When the campaign chairperson and nearly everyone below him lies and hides their work and strong ties to and multiple millions in payments by Russia, that IS the Trump campaign, it's hardly unrelated. He chose these people, and they all have Russian ties. It wouldn't be a surprise if we find them all on an actual list of people Putin told him to hire.

You mean what evidence he has against Trump remains to be seen, the deal is public, and Muller didn't let him off on 8/10 pending felony charges for nothing.

Odd, I thought Trump was covering his ass by suggesting a pardon was coming. I guess his close friends just don't trust Trump to follow through on a promise..... imagine that.
I wouldn't have to cover my ass. I'm not one of dozens of lying traitors working for the president while hiding my Russian ties, and I never would be.

He has no upcoming trial, he plead guilty and offered to give testimony and evidence against Trump. Trials for him are over.

The charges, again since you can't seem to grasp it, were about lies he told under oath FOR and DURING the campaign, not just about his prior work for Russia (defrauding the United States and obstruction)....true, these were lies about his job right before the campaign and about payments made for his Russian propaganda work, and lies about who made those hidden payments, Russia....but those lies under oath (on campaign and security clearance applications, etc) were all during and in the service of the Trump campaign.
The fact that you refuse to accept those undeniable and admitted facts in favor of a ridiculous fantasy put forth by Fox that doesn't just beg credulity but completely ignores reality (like the theory that he's being prosecuted for decades old crimes (from 2010-2017?) that are well past the statutes of limitations and not for his recent subversion and obstruction in service to Trump that he plead guilty to) make you look pretty delusional and irrational.

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