Colorado Has One Of The Lowest Gun Violence Rates In The Nation

Colorado Has One Of The Lowest Gun Violence Rates In The Nation

Despite being the home of some of the nation’s most high profile shootings in the last 15 years (Aurora and Columbine), Colorado has some of the lowest rates of murder by firearms, as well as relatively loose gun laws, when compared to other states.
In 2011, there were 1.51 firearm murders per 100,000 people, placing Colorado in the top 8 states with the lowest rates of firearm murder, according to a recent FBI report on firearm violence in the 50 states. Colorado also ranks 28th out of 50 in number of robberies involving a firearm.  When it come to assault with firearms, Colorado ranks at about the national average, with 45.72 firearm related assaults per 100,000, compared to a national average of 43.77.
Colorado has one of the most conservative implementations of gun regulations in the country and, despite calls for more stringent gun control laws, it also has low rates of murder with a firearm and low to average rates of other firearm related crime .  The Colorado State Patrol helpfully summarizes some of the laws immediately related to individual use and carry of firearms.
Statutes cited by the Colorado State Patrol include the legality of open carry, the transportation of a weapon, and an exemption for current and former law officers. Laws pertaining to open carry of a weapon state that it is legal to openly carry a “firearm in a vehicle, loaded or unloaded”, if it is used to defend the property of the owner or that of a third party. While open carry is legal, both on a person and in a vehicle, the law also states that you may not conceal the weapon “on or about your person while transporting it into your home, business, hotel room, etc.” Additionally, Colorado law states explicitly that local jurisdictions “may not enact laws that restrict a person’s ability to travel with a weapon.”
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an anti-gun advocacy group, recently listed and reviewed all of Colorado’s specific state statutes concerning firearms, grading the state with a “D” in 2012 because of its lose approach to gun control. The group has also partnered with Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) and advertises for MAIG’s “Demand A Plan” campaign on the front page of its website. MAIG’s “Demand A Plan” campaign was a response to the recent Sandy Hook shooting and was exposed by Media Trackers affiliates in Ohio as deceptive and missing key facts.
According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s legal page for Colorado:

• No required waiting period for handgun or rifle purchase
• Required background checks for all licensed firearm purchases
• No background check for private sales
• Minimum age for firearm possession is 18
• Minimum age for conceal carry permit is 21
• No required license or registration for firearm purchases
• State or local governments may confiscate firearms in declared emergencies
• It is not illegal to carry a firearm in establishments that serve alcohol
• It is not illegal to concealed carry a firearm on Univ. of Colorado Campuses
• Statewide or local databases of firearms and owners is prohibited by state law
• Colorado’s Gun Free Zones:

1. Public Schools. No one may carry a concealed or open firearm in a public school unless that individual is a contracted security guard for the school. Firearms may be kept in locked vehicles on school grounds however
2. Government Buildings. Local governments may prohibit the carrying of firearms in government buildings under their jursidiction.
3. Secured Buildings. Concealed carry permits do not authorize a permit holder to bring a concealed firearm into a building where: (a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building; (b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and (c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building. (18-12-214)

• Limited Assault Weapons Ban: Denver City & County.

It is unlawful to sell or possess an “assault weapon” in the city and county of Denver, according to the following definition of “assault weapon” put forth in city ordinance Sec. 38-130 which includes all firearms with any of the following characteristics:

1. All semiautomatic action, centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one (21) or more rounds.
2. All semiautomatic shotguns with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six (6) rounds or both.
3. Reserved.
4. Any firearm which has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as defined herein.
5. Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, including a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one (21) or more rounds, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

Colorado does not require a permit for the purchase of any shotgun, rifle or handgun, and individuals may openly carry the firearm anywhere it’s not prohibited by local regulations. State law actually prohibits firearm registration, but a permit is required for the concealed carry of a handgun. Background checks are required for all gun purchases from a licensed dealer or gun show vendor. Like most states, in Colorado, it’s is unlawful for any person convicted of a felony or conspiracy or attempt to commit a felony to possess a firearm.
Finally, in an interesting nod to local communities, the sale and repair of firearms out of an individual’s home is regulated on a municipal or county basis.  Local jurisdictions may determine for themselves what sort of sale, repair, gunsmithing or other firearm related activities a person may engage in from their own home. Individuals applying to sell or make guns from their home must also pass an ATF inspection and approval process.
Colorado state-level law must also comply with basic federal-level firearms regulation as outlined by the Justice Department, including the restriction of firearms sales to non-residents, who cannot purchase a firearm from any other state without a full background check – be it a public or a private sale.
In recent months, several county sheriffs across the state have issued public statements informing citizens of their intent to uphold the second Amendment and the right of Coloradans to keep and bear arms. El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa posted an open letter on the front page of the Sheriff’s department website explaining why he believes gun control is a superficial approach to a complex problem. Also in El Paso county, the Board of Commissioners passed an official measure last week stating opposition to President Obama’s restrictive firearms proposals. Sheriff Justin Smith of Larimer county vowed that he “will not enforce” possible future gun control measures that he deems unconstitutional, like those suggested by Obama.

Seattle Gun BuyBack Get's JACKED! Turns Into a Damn Gun Show! LOL | DCXposed

Seattle Gun BuyBack Get's JACKED! Turns Into a Damn Gun Show!

Seattle Gun BuyBack Gets JACKED! Turns Into a Damn Gun Show! LOL

74 comments

Posted by Ed Brown on Jan 27, 2013 in Featured, LOL | 74 comments

Police officers in Seattle, Washington held their first gun buyback program in 20 years this weekend, underneath interstate 5,  and soon found that private gun collectors were working the large crowd as little makeshift gun shows began dotting the parking lot and sidewalks. Some even had “cash for guns” signs prominently displayed.
Police stood in awe as gun enthusiasts and collectors waved wads of cash for the guns being held by those standing in line for the buyback program.
People that had arrived to trade in their weapons for $100 or $200 BuyBack gift cards($100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and $200 for assault weapons) soon realized that gun collectors were there and paying top dollar for collectible firearms. So, as the line for the chump cards got longer and longer people began to jump ship and head over to the dealers.
John Diaz, Seattles Police Chief,  wasn’t pleased with the turn of events stating “I’d prefer they wouldn’t sell them,” but admitted it’s perfectly legal for private individuals to buy and sell guns, FOR NOW. Mayor Mike McGinn said at a news conference the private transactions are a loophole that needs to be closed. “There’s no background checks, and some (guns) could be exchanged on the streets that shouldn’t be in circulation.”
But Schuyler Taylor, a previous gun retailer attending the event in hopes of buying weapons, asked “Why not offer them cash versus a gift card? I’m still taking the guns off the streets; they’re just going in my safe.”
People were reportedly, at one point, jumping out of vehicles  whilst sitting in traffic – making on the spot deals with the gun buyers.
But the BuyBack wasn’t a bust. On the contrary – their $80,000 supply of gift cards didn’t last but 2 hours, and by 11:00 am they began attempting to issue IOU’s at which point the entire crowd responded by turning and marching toward the gun dealers, forcing the police officers to pack it up for the day.
On one last note of hilarity, the Seattle Police department claims that they will check the buyback guns to see if any were previously stolen and, if so, try to return them to the rightful owners! LOL. Brilliant!
In 1992, Seattle police collected more than 1,200 guns in a four-day buyback program.
Now the only question is, when will the Seattle Police department stage the next gun show?

Gun Violence is Not a Republican Problem, It’s a Democratic Problem

Gun Violence is Not a Republican Problem, It’s a Democratic Problem

Gun Violence is Not a Republican Problem, It’s a Democratic Problem

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On January 18, 2013 @ 12:50 am

Forget Wal-Mart and skip your local gun show. The murderers of tomorrow will not be found wearing orange vests at your local sporting goods store. They won’t have NRA memberships or trophies on their walls.
You won’t find them in America. Look for them in Obamerica.
67% of firearm murders took place in the country’s 50 largest metro areas. The 62 cities in those metro areas have a firearm murder rate of 9.7, more than twice the national average. Among teenagers the firearm murder rate is 14.6 or almost three times the national average.
Those are the crowded cities of Obamerica. Those are the places with the most restrictive gun control laws and the highest crime rates. And many of them have been run by Democrats and their political machines for almost as long as they have been broken.
Obama won every major city in the election, except for Jacksonville and Salt Lake City. And the higher the death rate, the bigger his victory.
He won New Orleans by 80 to 17 where the murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. He won Detroit, where the murder rate of 53 per 100,000 people is the second highest in the country and twice as high as any country in the world, including the Congo and South Africa. He won it 73 to 26. And then he celebrated his victory in Chicago where the murder rate is three times the statewide average.
These places aren’t America. They’re Obamerica.
In 2006, the 54% of the population living in those 50 metro areas was responsible for 67% of armed killings nationwide. Those are disproportionate numbers especially when you consider that for the people living in most of those cities walking into a store and legally buying a gun is all but impossible.
Mayors of Obamerican cities blame guns because it’s easier than blaming people and now the President of Obamerica has turned to the same shameless tactic. The NRA counters that people kill people, but that’s exactly why Obamerican leaders would rather talk about the guns.
Chicago, the capital of Obamerica, is a city run by gangs and politicians. It has 68,000 gang members, four times the number of police officers. Chicago politicians solicit the support of gang members in their campaigns, accepting laundered contributions from them, hiring their members and tipping them off about upcoming police raids. And their biggest favor to the gang bosses is doing nothing about the epidemic of gang violence.
80% of Chicago’s murders are gang-related. But in 1999 when a bill came up in the Illinois State Senate to charge anyone carrying out a firearm attack on school property as an adult, a law that would have largely affected gang members, the future leader of Obamerica voted present. Had he not voted present, it is doubtful that he would have been reelected in an area where gang leaders wield a great deal of influence.
The majority of murders in the cities with the worst homicide rates are gang-related. And while it isn’t always possible to be certain whether a killing was gang-related, the majority of homicide victims in city after city have been found to have criminal records.
In 2010, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in the United States and over 2,000 known gang-related killings, over 90% of which are carried out with firearms. Since 1981, Los Angeles alone has had 16,000 gang related homicides. That’s more than twice the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is what Obamerica looks like. It’s a place where life is cheap and illegal guns are as available as illegal drugs. It’s the war that we aren’t talking about, because it’s easier to talk about the inanimate objects being used to fight that war.
There are, as John Edwards said, two Americas. America is a country that runs pretty well. And then there’s Obamerica. Not all of Obamerica is broken, but a lot of it is. America does not have a gun violence problem. Obamerica does. And Obamerica has a gun violence problem for the same reason that it has a drug problem and a broken family problem.
Democratic leaders and machines, combined with social workers and justice crusaders have run Obamerica into the ground. Obamerican cities used to be the homes of industry and progress. Now they’re places where young Black and Hispanic men kill each other in growing numbers.
America does not need gun control. It is a mostly law-abiding place. And gun control cannot help Obamerica. Not when its murder rate is driven by gangs who have no trouble obtaining anything; whether it’s legal in the United States or not.
This country does not need to have a conversation about how many bullets should go in a clip. It does need to have a conversation about how many parents should go in a family. It needs to talk about the ghettos of Obamerica and have a serious conversation about broken families and generational dependency.
Obama has become a role model to millions of people in the black community. If anyone can address these problems, it’s him. But instead of trying to solve the problems of Obamerica, instead of doing something about the high levels of unemployment, the broken families and the glamorization of drug dealing and violent crime, he wimped out and picked a fight with rural America.
AIDS prevention was sabotaged by the claim that the disease was a general problem spreading through the population. It wasn’t. Neither is gun violence.
Adam Lanza is as much of a poster boy for gun violence, as Ryan White was for AIDS. A better poster boy for gun violence might be Jay-Z, who boasts of having been a drug dealer and claims to have shot his brother at the age of 12. The drug dealer to millionaire rapper is the Horatio Alger story of Obamerica. And Jay-Z can be seen partying with Obama.
If Obama really wants to get serious about gun violence, then all he has to do is turn to the man standing next to him. But Obama, like every Chicago politician before him, don’t want to end the violence. The death toll is profitable, not just for rappers writing bad poetry about dealing drugs and shooting rivals, but for the politicians atop that heap who score money and gain power by using the problems of Obamerica as some sort of call to conscience for the rest of the country.
That’s what Obama is doing now. Hiding behind Newtown and adorable little kids is the grim specter of Obamerica’s death toll. It’s buried inside the gruesome figures of how many Americans are shot each year issued as an indictment against the entire country in general and gun owners in particular. But those numbers are not an indictment of America. They are an indictment of Democratic mayors and liberal social policy. They are an indictment of Obama.
We need to set aside the same old tired social justice rhetoric and have a serious conversation about what is wrong with New Orleans, Detroit and Chicago. And we need to do it before it’s too late.

Sabotage! Key Iranian nuclear facility hit?

Sabotage! Key Iranian nuclear facility hit?

Source: Explosion destroys much of underground installation

Published: 4 days ago

by Reza Kahlili Email | Archive

Reza Kahlili, author of the award-winning book "A Time to Betray", served in CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, counterterrorism expert; currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board authorized by Congress and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI). He regularly appears in national and international media as an expert on Iran and counterterrorism in the Middle East.

An explosion deep within Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility has destroyed much of the installation and trapped about 240 personnel deep underground, according to a former intelligence officer of the Islamic regime.
The previously secret nuclear site has become a center for Iran’s nuclear activity because of the 2,700 centrifuges enriching uranium to the 20-percent level. A further enrichment to weapons grade would take only weeks, experts say.
The level of enrichment has been a major concern to Israeli officials, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly has warned about the 20-percent enriched stockpile.
The explosion occurred Monday, the day before Israeli elections weakened Netanyahu’s political control.
Iran, to avoid alarm, had converted part of the stockpile to fuel plates for use in the Tehran Research Reactor. However, days after the recent failed talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iranian officials announced the enrichment process will not stop even “for a moment.”
The regime’s uranium enrichment process takes place at two known sites: the Natanz facility with more than 10,000 centrifuges and Fordow with more than 2,700. The regime currently has enough low-grade (3.5 percent) uranium stockpiled for six nuclear bombs if further enriched.
However, more time is needed for conversion of the low-grade uranium than what would be needed for a stockpile at 20 percent. It takes 225 kilograms of enriched uranium at the 20-percent level to further enrich to the 90-percent level for one nuclear bomb.
According to a source in the security forces protecting Fordow, an explosion on Monday at 11:30 a.m. Tehran time rocked the site, which is buried deep under a mountain and immune not only to airstrikes but to most bunker-buster bombs. The report of the blast came via Hamidreza Zakeri, formerly with the Islamic regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and National Security,
The blast shook facilities within a radius of three miles. Security forces have enforced a no-traffic radius of 15 miles, and the Tehran-Qom highway was shut down for several hours after the blast, the source said. As of Wednesday afternoon, rescue workers had failed to reach the trapped personnel.
The site, about 300 feet under a mountain, had two elevators which now are out of commission. One elevator descended about 240 feet and was used to reach centrifuge chambers. The other went to the bottom to carry heavy equipment and transfer uranium hexafluoride. One emergency staircase reaches the bottom of the site and another one was not complete. The source said the emergency exit southwest of the site is unreachable.
The regime believes the blast was sabotage and the explosives could have reached the area disguised as equipment or in the uranium hexafluoride stock transferred to the site, the source said. The explosion occurred at the third centrifuge chambers, with the high-grade enriched uranium reserves below them.
The information was passed on to U.S. officials but has not been verified or denied by the regime or other sources within the regime.
Though the news of the explosion has not been independently verified, other sources previously have provided WND with information on plans for covert operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities as an option before going to war. The hope is to avoid a larger-scale conflict. Israel, the U.S. and other allies already have concluded the Islamic regime has crossed its red line in its quest for nuclear weapons, other sources have said.

However, this information was not revealed for security reasons until several days ago when sources said the regime’s intelligence agency, through an alleged spy in the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, had learned of the decision to conduct sabotage on Iran’s nuclear sites on a much larger scale than before.
As reported, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called an urgent meeting Tuesday with the intelligence minister, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization and other officials to discuss the threat, and now it’s clear the meeting included the sabotage at Fordow.
Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in recent years. Last year, saboteurs struck the power supply to the Fordow facility, temporarily disrupting production. And a computer worm called Stuxnet, believed to have originated in the U.S., set Iran’s plans for nuclear weapons back substantially.
The 5+1 (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany) hope to resume talks with Iran over its illicit nuclear program. The talks ended last year after regime officials refused to negotiate.
Sources in the Islamic regime previously have revealed exclusively to WND the existence of:

• A secret nuclear site in Najaf Abad.
• A list of Iranian scientists working on a nuclear bomb.
• A secret uranium enrichment site in Khondab, where the Russians and North Korean scientists are helping with Iran’s nuclear bomb program.
• The secret bio-weapons site in Marzanabad, where, with the help of Russia, Iran has mastered production of eight microbial agents, arming its missiles with biological warheads.
• Another nuclear site at Bonab, where, with the help of Russians, uranium enrichment is taking place using laser technology.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sabotage-key-iranian-nuclear-facility-hit/#lUuAUACczU345LW2.99

5 Interesting Facts About Dreams You Didn’t Know ~ Telegrafy

5 Interesting Facts About Dreams You Didn’t Know ~ Telegrafy

5 Interesting Facts About Dreams You Didn’t Know

5:44 PM  Sabri Zeqiri  

Every night your conscious mind shuts down and every morning you wake up, ready for a brand new day.
But while the conscious part of your mind shuts down, your brain remains very much active throughout the night. Part of this brain activity generates what can sometimes be extremely vivid and even haunting images during the rapid-eye movement (REM) stage of sleep – what we know as dreams and nightmares.
The average person will spend 19.3 years of their entire life in this trance-like state we know as sleep. But even though we spend nearly 1/3 of our lives sleeping, most of us know surprisingly little about what happens to our brains when we shut off for the night.
Below are 5 interesting facts about dreams you never knew:
1. Sleep walking is a legitimate defense to homicideWhile it doesn’t happen often, there have been numerous reported cases of sleepwalkers killing people while sleepwalking. As of the year 2000, there were 68 reported cases in the literature.
In order to be found guilty of murder in the classical Western legal system, a person has to have both a mens rea (guilty mind) as well as an actus reas (guilty act), in order to be guilty. For this reason, sleepwalking has been used successfully as a defense to homicide. In other words, because sleepwalkers in their sleep like state cannot form the legal intent to commit murder – the fact that they stabbed someone with a knife, shot them in the face, or bludgeoned them with a hammer – doesn’t mean that they’re legally guilty of murder.
Perhaps the most incredible “not guilty” verdict in a sleepwalking homicide was the Canadian case of Kenneth Parks, who was acquitted in 1987 after:

• Getting up in the middle of the night
• Driving 14 miles to his in-laws
• Bludgeoning his mother-in-law with a tire iron
• Strangling his father-in-law
• Stabbing them both with a kitchen knife

His mother-in-law died, while his father-in-law survived, but just barely. Parks turned up shortly after at the police station, apparently confused.
As unbelievable as the case may be, the jury believed that Parks was legitimately sleepwalking when the attack occurred and thus found him not guilty. He was reportedly very close with his in-laws, and didn’t seem to realize during the attack that he had severed the tendons in both of his hands. His family also had a strong history of sleepwalking.
2. You can be conscious in a dream

Sleep Lab (Photo credit: Nicole Mays)

For most people, dreaming is a passive state where the impossible is possible – it’s another reality we experience, totally separate from our normal lives. While the images may be extremely vivid in the moment, they quickly fade as we wake up and realize – with either great relief or extreme disappointment – that it was “only a dream”.
Yet not all dreams are like this. Lucid dreams are dreams where you are conscious that you’re dreaming, but your brain is still in a state of sleep. Approximately 50% of people have experienced a lucid dream in their life, though the amount of people who experience lucid dreams on a regular basis is significantly lower.
For a long time, psychologists and researchers denied that true lucid dreams were possible. They argued that if accounts of lucid dreaming were valid, they likely occurred during moments of transition between sleeping and waking, and certainly not during the deep REM sleep where dreams are normally found. After all, how do you prove you’re actually lucid while dreaming – you can’t very well shout out that you’re dreaming during a dream; your muscles are paralyzed when you’re sleeping, a phenomenon that prevents you from running into a wall when a tiger is chasing you in your nightmares.
In 1978, researcher Keith Hearne of the University of Hull was the first to scientifically confirm the lucid dreaming phenomenon by exploiting the fact that not all of the body’s muscles are paralyzed during sleep – during REM sleep, the eyes can still move. Could a lucid dreamer actually move their eyes in such a way as to notify the researchers that he/she had become conscious during a dream?
As a matter of fact, yes. A lucid dreamer in Hearne’s lab – Alan Worsley – managed to move his eyes left and right in a pre-determined pattern each time he became lucid. And by monitoring Worsley’s eyes with a polygraph and watching out for the pre-determined pattern, Hearne was able to confirm that Worsley was in fact consciously communicating while still deep in REM sleep.
Hearne’s research revealed that the lucid dreams experienced by Worsley tended to happen most often in the early morning, approximately 30 minutes into a REM period. The lucid dreams tended to last approximately 2-5 minutes. Further research also found that lucid dreams tended to occur most frequently at times of high arousal during REM sleep.
3. Men and women dream about sex the same amount
Surprisingly, men and women both report the same amount of dreams with sexual content, despite the fact that men experience sexual thoughts more frequently in everyday life. In a study at the University of Montreal that looked at over 3,500 dream reports, around 8% of the dream reports from both men and women contained sexual activity. However, not everything about dreaming is different than reality – men in the study were twice as likely to have dreams with multiple sexual partners than women.
Some other funny sex facts about dreams included the fact that – while both men and women reported experiencing an orgasm in 4% of their dreams – women were the only ones who actually dreamed about their partners having an orgasm. 4% of women in the study reported experiencing dreams where their partners would orgasm, but none of the men in the study reported orgasms other than their own. Hopefully for the ladies, this isn’t an accurate reflection of real life.
4. Women experience more nightmares than men
A study by psychologist Jennie Parker of the University of the West of England found that women experience more nightmares than males. Women not only reported more nightmares, but they also reported their nightmares as more emotionally intense.
5. Why do we dream?
Ever since humans have existed we have wondered why we dream. Some like Sigmund Freud speculated that dreams were manifestations of our unfulfilled and repressed desires, while others believe that dreams are simply a side effect of our brain’s activity in REM sleep.
According to Harvard psychologist Deirdre Barrett, at least part of the reason we sleep is to process the thoughts and problems that trouble us during our waking hours. Barrett’s theory posits that the illogical aspects of dreams and the vivid visual images we experience during our dreams provide a way to process the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that isn’t possible during our usual reality.
Whatever the reason for your dreams, the likely answer is that your dreams have evolved to fulfill multiple functions. Critical thinking may be one reason, information processing might be another. Even with the tremendous scientific strides we’ve made in the 20th and 21st centuries, there’s still much about sleep and dreams we really don’t know. Who knows, maybe dreams really are a veiled window into our baser urges and impulses, like Freud suggested.

Obama says he goes skeet shooting 'all the time' | The Daily Caller

Obama says he goes skeet shooting 'all the time' | The Daily Caller

Obama suggests he goes skeet shooting ‘all the time’

1:08 PM 01/27/2013

inShare

Deputy Editor

In an interview with The New Republic, President Barack Obama suggested he regularly goes skeet shooting with guests at Camp David.
“[U]p at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” Obama said. “Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.”
“And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family’s traditions, you can see why you’d be pretty protective of that,” Obama added. “So it’s trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.”
Obama has aggressively pushed for tougher gun control laws since last month’s mass shooting in Newton, Conn. left 27 dead. But some of the new policies championed by the president, including a ban on military-style “assault weapons,” are receiving only tepid support from red-state Democrats in Congress.
New Republic editor-in-chief Franklin Foer conducted the interview alongside Chris Hughes, the publication’s 29-year-old publisher. Hughes is a co-founder of Facebook, and worked for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign as an online organizer.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/obama-says-he-goes-skeet-shooting-all-the-time/#ixzz2JHVMZnbo

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

For those interested in more details a series of data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step statistical synopsis.
Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor.

1. Greenhouse gas concentrations
2. Converting concentrations to contribution
3. Factoring in water vapor
4. Distinguishing natural vs man-made greenhouse gases
5. Putting it all together

Note: Calculations are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted using Lotus 1-2-3.
Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use.

---

Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)

1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases, and supplemented with information from other sources (2-7). Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

TABLE 1. The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)

(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)	Pre-industrial baseline	Natural additions	Man-made additions	Total (ppb) Concentration	Percent of Total
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	288,000	68,520	11,880 (2)	368,400	99.438%
Methane (CH4)	848	577	320	1,745	0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	285	12	15	312	0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	25	0	2	27	0.007%
Total	289,158	69,109	12,217	370,484	100.00%

    The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.
But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:
Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).
Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.

---

Converting greenhouse gas concentrations
to greenhouse effect contribution
(using global warming potential )

2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:
( concentration ) X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (3) (4) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:

TABLE 2. Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2

This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #'s are unit-less)	Multiplier (GWP)	Pre-industrial baseline(new)	Natural additions (new)	Man-made additions (new)	Tot. Relative Contribution	Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	1	288,000	68,520	11,880	368,400	72.369%
Methane (CH4)	21 (3)	17,808	12,117	6,720	36,645	7.199%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	310 (3)	88,350	3,599	4,771	96,720	19.000%
CFC's (and other misc. gases)	see data (4)	2,500	0	4,791	7,291	1.432%
Total		396,658	84,236	28,162	509,056	100.000%

NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.

 

 

Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:
Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)-- (ignoring water vapor).
Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).
Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).
Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.
To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth's greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.

---

Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.

3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

  TABLE 3. Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	Percent of Total	Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor	-----	95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	72.369%	3.618%
Methane (CH4)	7.100%	0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	19.000%	0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases)	1.432%	0.072%
Total	100.000%	100.000%

 
As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!
Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!
Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.
Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

---

Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations
of greenhouse gases

4. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).
Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.

---

Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.
TABLE 4a. Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	% of Greenhouse Effect	% Natural	% Man-made
Water vapor	95.000%	94.999%	0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	3.618%	3.502%	0.117%
Methane (CH4)	0.360%	0.294%	0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	0.950%	0.903%	0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	0.072%	0.025%	0.047%
Total	100.00%	99.72	0.28%

 

When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.
From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.
Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.
Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.
This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!
While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

---

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

---

Research to Watch
Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.
His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.

---

" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.

---

Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.
The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!

---

|| Global Warming || Table of Contents ||

References:
1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo
3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.
5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT
e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:
g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:
h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:
5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom
6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

Useful conversions:
1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H20
1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2)
2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2

This page by: Monte Hieb