The “97%” and why the IPCC, NOAA and other climate data is lacking

A friend of mine recently commented on how two years of data shows a decided cooling trend.  We must be careful to remember the difference between weather, which is what occurs on any given day, week, month, year, and even 11-year sunspot cycle, and climate, which is what occurs over the long haul.

Furthermore, statistics being what it is, one or two data points mean nothing. Furthermore, the answer to the question, “How many data points are enough?” depends both on what you’re trying to measure and the nature of the data itself.

If you know you’re measuring a straight line, two data points are sufficient to describe the entire line.

If you know you’re measuring a parabola, and you know the parabola’s orientation (axis), two points are again sufficient. If you don’t know its orientation, you’ll need three points.

If you’re conducting an exit poll at a precinct, measuring whether people are voted for candidate A or Candidate B, and no write-ins were allowed, you need to pick a Confidence Level, say, 99%, a Confidence Interval, say, +/- 3 points, and the population size, say, 35,000 people in the precinct. The answer is a sample size of 653. However, that’s not all, as you need to ensure the respondents are randomly selected throughout the voting period.  The largely liberal news organizations failed to take this into account when they launched their glowing pro-Hillary polls in the 2016 election.

When you’re talking about climate, however, the samples for each location need to include temperature, humidity, pressure, precipitation types and amounts, cloud types and cloud cover, and solar irradiance on the ground for at least 24 times each day, multiplied by every day for decades — at least thirty years worth, but preferably about 300+, then, multiply times thousands of locations around the world. You also need to measure solar irradiance in space i.e. the Sun’s output, and we’ve had access to that information only over the last 40 years. Finally, we need to correlate the irradiance with sunspot activity and discount the effect of sunspot variability, which can last as much as a century.

In all, there’s at least 16 pieces of variable information to be recorded at least hourly at each location, along with at least 12 pieces of constant information for each location.

For each location, that comes to 140,160 pieces of variable information each year, times tens of thousands of locations.

The best locations for this information are airports. According to the Airports Council International (ACI) World Airport Traffic Report, there are currently 17,678 commercial airports in the world. Most of these report their current conditions to one of several database repositories.

The major problem with the IPCC reports, however, is that they’re approach is rather simplistic. They often don’t even know what information to ask because they’re largely tied to the weather model, rather than a physics model. There are a number of relevant variables of which they either completely discount or have never even heard.

Local and surrounding terrain features, for example, significantly impact the readings. These “anomalous terrain features” can be mathematically described with via a centroid location, elongation factor, distance, and direction. Winds blowing over a mountain range 200 miles upwind during humid weather are likely to experience more cooling due to cloud formation than they are during dry weather. Similarly, weather stations located near a body of water are affected quite differently when the winds are onshore vs offshore. Even absolutely identical air masses located 500 miles distant will arrive in Kansas bearing quite different properties on a perfectly clear day throughout the entire U.S. depending on whether the air mass traveled up from low-lying Texas, down from the northern latitude Dakotas, or west over mountainous Colorado.

The same is true for ocean data. “Mean oceanic surface temperature,” while a good metric, is woefully void of the entire story, as oceans have basins and mountain ranges, too, and even slight shifts in currents can vary “ocean weather” significantly.

Then there’s the mudstream media’s “97% of climatologists agree” meme.  It’s more than a meme, however, as pro-AGP (anthropogenic climate change) forces are now creating videos demonstrating how 97% of climatologists agree…

…while ignoring the reality that their agreement originates from a single errant paper that was picked up by mudstream media itself and spread like wildfire.
New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change in this YouTube video, below:

FYI, here’s the ear-tickeling but blitheringly idiot piece of PBS crap that started this conversation:

Assault Rifle vs Assault Weapon vs Semi-Automatic Firearm

Despite years of intensive effort on the part of firearms experts to train mainstream media on even the most basic firearms terminology, they still screw it up.  Constantly.  Just this morning, for example, The Chicago Tribune ran headlines which read:

Texas shooting suspect’s choice of guns complicates debate over assault rifles

“Assault rifles?”  Seriously?  I wasn’t aware there was any “debate over assault rifles.”  In fact, there’s no such debate because only two assault rifles have ever been used in a mass shooting in the U.S., both of which occurred last century.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.  Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.  “Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986” (Source).  This includes assault rifles, machine guns, and sub-machine guns.

Neither the AR-15 nor any of its many variants, is an “assault rifle.”

I think what the idiots at the Chicago Tribune were trying to say is, “assault weapon.”  The problem with that term, however, is that it’s not even real.  It’s a made-up term, lacking any concrete definition that isn’t already covered by widely-used industry-standard definitions.  In fact, the individual who made it up was trying to get around the fact that he could not knowing call the Colt AR-15 an “assault rifle” because the Colt AR-15 is not an assault rifle at all.  It’s a semi-automatic rifle, period.

Semi-automatic rifles are not “assault rifles.”  They’re certainly not “assault weapons,” as that term holds no standing whatsoever in the industry.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between a scary-looking semi-automatic rifle and friendly-looking semi-automatic rifle.  Both are just semi-automatic rifles.  The idea of banning so-called “assault weapons” is ludicrous as NO SUCH FIREARM EXISTS.

Piers Morgan’s Blitheringly Idiotic Gun Ban Drive

Piers Morgan has a passion for banning firearms.  His most frequently cited statistic is that the United Kingdom’s firearms murder rate dropped from thousands annually all the way down to the double digits (less than 100).  Sounds terrific, right?  Let’s ban all firearms now, right?

Well, not so fast.  You see, Piers Morgan lies.  He lies to you by using the term, “firearms murder rate,” “gun murders,” or “murders by firearms.”  He intentionally (possibly just stupidly) ignores murders which occur as the result of violent crime.  Speaking of which…

Piers Morgan fails to mention the fact that the UK’s violent crime rate more than tripled after they banned nearly all private ownership of firearms.  Apparently, a disarmed citizenry is far more susceptible to the other violent crimes of rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  Furthermore, since most murders are a result of violent crime at its worst, when their violent crime rate tripled, so did their non-firearms murder rate.

Put simply, the U.K. reduced their firearms murder rate but increased their non-firearms murder rate.

THE QUESTION:  Did the overall effect of the UK gun ban result in fewer murders overall or did the resulting tripling of the UK’s violent crime rate actually lead to more murders overall?  A related question involves how that would translate to gun bans here in the United States.  Would gun bans actually save lives, or would it cause violent crime — including murders related to violent crime, to rise?

To answer that question, I consulted with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.  UCR “has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics” (Source).

Specifically, I examined their vaunted Table 1:  Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1997-2016.  This table provides both the raw numbers as well as the rate per 100,000 inhabitants for all violent crimes as well as the breakdown into murders, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  It also provides the raw numbers and rates for non-violent property crimes, including burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.

To be continued…

Friday the 13th – US UK and France Bombed Assyria

In deference to all Demoncraps, most of who will no doubt attempt to either spin things out of control or claim certain events never happened, I’ve included the following links from Friday, April 13, 2018, the first set of which are solely from CNN:

US, France, and UK strike Syria’s chemical weapons program

British Ministry of Defense:  “Let these united actions send a clear message to the regime”

France’s president says a red line had been crossed after chemical weapon attack

A look at the missile used in the strikes

This photo shows the moment France’s president ordered the strike

McCain applauds Trump’s decision — but calls for a comprehensive strategy

Mattis:  Right now, tonight’s strike is “a one-time shot”

Schumer warns Trump administration to “be careful” to avoid a greater war in Syria

At least one US Navy warship based in Red Sea was used in strike

Russian ambassador to US warns of “consequences” after strikes on Syria

Mattis:  US used “double” amount of weapons in strike

The legal authority Trump is using to order these strikes

US “specifically identified” targets to avoid Russian forces

British Ministry of Defense:  “Let these united actions send a clear message to the regime”

Fox News

Trump announces US military strikes in Syria

“To Iran and to Russia I ask, what kind of nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children,” Trump said.

“The nations of the world can be judged by the friends that they keep,” he continued. “Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or continue with civilized nations.”

The US actions came as part of an allied front against heinous actions taken against innocent women and children:

French President Emmanuel Macron said the operation was targeting the “clandestine chemical arsenal” in Syria.

British Prime Minister Theresa May also issued a statement: “This evening I have authorized British armed forces to conduct coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use,” May said.

The Ignorant Folly of Sending the National Guard to the Border

I vehemently disagree with Michael Savage’s April 7, 2018 article, “ACLU SIDES WITH DRUG SMUGGLERS:  TROOPS DO NOT BELONG AT BORDER.”
It’s not that I agree with the ACLU.  I don’t.  They’re idiots.  Specifically, they claim that “Deploying the military in U.S. communities is a dangerous move, contrary to the fundamental norms of a civilized society.”
Under Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”  Furthermore, 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes, specifically states the National Guard, along with the Naval Militia, are one of the two classes of the Constitutionally and federally recognized militia mentioned under Article I, Section 8; Clause 15.
That’s why the ACLU are idiots.  Apparently, they can’t read.  At the very least, they can’t seem to read the U.S. Constitution and federal law without totally screwing it up.  It’s the National Guard’s job to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”  The ACLU doesn’t understand that “the fundamental norms of a civilized society” require that society to maintain good order and discipline i.e. law and order while simultaneously protecting the life, limb, and property of people, both individually and collectively.
But Michael Savage is also an idiot, for two reason.  First, he confuses illegal aliens crossing our border with drugs and weapons with an invasion.  Second, he is apparently unaware of the U.S. Border Patrol’s actual mission.
INVASION
The Cambridge Dictonary, arguable one of the top three dictionaries of the English language, defines “invasion” three ways:
– an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country
– an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way
– an action or process that affects someone’s life in an unpleasant and unwanted way
That matches the definitions I learned in history in both high school and college, as well as studies as a U.S. military officers.
There’s also this to consider:  “The priority mission of the U.S. Border Patrol is preventing terrorists and terrorists weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, from entering the United States” (Source: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/overview).

Furthermore, “While the Border Patrol has changed dramatically since its inception in 1924, its primary mission remains unchanged: to detect and prevent he illegal entry of aliens into the United States. Together with other law enforcement officers, the Border Patrol helps maintain borders that work – facilitating the flow of legal immigration and goods while preventing the illegal trafficking of people and contraband).

Finally, the U.S. Border Patrol contains a Special Operations Group (SOG) with three units:
– Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC): The mission of BORTAC is “to respond to terrorist threats of all types anywhere in the world in order to protect our nation’s homeland.”
– Border Patrol, Search, Trauma and Rescue (BORSTAR)
– Mobile Response Team (MRT)

Looks to me like the U.S. Border Patrol already has that job.
Don’t get me wrong: I despite the ACLU. But the question of whether or not sending National Guard troops to the border is the right move, or whether or not it’s even legal, has nothing to do with the ACLU.

It has to do with the fact that our nation already has a civilian law enforcement on ground to do precisely the job that needs to be done. The U.S. Border Patrol is specifically trained to do the job they’re doing and they do it very well.

If those units aren’t enough due to a surge in the threat, then INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS as THEY ARE IDEALLY SUITED FOR THE JOB.

TRAINING: All Border Patrol agents spend a minimum of 13 weeks at the Border Patrol Academy (if they are fluent in Spanish) in Artesia, New Mexico, which is a component of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Those who are not fluent in Spanish spend an additional eight weeks at the Academy for a total of 21 weeks. Border Patrol Agent Trainees are instructed in courses including; criminal law, nationality law, and administrative immigration law, police sciences, self-defense and arrest techniques, firearms training with pistol, shotgun and rifle, police vehicle driving, and other Border Patrol / federal law enforcement subjects.

Once they arrive back at their duty station, Trainees then must graduate from the Field Training Officer (FTO) program, an on-the-job training program, which varies in length from a minimum of 12 weeks to a maximum of over 16 weeks long, depending on the practical demands of the duty station and local management. They must also successfully complete the Post Academy Training Program, an extension of the Border Patrol Academy where Trainees complete additional classroom-based training over the course of their first nine months back at their duty station.

Does this mean the National Guard should never be used along our borders?  Of course not!  As the Constitution specifically states, it’s the National Guard’s job to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
What’s happening along the southern border of the United States, however, is most certainly not an invasion.  It might seem like it to some people, but it utterly fails to meet that definition.
According to Wikipedia, “An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.”
You might say, “But it’s been done before!”  Indeed it has:  “President George W. Bush sent 6,000 troops to the border. President Barack Obama sent 1,200. The deployments cost a total of more than \$1.3 billion.”

Wow. That’s \$722,222 for each troop, and just because “everyone’s doing it” doesn’t make it legal.

So…  Since it’s clearly not legal, and the U.S. Border Patrol already has that job, why not INSTEAD increase the U.S. Border Patrol’s budget and open wide their six-month training pipeline? That way, at the end of all this you’d pay less than a THIRD of that cost while simultaneously having another trained U.S. Border Patrol agent at the read.

Like I said earlier, the National Guard is expensive!

Why Ethanol Fuels are a BAD Idea

A recent article in Forbes says the U.S. ethanol policy is under siege.
Good!  It should be under siege, as it’s extremely stupid for a number of reasons:

First, it’s gravely outdated.  “Today’s ethanol industry began in the 1970s when petroleum-based fuel became expensive and environmental concerns involving leaded gasoline created a need for an octane” (Source).  The move was meant to better oxygenate fuels, thereby reducing harmful emissions, particularly CO (carbon monoxide).  HOWEVER, that was the era before emissions controls became mandatory.  Carburetors were ubiquitous.  Catalytic converters were very rare.  Adjustments in ignition timing and mixture were produced by two means, if at all:  Advancement in timing as a function of engine RPM and fuel control as a function of air velocity passing through the carburetor with an augmented “pumper” for when the throttle was floored (wide open).  As a result, engines burned fairly rich, and fairly dirty.

Modern engines, however, sense environmental temperature and oxygen levels, exhaust gas temperature and oxygen, and a host of other things, automatically adjusting ignition timing and fuel injection to produce far cleaner lean burning engines which carry an excess of oxygen throughout the combustion process.  As a result, they produce only a tiny fraction of the CO of, say, a 1968 Mustang.  Ethanol fuels have almost zero impact on emissions as there’s almost nothing left to impact.

Second, it’s both grossly less efficient and more expensive. Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, and therefore in theory, burning pure ethanol in a vehicle reduces miles per US gallon 34%, given the same fuel economy, compared to burning pure gasoline. For E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline), the effect is small (~3%) when compared to conventional gasoline. According to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the average American driver puts in 13,474 miles behind the wheel each year. Furthermore, cars and light trucks sold in the United States hit a new record for fuel efficiency last year — 23.6 miles per gallon, on average. Even at that high rate, your average motorist will burn 17.1 more gallons — \$39.22 and about a tank full — each year while simultaneously paying \$91.52 more at the pump, and for WHAT?  Well, NOTHING if they own a modern vehicle.

Third, it’s not a cure-all: “A study by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University found that E85 fuel would increase the risk of air pollution deaths relative to gasoline by 9% in Los Angeles, US: a very large, urban, car-based metropolis that is a worst-case scenario. Ozone levels are significantly increased, thereby increasing photochemical smog and aggravating medical problems such as asthma.” Why? Because burning ethanol is NOT “clean.” It produces CO2, H20, and aldehydes, the latter of which cause serious breathing problems:  “Exposures to formaldehyde, acrolein, and other aldehydes occur at work, in homes, and outdoors. Inhalation of high doses of formaldehyde has produced nasal tumors in laboratory rats, and lower concentrations have irritated eyes and air passages in humans. However, information is limited regarding the adverse human health effects caused by aldehydes other than formaldehyde. Emissions from motor vehicles using gasoline and diesel fuels add to the outdoor levels of aldehydes, including formaldehyde and acrolein. The projected use of methanol and ethanol as alternative fuels and in fuel blends may increase outdoor aldehyde levels because alcohol combustion yields more aldehydes than conventional fuel combustion. In view of the known and potential health effects of formaldehyde and acrolein, the Clean Air Act of 1990 defines them as hazardous air pollutants that are subject to regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. At concentrations exceeding usual outdoor levels, aldehyde inhalation can alter breathing patterns by narrowing airway openings (airway constriction). It can also damage cells lining the airways, prompting white blood cells to enter the lungs” (Source).

Bottom line, ethanol fuels are outdated, costly, and surprisingly, even more polluting than the fuels they intend to replace.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/04/08/u-s-ethanol-policy-under-siege/#3a894b74115b

CEO’s on Gun Control – Informed Responses

A recent article in the Miami Herald has me wondering about the level of sanity that remains in our nation’s business leaders.  In “CEOs hope common-sense control on assault rifles happen soon,” I found the same myriad of feel-good, do-wrong think most commonly associated with the ignorant anti-gunners who populate basement-run organizations operating off fears and rhetoric rather than facts and science.

Without further ado, I will address both the ignorance and logically fallacious suppositions mention herein:

Although I do believe in our Second Amendment right, I feel all assault weapons should be permanently banned. I believe that the government should implement stricter policies related to the waiting periods for all firearm sales, including gun show requirements and private sales. In addition, I believe that anyone purchasing a gun must have an extensive Level I and II background screening prior to the sale.

Margaret “Peggy” Bass, executive director, Good Hope Equestrian Training Center

First, Ms. Bass professes her belief in the Second Amendment, which emphatically requires an unwaivering moratorium on any and all infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.  That’s what “shall not be infringed” means.  She immediately proceeds to call for stricter policies, which are infringements, as well as serious and burdensome hurdles, which are also infringements.

Our Constitution does not say, “the right of the people who have completed Level II background screening prior to the sale to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed beyond the initial waiting period required even when passing heirlooms from parents to progeny.”

It says “the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms (armaments) shall not be infringed.”

Our Founding Fathers weren’t stupid, Peggy.  If they wanted to add all sorts of restrictions, they would have done so, the same as they did when adding the many restrictions against the federal government found in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  The Second Amendment does the same, restricting the government against precisely the kind of infringements you propose, and for good reason:  It’s necessary to the security of a free State.

The Parkland tragedy must be a call to action that echoes in every home, office and classroom. The horrific loss of life — the failure to meet our most basic obligation of protecting our children — should rapidly bring policy-makers together to ensure common sense gun control measures along with expanded access to effective behavioral health supports. Schools, mental health providers and law enforcement need to come together and create a social safety net to ensure that individuals who need help have access to quality services and create a seamless system of notification if violent behavior is even suspected.

Stephanie Berman-Eisenberg, president, CEO, Carrfour Supportive Housing

Ms. BE commits an oxymoron by attempting to equate “the failure to meet our most basic obligation of protecting our children” with her implied failure of “common sense gun control measures.”  As the Parkland, Florida shooter already had a number of other firearms, including rifles, a rejection of his background check when he purchased his AR-15 would have made little difference, especially since his hunting rifle operates precisely the same as his AR-15, regardless of how much “nastier” his AR-15 looks.

I do agree with Ms. BE with respect to correctly identifying situations where individuals are a danger to themselves and others.  However, it’s a very slippery slope between correctly identifying one who is dangerous and identifying five — if not thirty — additional people who are not dangerous and depriving them of their constitutional rights.  Depriving people of their Constitutional rights “if violent behavior is even suspected” gets very expensive in very short order, in more ways than one.

In my opinion, our country needs more protection in our schools to prevent tragic events like this one. We have lost many innocent lives, and this needs to stop. Our society needs to leverage these painful tragedies to propel our government to pass stronger legislation regarding who’s allowed to purchase these dangerous weapons. The change has to start now, and it has to be driven by all of us.

Jose R. Costa, CEO, For Eyes

Apparently, Mr. Costa is unfamiliar with both our nation’s Constitution — the “supreme Law of the Land” — as well as it’s order of precedence in our nation’s system of laws.  So, here’s a quick refresher:

The Constitution is indeed the “supreme Law of the Land.”  Amendments are integral parts of our Constitution, so says our Constitution.  If either an executive order of piece of legislation, including one such as Mr. Costa is proposing, violates our Constitution, including any Amendment, the legislation is null and void right then and there, so says the U.S. Supreme Court.  It might take a court case to convince the local, county, state, or federal government, though.  If a court in our nation’s judicial branch rules in favor of the plaintiff, then the local, county, state, or federal government absolutely most stop their un-Constitutional advances and abide by our “supreme Law of the Land,” regardless of whether they want to or not.

That’s the law.

Thus, Mr. Costa’s suggestion to “pass stronger legislation regarding who’s allowed to purchase these dangerous weapons” is in violation of our Constitution.  Everyone is allowed to purchase firearms:  “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

As for his “dangerous weapons” assertion, Mr. Costa needs to review  the Real Time Current Death Toll from January 1 to present, where he will see that abortion tops the list by a factor of nearly two, and that murders by gun chime in at just 1% of abortions.  Meanwhile, 22 other causes of death fill the gaps between the two.  As Mr. Costa works in the medical field, he is certainly aware that medical errors occur 21.9 times more often than do murders by gun.  Of course firearms are dangerous.  If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be categorized as “arms” (armaments) and would ineffective against bad guys, game, and tyrannical governments, which is WHY our Founding Fathers saw fit to ban any infringement against our right to keep and bear arms.

It has reinforced my position that our society is being put at increasing peril to gun violence because the silent majority has not put more pressure on government leaders to act in the best interests of public safety.

Jerome Hutchinson Jr., managing partner, JHJ Marketing Group

First, our society is not “being put at increasing peril to gun violence.”  The simple fact of the matter is that “Although the violent crime rate in the U.S. has generally decreased over the past 15 years, the gun homicide rate has hardly changed.” – Everytown for Gun Safety

Second, Mr. Hutchinson makes the erroneous assumption that the “silent majority” is on his side.  In fact, while 86% of Americas do support background checks, the same percentage — 86% — also support our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  The silent majority stands 7 to 1 against Mr. Hutchinson’s anti-gun stance.  Put simply, we agree it’s in the best interests of public safety to NOT infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I have walked into a few gun shops over the years and questioned the wisdom of allowing these military grade assault weapons to be owned by any civilian, least of all an 18-year-old we don’t trust to drink alcohol responsibly. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas mass shooting tragedy has only reinforced my belief that a ban on assault weapons should be re-established and that adding an enhanced background check for gun purchases is a no-brainer. It should not be this easy to obtain guns of any kind.

Raymond Mobayed, owner, 4IT Inc.

Mr.  Mobayed makes several glaring errors.  First, as previously mentioned, “assault weapons” aren’t actually a thing.  Second, claiming any firearm sold to civilians at large to be “military grade” is incredibly ignorant.  Third, he may have a point on 18-year-olds, but if we go that route, no 18-year-old should be allowed in the military, either, where they have access to far more powerful armaments.  Fourth, you can’t ban something that doesn’t actually exist.  Fifth, an “enhanced background check for gun purchases” is what we currently have with the FBI background check system.  Perhaps we need an “enhanced enhanced” or even an “enhanced enhanced enhanced” system.  Sixth, it should be this easy to obtain guns, as THAT IS THE LAW, and it exists precisely because 96.3% of U.S. citizens OBEY THE LAW when it comes to lawful purchasing, handling, storage, and use of firearms.  We don’t infringe on the defensive, hunting, and anti-tyrannical rights of 27 law-abiding U.S. citizens just to shut down 1 bad guy.  That’s not the way America works, and if Mr. Mobayed doesn’t like it, there are a number of countries in this world that agree with Mr. Mobayed.

The one thing this shooting made me sure of is that something needs to change. Yes, we need to limit access to military-style weapons, but addressing the gaps in our mental health system is just as important. Our kids deserve to feel free to focus on their schooling without having these kinds of fears on their minds.

Carlos Rosso, president, The Related Group’s Condominium division

We already “limit access to military-style weapons.”  Those weapons are called “assault rifles.”  AR-15s are similarly-“styled” firearms are not assault rifles.  As for “assault weapons,” that’s a term a journalist invented in the 1980s after he was slapped down for attempting to call an AR-15 an “assault rifle.”

If you want kids to “feel free to focus on their schooling without have these kinds of fears on their minds,” then secure the schools.  Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was not secure.

First off, I am completely for the Second Amendment, but what I do not understand is why an 18-year-old cannot buy alcohol or a pistol, but they are legally able to purchase and utilize an AR-15 rifle. (Still not sure why any citizen really needs an AR-15). There is something completely wrong with this picture and I am so glad to see President Trump support raising the age limit to 21 and looking for stricter background checks. I was recently in Las Vegas and drove by the area where the mass shooting occurred across the Mandalay Bay Hotel. It was surreal to see everything still in its place, from the stage to the portable bathrooms. The same day I was flying home, I heard about the mass shooting in Parkland and it really hit home. We need action now!

Stan Rudman, CMO and owner, Sportailor Inc.

I can’t really fault Mr. Rudman for his sentiments, and he’s right about needing action now.  The most effective action is to secure the schools.  Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was NOT secure.  Four cowardly sheriff’s deputies who failed to serve and protect didn’t help matters any, either.

***  Work in progress.  Will finish the rest later.  ***

What happened in Parkland is tragic and it’s happening too often in the United States. The fact that assault rifles are weapons of war but are the primary weapon of choice for active shooters needs to be addressed in a meaningful way. I believe we can find the balance between the two sides of the gun debate, and I am hopeful that it will be the students from Stoneman who will get us there.

Kim Stone, general manager and EVP, AmericanAirlines Arena

===

Our hearts go out to the families and the community of Parkland. As a bank, we explored disallowing gun purchases using our Visa debit and credit cards, however, Visa does not flag purchases of guns separately and some retailers that sell guns — like Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods — also sell other merchandise such that we would not want to block entire retailers. So we are very pleased that some retailers are implementing common sense gun purchase policies.

Teri Williams, president, CEO and a director, OneUnited Bank

===

My thinking has not changed. It has become more validated by these frequent and extreme events. No one can justify the need for a private person to have, let alone use, an AR-15 in a civilized society. Guns of mass killing do not belong in our society at all, especially not in urban environments. I hold in high esteem the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School for speaking up and leading the charge for safer schools and gun reform in our state of Florida, as well as across our nation. They are the voice of a new generation of community activists who have keenly used social media as their own call for action.

Bernard Zyscovich, founder and CEO of Zyscovich Architects

===