. It is excellent and I highly recommend everyone to watch it.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675434/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RqDiYnFxTk

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 4:04pm PDT - promote requested by BSR.

Researchers found that disabling the fucose mutarotase (FucM) gene in laboratory mice – which influences the levels of estrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the female mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up.

"The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental programme in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference" said Professor Chankyu Park of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejon, South Korea, who led the research.

- https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-11-62

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study shows Transgender brains more closely resemble brains of the sex they align with, rather than what they were born with.

Julie Bakker, who led the research, utilized 160 MRI scans of transgender people diagnosed with gender dysphoria when they were either kids or in their teens. These scans also measured the brain’s microstructures with a technique called diffusion tensor imaging.

After all of these scans were made, they were then compared with people of the same age who had not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The study found that transgender boys’ and transgender girls’ brain activity corresponded to both cisgender boys and girls. The MRI tests examined brain activity after an exposure to a steroid and measured gray matter as well.

Bakker believes that this research could be used to help children at an earlier day who’re diagnosed with gender dysmorphia. Bakker stated:

"Although more research is needed, we now have evidence that sexual differentiation of the brain differs in young people with GD, as they show functional brain characteristics that are typical of their desired gender.”

- https://bigthink.com/mike-colagrossi/transgender-brains-more-closely-resemble-brains-of-the-sex-they-align-with-rather-than-what-they-were-born-with

[This study is also in line with multiple previous studies done since 2011, with MRI results showing differences. The major change with this study is that it involved children who had not been exposed to hormone treatment and that were pre-pubescent. - Mordhaus]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as they aren't hurting anyone and any sexual interactions are between consenting adults, who cares if it is genetic or behavioral? Personally, I don't even give a fuck if people use different bathrooms. If a cis gender woman wanted to use the Men's restroom, I would say "Go for it, just don't flip out if you see a dick or two." Same goes for vice versa.

This lady is welcome to her opinion, but science is starting to weigh against her in increasing degrees. At a certain point, this is going to be equivalent to the Flat Earth people, if it isn't already.

A rare useful comment from Youtube:

2011: 100% Chance of Crisis, Worse Than 2008: Jim Rogers
2012: Jim Rogers: It’s Going To Get Really “Bad After The Next Election”
2013: Jim Rogers Warns: “You Better Run for the Hills!”
2014: JIM ROGERS – Sell Everything & Run For Your Lives
2015: Jim Rogers: “We’re Overdue” for a Stock Market Crash
2016: $68 TRILLION “BIBLICAL CRASH” Dead Ahead? Jim Rogers Issues a DIRE WARNING
2017: THE BOTTOM LINE: Legendary investor Jim Rogers expects the worst crash in our lifetime

I really wish they had stuck with the 2011 reboot. That was spectacular! But I'm willing to give this a shot; maybe it will surprise me. I'm certainly not going to tweet threats to CalArts and its students, like SOME ignorant jackasses!

Snopes included excerpts from at least two peer reviewed studies directly on topic that seem to contradict your contention....why dismiss it offhand?

In a peer-reviewed paper published by American Law and Economics Review in 2012, researchers Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University found that in the decade following the NFA, firearm homicides (both suicides and intentional killings) in Australia had dropped significantly:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].

Similarly, Dr. David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found in 2011 that the NFA had been “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved”:

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

Are you calling them liars?

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 Wednesday, January 19th, 2011 4:58am PST - promote requested by newtboy.

You all are right to call BS on this video. Its trash.

The earthquake that caused the 2004 tsunami in Sumatra released a total of 9 600 000 megatons of energy....that's a bit more than 50 megatons. I don't know though, I'm not a math major.

This earthquake didn't make new continents, nor did it cause an ice age by pushing earth a significant distance away from the sun. So I'm going to guess that neither would this bomb.

The portion of the 2004 earthquake's total energy that was released on the surface of the sea floor was only 26 megatons and it was released a lot less quickly than the detonation of the Tsar bomba, I'll give ya that.

Probably generate a Tsunami, but not a large one. Large natural tsunamis, like those in 2004 and 2011, are generated by very sudden movement of the ocean floor over a large area; the 2004 Sumatra quake lifted the sea floor several meters, very rapidly, along a 1600 km long section of fault, displacing a total of 30 cubic kilometers of water. Google "what does a cubic kilometer look like". Its a lot of water.

Not sure if the bomb can move that much water at a single site; I don't think it replicates the right "mechanics" of large scale tsunami generation....

*quality nutjobs

We are talking about the same idiot that agreed with a conservative talk show host, all the way back in 2011, that doing away with all amendments after the 10th "would eliminate many problems."

The amendments repealed would contain:

13th - Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

14th - Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post–Civil War issues.

15th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.

19th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex.

24th - Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax.

26th - Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age.

Yeah, I could see how making slavery legal again, making it impossible for the people you don't like to be citizens, and preventing undesirables (Blacks,Women,Poor,Young) people from voting would help a certain section of voters.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, December 18th, 2011 10:17am PST - promote requested by newtboy.

Sorry, that's pretty culturally-ignorant thinking right there.

Japanese people are not "meek" or "inhibited" any more so than Americans are. There are different cultural rules about self-expression but there are most certainly loud, aggressive, and flamboyant people here. They just express themselves in different ways than your typically loud, aggressive, and flamboyant American would.

You might think socioeconomic factors were a reason for the lack of crime, but you'd be wrong there too. Japan has a higher poverty rate and lower median income than the U.S.

The low crime rates here can much better be attributed to cultural factors. Every Japanese person is raised with the belief that it is shameful cause problems to the people around them, whether that be family, schoolmates, or co-workers. Getting arrested is about the most shameful thing you could do here. Just being suspected of a crime will likely get you fired from your job, before you are even tried.

And let's not forget the role the justice system here plays. If you get arrested you are almost 100% going to get convicted because the odds are massively stacked against you in the court system. You are basically guilty until proven innocent. Read this for more info about it.

And people here know this. They also know that Japanese prison is hellish. You won't be raped or assaulted there like in the U.S. but you will know exactly what is like to have all of your freedom stripped completely away.

You add to all of this the low unemployment rate of Japan, the high regulation of all weapons (including knives), a robust social system for helping the unemployed (although unfortunately lately a lot of people seem to be falling through the cracks), a nationalized health insurance plan (I pay a $1 co-pay to take my daughter to the doctor and all prescribed medicines are free), a strong social stigma against drug use, and the ability as an island nation to strictly police the borders to prevent the influx of illegal goods (i.e. drugs/guns) and you get the low crime rates in Japan.

tl;dr

There is little incentive to commit crime in Japan because the both social and legal repercussions are extremely severe, and there is little need to resort to crime to survive (plentiful jobs and robust social security). Likewise the opportunity to commit crime is lessened because of the strict regulation of weapons, drugs, and borders.

EDIT: I will say that on more than one occasion I've thought that a career criminal in the U.S. who suddenly found himself in Japan would feel like a kid in a candy store. Because of the lack of crime, people here don't take precautions against it--some people leave doors and windows unlocked when leaving the house, you'll see laptops or iPads left in cars in plain view, and people carry ridiculous amounts of cash on them (I'm talking like on the order of $1000 or more in some cases). On the one hand it can be reassuring but on the other hand I seriously worry about these people when they travel overseas.

For those who care to read - this is a basic breakdown of her story.
She is a member of the anti abortion group, Coalition for Life, and has published two books for the anti-abortion cause. Unplanned &
The Walls Are Talking: Former Abortion Clinic Workers Tell Their Stories

She currently runs an anti-abortion ministry, and an organization to convince abortion clinic workers to leave the industry.

Johnson revealed in January 2011 that she had had two abortions herself before the birth of her daughter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Johnson_(activist)

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 4:03pm PDT - promote requested by lurgee.