Slashdot Mirror

In developed countries we've seen the birth rate decline over the last several decades. I suggest that young people are reacting to negative conditions for having kids, by having less kids. Student debt, declining real wages, the rising cost of housing, expensive medical insurance, politics, religion shown to be empty, cultural Marxism; all are perceived by the primitive layers of our brains as the kind of resource scarcity and adverse social conditions that make having kids unwise.

And you'd be wrong. Birth rate and income are inversely correlated within the same age group (that is, after controlling for older people tending to have higher incomes). You'll also note that fertility rate (birthrate divided by number of women aged 15-44) is higher in lower income races like black and hispanic. The opposite of what you'd expect if the factors you listed were the cause.

The difference is probably due to ease of access to contraception. Wealthier people have better access to more effective (long-term) contraception. But its cost has come down and the taboo against it has mostly disappeared, so even poorer and younger people have more access to it.

At the top of the page it says it is a meta analysis of 193696 people, and in the follow ups on deaths there were 29639 deaths, so that seems like that should be large enough samples to not run into the sample size issues that you mention as long as you don't get too far into the weeds with subdividing the populations. Here are the leading causes of death for the general US population, presumably the early mortality in this study would have a different profile than that of the general population, but even for the general population accidents constitute over 5% of overall mortality. Cardiovascular issues are much higher proportion of overall mortality than that, and the study seems to want to focus on those issues so comparing rates on that for the different levels of physical activity tested by the study seems like a much more informative path for teasing out paths of causation than just the general mortality numbers.

The bigger issue seems to be that they are mashing a bunch of different studies together, which is beyond my basic level of statistical modeling but sounds like could cause problems. To be fair, I'm not saying that this study is "bad" just from the speed read of some random asshole on the internet, but scientific journalism tends to draw way more conclusions than is merited by the scientific studies that they cover, and there are quite a few issues that make the idea being sold that physical activity in the job is bad compared to recreational physical activity being good less conclusive than as presented.

Where have you been all this time?

There have been stories like "we had sex and he put finger into my mouth and I didn't like it". (one POC celebrity)
Or like "he asked for oral sex, I asked maybe later and then he kind of slightly nudged my head" - James Franco.

The pinnacle of sexual harassment, assault, rape and eating people alive (if we conflate definitions, let's do it grandly) for me was a Doctor, who "sexually harassed or assaulted or raped or eaten alive" by inviting her to become a "friend" on the facebook (something, that evil serial harasser/assaulter/rapist/cannibal did to all his patients).

The bloated approach to what does constitute sexual (insert something from unwanted comment to brutal murder) went so far, that when applied to men, figured that 6 million of american men are sexually assaulted/raped/murdered by women every year National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010

But wait, it's not yet finished, these numbers are not scary enough some are working hard to get even more impressive figures.

Numbers like these? https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/.... I'll cut to the chase, as the employer table is at the end: 68.6% employer-based coverage in 1970, 61.6% in 2007. This is not an increase. It also hides a reduction in the extent of the coverage for many.

I agree. But we can do better. California should make 2 new laws:

1) Everything good is required.

2) Everything bad is against the law.

That will simplify what is happening now: Combination Wrench, 5-7/8", 9mm, Chrome Vanadium Steel, Westward, 36A224

The California notice:

"WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including one or more listed chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov"

Chrome causes cancer: Epidemiologic studies of chrome and cancer mortality: a series of meta-analyses.

Vanadium causes cancer: Toxic Substances Portal - Vanadium Quote: "Everyone is exposed to low levels of vanadium in air, water, and food; however, most people are exposed mainly from food."

Yes, but their dark skin offers them significant protection. That's the whole reason we have different colors of skin: white people produce more vitamin D, but are more susceptible to skin cancer. Black people need more sunlight to produce vitamin D, but are less likely to get skin cancer.
Skin Cancer Rates by Race and Ethnicity

snipsnip
Combination Wrench, 5-7/8", 9mm, Chrome Vanadium Steel, Westward, 36A224
snipsnip
Vanadium causes cancer: Toxic Substances Portal - Vanadium Quote: "Everyone is exposed to low levels of vanadium in air, water, and food; however, most people are exposed mainly from food."
snipsnip

I'll take two of those wrenches. Toasted please and with cream cheese. To go.

Wow! Good chart. I simplified the link: Everything we eat both causes and prevents cancer.

Lights? Melatonin? Sleep deprivation? Hah! I have a worse story. And a solution!

Combination Wrench, 5-7/8", 9mm, Chrome Vanadium Steel, Westward, 36A224

The California notice:

"WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including one or more listed chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov"

Chrome causes cancer: Epidemiologic studies of chrome and cancer mortality: a series of meta-analyses.

Vanadium causes cancer: Toxic Substances Portal - Vanadium Quote: "Everyone is exposed to low levels of vanadium in air, water, and food; however, most people are exposed mainly from food."

There is poison in dirt! My solution: We need to find a new planet.

They are, theoretically at least, much better trained and aren't allowed to just 'wing it'.

And then you get these assholes.
Multistate Outbreak of Fungal Meningitis and Other Infections

Don't get me wrong, my family gets a prescription from a compounding pharmacy that is otherwise not commercially available. But fuuuuuuck!

> CA's overall suicide rate is (slightly) higher than the national average. Which would suggest that reduced access to firearms doesn't reduce suicide rate..

Or you could be wrong, Between 1999 and 2009, the suicide rate in California averaged around 9.4 per 100,000 individuals; national averages are around 11.1 per 100,000.

or https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previ...

I wonder what happens when we look at the states with the highest Suicide rate, wonder where they lie in Gun ownership:

1 - Wyoming 5th highest ownership
2- Alaska #1 highest ownership
3- Montana 6th highest
4- NewMexico 7th highest.

Honestly, them being rural states likely contributes more to the suicide rate. California Rural areas are high as well, Guns are obviously not the cause of suicides. But they contribute to the overall success rate.

I should say, I am not in favor of CA gun laws. I definitely couldn't legally move to CA, without selling a few items. I would like to see a more nationalized commonality in requirements in training and requirements on securing firearms from miners and reduced access by those with history of violence or mental issues.

"The study analyzed antibiotic use in doctors’ offices and emergency departments throughout the United States. CDC researchers found that most of these unnecessary antibiotics are prescribed for respiratory conditions caused by viruses – including common colds, viral sore throats, bronchitis, and sinus and ear infections – which do not respond to antibiotics"

https://www.cdc.gov/media/rele...

That's only true at night, on a rural road, where there is no shoulder to walk on and you're exiting the roadway whenever a vehicle approaches.

In all other conditions you should walk with traffic in a normal way, behaving as traffic behaves.

That's incorrect.

Pedestrians walking in the roadway should walk facing traffic. Pedestrians can stop and change direction effectively instantly so it's to their benefit to see oncoming traffic. They have different motion characteristics than wheeled vehicles. The CDC page on pedestrian safety agrees with this.

Cyclists riding on the roadway should ride with traffic and follow traffic rules and behave as a part of normal traffic.

I also agree that repealing the 2nd is the only sane way of regulating guns. We shouldn't have something on the books if we are going to actively subvert it.

As for the rest of the amendments, it's been proven time and time again that having bad thoughts and speaking to the wrong kinds of people breeds violence, and that if police had the power to monitor your every move, or even prevent you from going anywhere at all except to work and grocery shopping, it would be impossible to commit crimes.

As long as there's enough people wishing for perfect safety, all of these individual liberties will eventually end up on the altar. And yes, lots of people want perfect safety, as shown by their reaction to mass shootings, which doesn't even make the list of the top 10 causes of death.

I don't care for all this; it happens now and then, not every day.

Yes, it happens every day. According to the Center for Disease Control, there are about 80-100 firearm deaths every day. Every year, about 115,000 people are shot. So yeah, it happens every day.

About 10 out of every 100,000 people will die from being shot in the US every year.

https://drive.google.com/file/...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...

But yeah, they found 200 instances of bacteria in labs last year. Time to panic.

Panic? No. Cause for concern? Absolutely.

Start having strains of bacteria which you have no means to eliminate, and if people do start getting these on a large scale (and the only reason they showed up in labs was because people actually had them) .. then you have some serious problems:

"These verge on untreatable infections" where the only option may be supportive care - fluids and sometimes machines to maintain life to give the patient a chance to recover

Untreatable infections in hospitals doesn't end well.

Perhaps a link to the actual CDC spelling this out would help with your stupidity? Because they're the ones saying "if we don't act now, this will become really bad".

The Color of Crime, 2016 Revised Edition
Quote: "In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race."
Another quote: "If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent."

Do black Americans commit more crime?
Quote: "Blacks were disproportionately likely to commit homicide and to be the victims. In 2008 the offending rate for blacks was seven times higher than for whites and the victimization rate was six times higher."
However, that web site is a TV station in Belfast Ireland.

There Are No Successful Black Nations.
The author of that article, Chigozie Obioma, is a black Nigerian.

Detroit bullet proof glass

Average annual income Haiti

Health Information for Travelers to Haiti

Oh the Pedos have always been a big part of the LGBT lobby. Why do you think they spent so much time to promote teaching children in school to be accepting of everything LGBT? Makes it a lot easier for the older men to pluck a ripe 12-17 year old when the school has already done all the grooming for them. Hell, Hollywood is making and throwing awards at films glorifying sexual predators.

The sad, but obvious, consequence of this is that the HIV/AIDS rate in teens and young adults has skyrocketed since this nonsense first started getting phased in around 2001. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/...

They know full well that "Born that way" is bullshit. It's just an excuse used to deflect criticism. Pretty much everyone has quietly given up looking for the "Gay gene" because they just aren't finding anything. (Imagine if they actually did find a "Gay Gene" and they could test for it like Downs Syndrome? The LGBT community would become pro-life literally overnight.) The best they've been able to do is show their might be a small biological influence, but that still means it's mostly nurture and not nature. Anyone that has done enough church counseling work will have run across someone who "used to be gay". Chewed up and spit out once they were no longer useful. Pretty much all of them want to get on with their lives and have zero interest in painting a target on them by challenging the propaganda.

The fatal flaw in all of this, of course, is that a lie can't sit still. It always has to keep moving and keep getting bigger. The cognitive dissonance of the far left at this point is getting quite amusing to watch and pushing more people to the center and right. How far will things swing? We'll just have to wait and find out.

No, Texas has higher cancer rates than California.

That's not what the CDC says.

https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcp...

That is extremely inaccurate and shows ignorance of Texas history. Did you know that Texas was the US hotbed for psychedelic music?

Wtf does psychedelic music have to do with warning labels? You're making even less sense than usual.

• 3,919 deaths - Accidents (mostly automobile accidents and drug overdoses)
• 2.061 deaths - Suicide
• 1,587 deaths - Homicide (mostly outside school, and gang related)
• 583 deaths - Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
• 306 deaths - Heart disease
• 195 deaths - Birth defects
• 72 deaths - Influenza (the flu)
• 63 deaths - Chronic lower respiratory diseases
• 61 deaths - Cerebrovascular diseases
• 52 deaths - Diabetes
• 41 deaths - Complications from pregnancy and childbirth

Where do school shootings rank? There have been about 250 deaths in school shootings over 18 years, or about 14 per year.(and K-12, not just ages 15-19). Since there are approximately 51 million K-12 students in the U.S., a student's chances of being killed in a non-gang, non-suicide school shooting in any given year are about 1 in 3.6 million. You are roughly 3x more likely to be struck by lightning (1 in 1.08 million).

Like airliner crashes, school shootings are one of these extremely rare, statistically insignificant events whose emotional impact creates a large amount of social interest. This causes a disproportionate amount of press coverage, leading people to wildly overestimate the actual danger. If you really want to save high schoolers' lives, teach them to: drive safely and buckle their seat belts, not to abuse drugs, seek counseling for depression, stay out of gangs, use sunscreen, eat healthy and exercise, get the flu shot, don't smoke, don't eat too many sweets, and avoid teen pregnancy. Each of these will save many more lives than all the hand-wringing over school shootings, some (like suicide-prevention) around a hundred times more.

With your limited brain capacity, try to get simpler data .

Pedestrians killed (remember the topic being discussed) : over 5000 per year. https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehic...

Miles driven : over 3 trillion per year. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

Demand back your money from your "algebra" classes. Because they admitted ineligible students like you who failed arithmetic.

Lead dust is as small as 0.1 microns in diameter.

N95 and HEPA respirator filters only block airborne particles at least 0.3 microns in diameter.

The CDC hereby recommends wearing scuba gear for respiratory protection at the firing range.

Wow you are dumb. I provide facts that contradict your preconceived notions, but you are incapable of understanding or accepting them.

Your projection is noted.

I do not think you know what nuclear waste is.

It's hard to get a fan of nuclear power to understand something when his fanboyism is dependent on his not understanding it. That was an example of a industrial accident. Nuke fans want to count every windmill worker who falls off a tower as a casualty of wind power. But you don't count workers who die in uranium mining accidents as a casualty of nuclear power - another kind of industrial accident. Or if Homer runs over Lenny with a forklift - an industrial accident.

Of course I have, but what does that have to due with nuclear energy?

That terminal cancer can take years or decades to manifest - like I said the first time. To waive your hands after a meltdown and say "hey, nobody died this morning so it's no big whoop" is nonsense. The uranium miners that die from exposure to dust or TB - many times what the CDC expected - didn't keel over their first day on the job, either.

0 people died from the plant

Wrong.

Stop me when solar and wind can work 24/7, or when storage is cheaper then Nuclear.

You think wind stops at night? Nuke fan elevators really don't go to the top floor, do they? All you do with wind and solar is space generating capacity across the grid, same as with coal or nuclear power. As for storage, there's no need for hand wringing when '70's technology will suffice - 1870's. There are water reservoirs and hydroelectric dam's still functioning today that are more than a century old. If pumped storage is good enough for nuclear power - the Ludington facility backs up nuclear power plants in Michigan - it's good enough for wind and solar.

Cost is the Achilles heel of nuclear power. When you can build more power generation in less time for less money with none of the safety or long term costs - nuclear power is unjustifiable.

Can you really say that firearms are not a problem for children in the US?

Yes. While homocide is the 2nd leading cause of death for 15-24 yr olds, 3/4ths of that is gang violence, so they are partially responsible for their own homocide by choosing to become involved with a gang. And number of homocide deaths is almost tied with number of suicide deaths, which means teens and equality as likely to choose suicide as they are likely to be killed.

Either way we are talking about a few thousand a year compared to tens of millions of children so I can honestly say yes, firearms are not a problem.

And if you get Guillain-Barré from the flu vaccine, you will endure that misery for the rest of your life. Fuck that.

The scientific view is that the main thing that determines whether someone gets sick with the flu is exposure to the influenza virus. If you've never had the flu then you're probably lucky enough to have a lifestyle that doesn't expose you to the flu virus very often - for example, you probably don't work in child care - or have young children that you send to childcare. :)

I eat right, exercise regularly, and have never had the flu.

And, if that's really the case, then, for you, getting the flu vaccine may carry more risk than not getting it. But, for people who are likely to get the flu if they don't get the flu shot then the Guillain-Barré risks are probably worse without the shot - since you can also get Guillain-Barré from the flu itself. The CDC has some useful info on Guillain-Barré

According to the Center for Disease Control, "Chlamydia is the most commonly reported STD in the United States".
https://www.cdc.gov/std/chlamydia/stats.htm

If a gun carrier stands out, they will self police.

I'm not a big guy by any means and I can conceal a full-size 1911 without imprinting. I don't stand out in any way when I carry.

California seems to be doing a pretty good job with their gun laws.

Indeed, we are; except for the bullshit that started in 2017, which your link really doesn't represent. I'd also like to point out that California also currently accounts for 10% of the 30 cities with the highest murder rates in the US (#9, #17, and #18) and that those are the cities with the most restrictive local gun laws in the state. Statistically, California should have a 60% chance of having even one city on that list; less, if weighted by per-capita incidence of gun violence, yet here we are making up 10% of that list.

Hell, in 2015, Oakland had the 5th highest murder rate in the US and placed #3 for gun crimes. Hell, Stockton was #14 for murder rate, to Indianapolis' #19 in 2015; Indianapolis was also #19 in gun crime that year.

An I'm not sure gun control should be a priority when, even in Indiana (where gun deaths per capita are nearly double California), the flu killed more people than guns in 2014 and 2015, the two years for which your source has that data. In fact, that seems to hold true everywhere in the US, Alaska being the exception. Maybe we should prioritize that?

In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.

Even in France, where private gun ownership is nearly nonexistent, well... sure they have a lot less gun violence. They just use trucks, instead.

But even if that weren't the case -- even if reducing the number of guns in circulation would reduce the rate of violent crime (nice strawman limiting it to gun crime, by the way) or suicide -- good luck disarming the gun nuts in this country.

And why is it that you people always point out the obvious "no guns = no gun violence" as though it actually means anything, while ignoring that "no guns != less violence"? The studies have been done, it is proven, there are just too many ways to harm or kill someone and removing guns doesn't remove the violence, it just results in other tools being used instead.

Solve the social issues that lead to people blowing each other up and driving over each other with trucks -- those are the same problems that cause them to shoot each other. While you're at it, leave me the hell alone if I want to make loud noises while putting holes in paper on my own property or at a licensed range; it's not affecting you in the slightest.

how does one gun compare to an army? Is it useful against them? How many can you hurt before it is neutralized?

In a world where guns exist, there will be more than one gun available to use against an army; in a world where guns don't exist, your question is irrelevant. However, in your hypothetical world where only one gun exists, it would presumably be quite effective against an army, what with them not having guns and all.

Now let's imagine a backdoor or "Master key". How many times can this be used before it is neutralized? How useful is it to one person against many?

As useful as a gun in the hands of a mass shooter in a sea of unarmed victims. They'll just keep using it until someone with a better arsenal comes along and stops them. We've seen it time and again with all sort of weaponry (not just guns, though we've seen a lot more of that recently) -- even trucks -- what makes you think a master key would be any different? Back on the subject of my point, though, mathematics dictates that such a master key simply cannot exist; that solves the master key debate the very same way guns not existing would solve the gun debate. Decisively.

Do you see the flaw in your argument, or are you too full on NRA kool-aid.

You simply missed the point. As for that NRA kool-aid, it's actually supplied by the CDC. Firearms laws simply are not effective, because universal law dictates that people who are willing to break laws are willing to break laws. Except, of course, for universal laws; we haven't quite figured out how to get around those yet. Wake me up when we do.

You do realize that the US mortality rates for Hantavirus are probably skewed, and it's carried by deer mice & not house mice, right? (Citation for carriers, mortality rates would require determining how much you actually know about how they get calculated and the history of Hantavirus in the US specifically, and I ain't doing it without being paid.)

We actually kill more adults of other species than we kill their young; the odds are very low that you are any different here, given that it's a damn pain in the US to buy meat of the young of any species whatsoever. So, what makes a human at any age any more special?

What would make you, specifically, more special and deserving of life than other people, who might be kept alive by simply euthanizing you for your organs?

No, I'm not seriously suggesting this. People have, however, taken precisely the logic you're proposing to such ethically horrible conclusions. Logic that has historically tended to end in genocide should be avoided.

And, well, all things considered--why not encourage (only encourage) people who have trouble with self-control to take permanent steps, instead of risking them being too flaky to get an abortion? Sterilization exists, and depending on which procedures you're comparing, it can be distinctly safer than an abortion. There's also implants for women, which has higher reliability rates than all other methods of contraception, and all you need to do is remember every few years to get a new implant. (There's damn few side effects, too. The only particular problem seems to be getting it.)

A decent chunk of it can be purely a 'nurture'-induced problem--nothing genetically wrong here, just nobody bothered making the person learn that actions have consequences while they were young enough for the lesson to take. (Yes, this is why you shouldn't keep kids from feeling sads because things went wrong, even if you really can quite easily fix the immediate problem--the long-term results are worse.) Only way to fix that one is fix the culture.

Ah, not 50... more like 21,386 gun suicides a year in 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...

https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/race.htm

Cancer diagnoses have decreased almost every year since 1999, during a period where everyone on earth bought a cell phone.

This is nearly conclusive evidence that the risk from cell phones is extraordinarily small.

Turkeys Are Twice as Big as They Were in 1960

Whereas US males went from an average 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 195.7 pounds in 2014, a mere 17.6% gain.

Come on humans. Keep up!

If more young people, didn't have kids too soon before they can afford them

Wrong. The average age at which people have children is going up, and it has been for years. The trend has been toward older parents since at least the 1970s.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressr...

if they didn't always go out and buy the latest shiny $$$ smart phone, didn't eat out all the time, etc, etc.

Oh, teens and 20-somethings in the 70s didn't blow money on stupid shit? Give me a break.

They did marry earlier though, and it is much easier to save for a house when funneling two incomes into it.

If you don't make Pro Athlete or rock star money, then you should know you can't live even close to that lifestyle and spend money like that.

We are talking about people getting paid $1/hour. I doubt they aspire to a celebrity lifestyle. If anything, they aspire to be free from the ever-present fear of homelessness.

We must find a way to get the female suicide rate up to the male suicide rate.

with in 10 years, because America is going to go single payer.
If you Drink, Do Drugs, Smoke or are Over Weight you will not get health care.

FYI for Kids in America
FYI for Adults in America

Will be interesting to see how the government bureaucrats and politicians handle denying health care. My money is on "SECRET BOARDS". Unless you are on the right team, then you get what ever you need.

with in 10 years, because America is going to go single payer.
If you Drink, Do Drugs, Smoke or are Over Weight you will not get health care.

FYI for Kids in America
FYI for Adults in America

Will be interesting to see how the government bureaucrats and politicians handle denying health care. My money is on "SECRET BOARDS". Unless you are on the right team, then you get what ever you need.

Americans killed by guns in recorded history: 0

Is that like that philosopher who insisted that nobody was killed by a sword, they died from not avoiding the sword?

Here's a shock for you, guns do kill people.

On a side note, concealed carry warning and brandishing probably stops that many robberies, rapes and murders in a week...

Because...you must think that attempted robberies, rapes, and murders are so common that there are thousands a week! What kind of crime-ridden world of fear do you live in?

Americans killed by medical mistakes each year: about 250,000

And we've got a whole group of people arguing about that problem too!

Americans killed by antibiotic resistant bacteria each year: 23,000

Also discussed.

Clearly guns are not that big a threat unless you are an alt left fascist progressive looking to dominate and subjugate the American people.

Nope, guns are a big threat to the American people, what with deaths from toddlers with guns, whereas imaginary fears of alt-left fascist progressives looking to dominate and subjugate the American people aren't a threat at all, except so insofar as they lead right-wing pseudo-conservative trolls to instigate feigned outrage in America.

Every dictator in the last 100 years from Stalin to Mao on down the line disarmed their people first and then murdered millions of them.

Nope. In fact, many dictators armed their people, then told them to go forth and kill "not their people" because well, that's a great way for dictators to keep power.

You must not be familiar with history.

Guns are in fact inanimate objects controlled by their wielder, which is why every LEO in the country carries one.

Guns, are in fact, tools that ought to be regulated like many other tools, such as lawnmowers, chainsaws, pressure washers, and nail guns, and no, not every LEO in the country carries one. For example. And some shouldn't.

Any group that uses "gun deaths" are political shills with no interest in truth.

I wonder if you realize that group includes yourself.

Gun deaths usually include suicides (who just use different methods in gun free countries), criminals shot by police or citizens, and other justified shootings that are actually a good thing for society and end up saving lives.

Nope, actually, they're not using different methods, the suicide rates are often lower, self-defense and other justified shootings are excluded from the counts though actually...the number of such shootings is a problem, not even counting the various incidents.

Sorry, I know you don't want there to be any problem except not having enough bullets for all those dirty leftists who you hate with all you

Politifact is a blatantly biased organization at this point and a shill for the alt left fascist progressives.

Americans killed by guns in recorded history: 0

Americans murdered by other people with guns in 2012: 60% of all US homicides or about 8300 or about 0.0036% of the population.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

If you remove young black males, who make up less than 4% of the US population, that number is cut in half to 4150... and puts the US per capita murder rate roughly on par with European countries. On a side note, concealed carry warning and brandishing probably stops that many robberies, rapes and murders in a week... (There are about 16,000,000 concealed carry permits in the US right now).
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

Americans killed by medical mistakes each year: about 250,000
http://www.npr.org/sections/he...

Americans killed by antibiotic resistant bacteria each year: 23,000
https://www.cdc.gov/drugresist...

Clearly guns are not that big a threat unless you are an alt left fascist progressive looking to dominate and subjugate the American people. Every dictator in the last 100 years from Stalin to Mao on down the line disarmed their people first and then murdered millions of them. Guns are in fact inanimate objects controlled by their wielder, which is why every LEO in the country carries one. Any group that uses "gun deaths" are political shills with no interest in truth. Gun deaths usually include suicides (who just use different methods in gun free countries), criminals shot by police or citizens, and other justified shootings that are actually a good thing for society and end up saving lives.

If cancer starts off small and benign, and only after some years turns larger and malignant (fatal), then the death rate will be skewed towards women with more developed forms of breast cancer. The inclusion of less developed forms of breast cancer via earlier detection will skew the death rates down not because the women are dying less often, but because you're including more women in your stats who have early breast cancer and thus don't have an elevated death rate (yet).

You can see the same thing in the mortality rate for the general population by age. If you look at only the 75-84 yo age group (analogous to women with late form breast cancer, the only kind detectable in the 1970s-1980s), the death rate is 5000 per 100,000 per year. If you look at the previous 65-74 year age group (analogous to women with early form breast caner), the death rate is 2000 per 100,000 per year. If you then combine these two groups together (analogous to modern early detection), their combined death rate will be a combination of the two - somewhere around 3000 per.

So the death rate has "decreased" 5000 to 3000 even though nothing has changed (it's the exact same data set), just because your statistics now include younger people / women with earlier forms of breast cancer.

The actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment continues to be debated. Why not instead turn to addressing a non-Constitutionally-protected activity that killed at least 10000 people in 2015, an activity for which over a million people were arrested that same year?

        https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

If we can't "fix the gun problem," maybe we can figure out how to agree on something less controversial.

Hmm....CDC == Center for Disease Control.....ok, I'm trying to figure out why the CDC would be the organization to study gun violence....I mean, what disease is gun violence caused by?

From their website:
CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

And:
CDC's Role:
-Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats
-Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans
-Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
-Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment
-Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives
-Taking the health pulse of our nation

The CDC looks at big public health questions, understanding causes of gun violence is something they'd probably be good at for the same reasons they're looking at the Opiod epidemic.

Hmm....CDC == Center for Disease Control.....ok, I'm trying to figure out why the CDC would be the organization to study gun violence....I mean, what disease is gun violence caused by?

From their website:
CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

And:
CDC's Role:
-Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats
-Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans
-Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
-Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment
-Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives
-Taking the health pulse of our nation

The CDC looks at big public health questions, understanding causes of gun violence is something they'd probably be good at for the same reasons they're looking at the Opiod epidemic.

Truncated URL. Not hard to find.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/niosh-125/125-explosionsandrefugechambers.pdf

Guess again

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/dock...

Diseases that can spread by contact with people or other animals that require you to transfer the pathogens to your mouth just need a break in the transmission pathway.

Unless you also have a break in your skin, in which case they'll just take that route. Frequent washing (basic hygiene) dries the skin, creating many breaks, unless you also frequently moisturize (above and beyond basic hygiene); therefore, basic hygiene is not enough and, in fact, too much of it can be detrimental.

Well, as a guy on Slashdot, you can know what you know. Meanwhile, I'll take the CDC's reccommendations. https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/... I have done what they suggest for years. We cook our meat properly, store it properly, Feed our indoor cats as recommended, I wear nitrile gloves as needed, and despite having cats for the past 40 + years have not contracted Toxoplasmosis.

Is your obstinate stance on this issue possibly related to not liking cats?

Unborn life is presumed innocent since it hasn't done anything yet. No harm to anyone else - and this is divorced from any religious beliefs, as I have none except snuff means snuff and we die forever. If you believe in judging people by the sum total of their actions, it makes sense to exempt the unborn from that.

"Unborn" life can absolutely harm and even kill, and has, many many many times throughout history. Too many to count, actually, and it still goes on even today. You might want to familiarize yourself with maternal mortality for starters.

That aside, what is this notion of "innocent" in this conversation if it's not based on a religious ideology? Is a 1 day old child innocent? How about 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 1 decade? When does this magical innocence suddenly go away, and why?

Seriously way is this a thing? ones feelings are not going to change the facts Overweight people do have more heath issues. https://www.cdc.gov/healthywei... Reality does not care if your positive about your body the reality is you will die early if you are overweight. Want to be positive about your body? Great now put Down the Mc Food and go to the Gym.

The top google ranked page - https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/dis... - says: ".... Based on information from a limited number of patients, 30–60% of people with C. auris infections have died. However, many of these people had other serious illnesses that also increased their risk of death..."

Your shitty blog's definition of morbid obesity conflicts with the ASMBS defintion, which reads:

Morbid obesity, also referred to as “clinically severe obesity” or “extreme obesity,” was defined as the criteria for bariatric surgery by the 1991 NIH Consensus Conference Statement on Gastrointestinal Surgery for Severe Obesity as a BMI 40 kg/m^2^ or a BMI 35 kg/m^2^ in the presence of high-risk comorbid conditions. Obesity was further classified in the 1998 NIH Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults into Class I (BMI 30.0 kg/m^2^ to 34.9 kg/m^2^), Class II (BMI 35.0 kg/m^2^ to 39.9 kg/m^2^), and Class III (BMI 40 kg/m^2^).

Who's the ASMBS? Well, they're the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Which means they're pretty much the doctors who get to *define* the clinical meaning of these terms. As such, I'm inclined to accept their definition as the "true" definition. And for what it's worth, this definition is identical to the CDC's definition, as well.

So, are you morbidly obese? All we have to do is calculate your BMI. From your many shitposts here, we know that you are 5'10, and 357 pounds. According to the NIH, that gives you a BMI of 51.2, which means that you fall WELL above the 40 kg/m^2 line for morbid obesity.

Conclusion: Yes, you are morbidly obese. You can deny it, you can refuse to hear it, you can pretend you're the one single special exception to the rule... but you're not. You're just another in-denial fatty who thinks that his pants are too tight because he walked up the stairs then took a nap, which totally must have led to some serious muscle gain.

To fall below the 40 kg/m^2 line of being morbidly obese, you would need to reach 278 pounds, where your BMI would sit a hair below that line, at 39.9 kg/m^2. That's 79 pounds below your current weight, which means you should hit the point of being "merely" obese sometime around the 5th of Never, given your current weight loss progress.

A Model 3 doesn't have the range for a long weekend at the quaint rural B&B two hours away

Where are you getting that from? (also helpful: name the B&B and starting location)

Not in the US in the (at least) past 15 years.

How did gasoline manage to become non-carcinogenic (and neurotoxic, and a whole range of other toxicity effects) in the past 15 years?

In some very small town gas stations (where you wouldn't find an EV charging station anyway), but certainly not at 98% of gas stations in the US in the past 30 years.

Weather has ceased to exist in the US except in small towns? Or are you saying that US pumps connect themselves to your car on their own like a snake, as well as paying for you with EZ-pass?

Fine: you find a Motel 6 off the Interstate and check in for the night. Good luck charging your EV over night.

Lol. Which Motel 6? This one? How about this one? This one maybe? Or perhaps this one? Maybe you meant this one? Or this one? Nah, must have been this one.. No, wait, this one! No, this one! Last guess, this one? Wait, wait a second! How many guesses do I get?

EV charging is now very common at hotels. And even if a place doesn't officially offer it, 9 times out of 10, if you call and ask, you get a "yes".

Same with visiting distant friends/relatives: it would be grossly impolite to plug your car into someone else's power outlet.

Right. Let me get this straight. "Welcome to my home. Thanks for driving five hours to see me! Come on in! Have a bite to eat! Walk on this carpet that I just cleaned! Feel at home! But don't you DARE use 80 cents an hour of electricity, or I'll cut you! No, you have to go plug in at one of the numerous superchargers on the way and have to suffer through half an hour to 80% full while you eat lunch. Muahaha, I've foiled your evil EV-driving plans with my penny-pinching make-you-eat-lunch-during-a-road-trip plot!"