I have to agree, since they also claim NO other starving polar bears were seen in 2017, and that sea ice didn't break up early, but in fact it was measured at around 5000km3 in September 2017 and the mean volume since 1979 is around 12000km3 in September, and average ice thickness was the lowest ever recorded for most of the year in 2017....when these articles were published.

The truth is, that IS what climate change LOOKS like, very few articles actually attributed this particular bears condition to climate change. Only those wishing to intentionally misread in order to contradict their own intentional misunderstanding didn't understand that. Lies indeed.

It reminds me of my brother denouncing the numbers on mass school shootings because in some, only one person was killed (but multiple shot), claiming that "mass shooting" meant "mass murder" was his way of debunking the argument and then denying there is a problem.

Right wing debate strategy....Step one, misrepresent a claim. Step two, prove that misrepresentation wrong. Step three, claim that debunks the entire argument the claim was supporting.

You misread. I'm blaming radicals for drinking mountain dew, which hypes them up to the point of being ready for race war. It doesn't make radicals, it energizes them.

Sadly, no. The right has abused and ignored their constitutional duties as a party, handing supreme power to one man over and over while ignoring and actively hiding his multiple crimes and appearances of crimes and actively obstructing the investigations at every turn.....advancing their cause so no investigation should be undertaken, no charges levied, and certainly no punishments for what are real, treasonous felonies....dozens of convictions about subversion....collusion....but you still believe they are the patriots?! You still claim they care about the constitution, as they wipe their asses with it?! Explain.

Come on, Bob, it's ok to admit they aren't perfect and that you don't support at least some of their crimes. I wish you would consider how you would feel if Obama stayed a third term (which Trump hints might be his plan often) and/or bypassed congress to add trillions to the deficit while cutting the military by over half (note, Obama increased military funding consistently, contrary to the lies Fox and Trump tell you).

Democrats want to save the union, granted some of their ideas are poorly thought out, republicans from the top down are itching for a civil war because your side believes the other side isn't armed and will be easy to eradicate.....they're wrong, and totally unpatriotic.

Bob, it's not "one proud American", it's tens of thousands who aren't proud, anyone who MAGAs is saying America isn't great now, and right wingers want to completely reimagine the country as not a melting pot, not a place of refuge, not a place of fairness and opportunities, but a place where rich get richer and the poor pay for it, and where white privilege is codified law, nothing else really seems to matter any more than as a rallying cry, or Republicans would have funded the wall when they had total control.

Um....when republicans step out, it's quite often with a gun or swastika, when democrats do it, it's with an egg or a paper peace sign. Hardly the same thing.

Also, tell that to Senator Stewart Smallie (among others)....he was good enough, he was smart enough, and dog gone it, people liked him, but because of one non G rated joke as a comedian, he resigned....never in million years would republican resign for any such thing, one became president by bragging about actions similar but 100 times worse. Democrats actually hold themselves to their own standards, not Republicans, not anymore, not one tiny bit...

Good people on both sides. Yeah....except good people don't stand with Nazis and white supremacists....EVER.

Edit: again, since you persist in your insistence that the left is worse than the right, I ask you to list the left wing terrorists of late....because we can list quite a few right wing terrorists since Trump was elected, including multiple mass murderers and multiple mail bombers.

I was somewhere else at the time.

It was mass murder in the name of love. What do you think brought me to the point of suicide?

On the technical part, you're right and I saw it but left that morsel for you.

Wait....were you there?! Because that was really more of a mass murder in the name of love with a side order of suicide.

Technically, suicide is not survivable, so I can't explain it.

I haven't heard, and I'd really like to know...

Has Trump instigated any new mass murdering?
Like, I'm not counting from military actions from troops already in-theatre. Non-status quo.

I mean, has he gone "Hey, lets bomb the shit out of Syrians. They're like the Mexicans of Eastern Europe, aren't they? No? Oh ok, nuke Turkey."

I mean, even Obama escalated actions and robo-killed hundreds (thousands?).

I mean, for all the sleaze and stupidity, has he done anything "war criminal"-ish?

"There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort."

I disagree. Petrol and cars/trucks. Both are legal and easily used to commit mass murder (and have been). I'll add swords (long knives) into this with a caveat - you need to be a highly trained swordsman to commit such an atrocity.

Cars are so dangerous that they have killed more people in the US in the last 50 years by accident than guns have on purpose. It took 50 years of concerted effort by subsequent US administrations to get the yearly death toll by cars lower than that of firearms (the curve for cars only recently dipped below that of firearms).

Knives can cause as much or more vascular damage than a typical firearm wound. The difference is that knives require the smallest interpersonal confrontation distance (it is hand to hand combat - people don't like this), and to consistently achieve high levels of vascular damage requires a higher degree of training.

The right of non-restricted people to own firearms has little affect on murder rates. E.g. Australia has a higher rate of firearm ownership now than before its lauded firearms laws came into effect in 1997. The majority of studies done on this topic conclude that the restrictions had no effect (or no measurable effect) on the continued reduction in firearm fatalities.

I think the greatest issue in the US is that some people see the use of firearms as a solution to some problems where it is not a good solution. I.e. it is a cultural issue.

Respect. I live in Canada. So my perspective is probably warped or highly misinformed and ignorant of the USA's gun control, 2nd amendment argument. But my thought is, what's wrong with not being able to own anything that exists? Assault weapons shouldn't be made available to the public, it should be restricted to the military. Period. It's just incredible how these mass murdering weapons were even allowed to be owned in the first place. Even if the argument is that it's enshrined in the 2nd amendment, then the political discussion should be about changing/more narrowly define the amendment. How old is the 2nd amendment? How applicable is it to modern needs?

Even only allowing regulated shooting ranges to have these assault weapons just for on-site shooting is good thing. It allows gun lovers to hold them in hand, try them for target practice, have some fun but not allow anyone to take them out of the shooting range. Take the private ownership part out of the equation.

I love fighter jets, tanks, rockets & lots of high tech military stuff. Not crazy about guns, but I do appreciate their beauty. Still, I don't need to own them to appreciates them.

Society (not just the USA) really need to away from the assault weapon-ownership mentality... yes, that means asking gun owners to give up that particular rights. But there's virtue in doing it for the society...

Just can't believe the cowardice of those "nothing we can do about it" Republicans like Rubio. It's part of a big, sick symptom of government under the choke-hold of the NRA, Big Business, Big Banks, lobbyists instead of the constituents. Just feel sad for the People.

It's not giving up the gun that might save lives, it's giving up the right to own them.
His gun probably wouldn't ever kill someone.
The right of any non restricted person to buy one is what leads to murderers having this tool often used to commit mass murder.
Would that stop all mass murders? Absolutely not, but it would stop SOME...probably most. Other methods people use are harder to assemble without being caught (bombs), are far less lethal (knives, arrows), and/or are harder to procure (tasteless poisons or gas). There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort.

And yes, @BSR, this guy just made a sawed off AR15. He better post the video of him cutting it in half again if he doesn't want a visit from ATF. That gun almost certainly still fires, it's just incredibly more dangerous to the user now, and highly illegal. Not sure what you're saying in your snarky post, he didn't ever say a word otherwise.

I actually agree with you mostly, but you're not gonna like it.

One thing I will point out though - "I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder."

We have data on this. Take Australia. In the 21 years leading up to Port Arthur and that massacre itself, which triggered the nation into heavily regulating guns, there were 16 mass murders of four or more people, totaling 137 murders. Since then, there have been 12, with a total of 76 murders. This despite there being population growth.

Violent crime rate has dropped from 1996 to now, mainly from reductions in robbery and a small drop in homicide rates.

There is very clear evidence that if most guns are removed from circulation, there are very real and likely benefits when it comes to reducing violent crime in general and murder.

I'm a political moderate and pragmatic. I go with what works. Don't care how liberal or conservative the solution is. I'm never in favor of regulation that is ineffective at solving problems.

And to that end, I'm against most gun control measures. I'm on board with banning assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, but most gun control things like psychiatric evaluations, universal background checks? No.
Why? Because societal models we know that provided real progress on problems seemed to suggest one thing - it's the prevalence of guns that is the problem. If you make it marginally harder to buy guns by things like...

Three day waiting periods
Universal background checks
Psychiatric evaluations

They don't work. Banning guns works, though. It's worked time and time again. Australia, Britain, over and over and over, if guns lose prevalence, violence, murder, etc. decrease significantly.

At some point, society has to decide that giving up guns is worth it. But until that time, "common sense" gun control is a waste of time, and I quite frankly think it might do real effective gun control measures harm because when nothing gets better from these mild measures, they're going to point that out.

Mass=4
4 or more shot = mass shooting.
Derived from 4 or more shot to death=mass murder. (Amended to 3 by congress in 2013)
You may differ with that definition, most people don't. This is from the legal, federal definition of the term mass murder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting

This was not the 500th mass shooting. You are using an unusable definition that shuts down debating anything on true mass shootings. Most people consider mass shooting to be the killing of innocent people indiscriminately - usually in a public place. Using such an overreaching definition just starts losing its intended meaning. It also shuts down dialog. I own guns. I support practical regulations. I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder. I can see regulations and restrictions on guns - safety courses, etc on saving lives, but not preventing crime and murder.

Knee jerk?! As if this wasn't beyond the 500th mass shooting in under 2 years, 1516 in 1735 days.
That's a total bullshit position, along with "this isn't the time" arguments. When mass shootings happen daily, pretending we must wait for a shooting free month, season, year before we can rationally tackle the issue is asinine. We can't make it 1/2 week without 3.
I agree, all those things you mention factor into the issue, but the easiest, simplest, most effective tool, proven effective in multiple cases, is gun control, and it is the best return for your investment, as it's by far the cheapest. (I own guns).
People intent on mass murder may not be deterred, but they are absolutely, unequivocally hindered by regulations from causing exponentially more damage. It's just retarded that some people don't grasp that fact and instead continue to advocate for fewer regulations....as if he wouldn't have purchased a Vulcan cannon if he could have.

My post was in the context of mass murder and gun regulation. Blaming the gun, fearing the tool and having a knee jerk response to do 'something' to avoid something like this - I think leads to initiatives that just will not have any true effect unless we examine everything at play here. People get very frustrated and want solutions right away. Gun regulation is an easy out. But in the end, what really needs to be looked at is mental health issues, poverty issues, resource access issues, venue security and education for more returns on your investment. People intent on mass murder are just not going to be deterred or hindered by regulations.

Yep. Not allowing people to buy missiles, bombs, high explosives, and weaponized machines has no effect either. Of course not, it's ridiculous to blame the tool that makes mass murder simple and easy.
Good plan. No single simple solution could completely solve the problem, so it's better to do nothing at all. That's how we deal with all dangerous products, right?

Let's just ban murder. Problem solved. Right? Sorry, but it is just ridiculous to blame the tool. It's such a simplistic and naive viewpoint. The only way gun regulations are going to have any effect on mass murders - by guns - would be a complete ban of all guns. Something most people, including myself, would never support.