US federal climate change report warns of threat to US economy and lives

[Sparko]

Then you are not the person I thought you were, Seer - if you would raise arms against your fellow citizens because they are advocating for a different kind of country. When we are ready to raise arms against our fellow citizens because we're not getting our way, then you become no better than the confederates who took up arms so they could protect their way of life centered on slavery. And you have made a "thing" (gun) more important than a "person." That's a sad commentary on your priorities.

Those other citizens want to impose their values on the rest who don't agree.

If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't. But don't take away the gun from the law abiding citizens who just want to use them for sport or self protection as guaranteed by our constitution. Do you really think people would put up with that? We have just seen what happens when some power crazed despot changed the constitution in Venezuela. Guns are an integral part of American History. It would be near impossible to take them away. Which is why the liberals are trying to whittle away the 2nd amendment with more and more restrictions. They are trying to do the "boil the frog slowly" trick.

[seer]

If you disagree, then fight in the courts and legislatures. When you threaten violence if your opinion does not hold the day - you become a terrorist. Even if you don't fight yourself, your willingness to incite others to that violence enables terrorism. In my opinion, anyone who acts on your words should face the consequences every terrorist has to face.

Tell me how that works Carp. First, going towards repeal people would be stocking up on firearms, as happened every time Obama went after guns (or just suggested it). We now have 340 million fire arms in the US. How do you get them out of the hands of the owners? Even if some willing give them up, there will be millions who won't. What then? Gun confiscation?

[carpedm9587]

There are about 11,000 firearm homicides each year. There are roughly 400 million firearms in the US. So only 0.0000275% of total guns are used in a homicide.

First of all, why does THAT make a difference?

Second, there were almost 40,000 deaths due to guns in the U.S. in 2018. The number of gun-related nonfatal injuries exceeds 100,000.

And your argument is "we have so flooded the country with guns that we've rendered the percentage used to kill a tiny numbers, so let us continue to flood more?"

Really...?

[Cow Poke]

First of all, why does THAT make a difference?

Second, there were almost 40,000 deaths due to guns in the U.S. in 2018. The number of gun-related nonfatal injuries exceeds 100,000.

And your argument is "we have so flooded the country with guns that we've rendered the percentage used to kill a tiny numbers, so let us continue to flood more?"

Really...?

That's what you think BtC is saying?

Really...?

[carpedm9587]

No one killed me with a gun, I don't think. I have owned firearms since I was twelve, and I never killed anyone. And I did not threaten a civil war, I just told you how many I know think and feel about this issue.

"You" also has a plural form - you realize that, right? As in "you people..."

But since I am too old, I have no intention of fighting, and to be honest I don't think it is the Christian thing to do. If I was still young and agnostic I may have a different view. In any case I am no longer a threat.

How comforting. We can all take comfort that the gun-rights advocates out there will eventually be too old to take up arms against their fellow citizens...

One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. It is all relative right. But like I said, I won't see repeal in my life time, and neither will you.

Yes - it is relative. And I suspect we won't see repeal in my lifetime. But I hope we can make a good start. Energy is building. We've seen a flood of new legislation since Florida and Las Vegas. As long as that keeps moving forward, we probably won't see repeal. As soon as the brakes are applied, energy for repeal with likely build again.

Is there anything the majority could do to cause you to fight?

Yes - they could deprive me of life...they could deprive me of liberty - without due process. But that is not what you are advocating for. You are advocating for taking up arms when/if "due process" does not turn out the way you want it to.

Have you ever read Madison?

Yes - they could deprive me of life...they could deprive me of liberty - without due process. But that is not what you are advocating for. You are advocating for taking up arms when/if "due process" does not turn out the way you want it to.

He worried about the the tyranny of the majority and the possible tyranny of the government - our government. A standing Army does not change that.

Yes - he did. And his fears have been twisted by minorities ever since to defend any stance they take. If the majority says "that's not what we want, haul out the "tyranny of the majority" rant and use it to justify pretty much anything - in your case, raising arms against fellow citizens.

How about this, you take some states, and we, who are like minded, take other states - problem solved.

How about this. If the majority ever repeals the 2nd, and/or institute laws providing for reasonable gun control, those of you who don't get your way either a) take the fight to the courts, b) accept the new laws, or c) find another country to live in.

What are you talking about?

See? I told you the problem was your understanding!

Who is the rest of us?

The majority of us who want gun controls invoked.

Only one in six support repeal. You are in the distinct minority... So the majority does see it as a right.

Oh there is no question that repeal is currently in the minority. But it's not because the majority see it as a right. It's because the majority don't interpret the 2nd the way you do, and see no need to amend the constitution. If we cannot get gun control, however, expect that percentage to rise. And our discussion is about if it actually IS repealed. If that happens, it will be because the minority view has become the majority view. We saw it happen for same sex marriage. It's possible for gun "rights" as well.

[Bill the Cat]

First of all, why does THAT make a difference?

Because guns don't kill people any more than cars or other implements.

Second, there were almost 40,000 deaths due to guns in the U.S. in 2018.

You've included suicides, which are not included in "your guns are killing us" And even including them, it's still a miniscule fraction of a percent that have been used to kill. So, again, no. Our guns are not killing us.

The number of gun-related nonfatal injuries exceeds 100,000.

Again, a miniscule sliver of one percent.

And your argument is "we have so flooded the country with guns that we've rendered the percentage used to kill a tiny numbers, so let us continue to flood more?"

No. It's that literally almost no gun owner has used their gun to kill another. The small fraction that have are statistically insignificant. Again, no. Our guns are not killing us.

Really...?

Really.

[Cow Poke]

"You" also has a plural form - you realize that, right? As in "you people..."

That worked really well for Ross Perot.

[seer]

"You" also has a plural form - you realize that, right? As in "you people..."

Oh please...

How comforting. We can all take comfort that the gun-rights advocates out there will eventually be too old to take up arms against their fellow citizens...

I'm glad you find it comforting.

Yes - it is relative. And I suspect we won't see repeal in my lifetime. But I hope we can make a good start. Energy is building. We've seen a flood of new legislation since Florida and Las Vegas. As long as that keeps moving forward, we probably won't see repeal. As soon as the brakes are applied, energy for repeal with likely build again.

We'll see...

Yes - they could deprive me of life...they could deprive me of liberty - without due process. But that is not what you are advocating for. You are advocating for taking up arms when/if "due process" does not turn out the way you want it to.

The majority certainly could use due process to deprive one of liberty, and that was Madison's point.

Yes - he did. And his fears have been twisted by minorities ever since to defend any stance they take. If the majority says "that's not what we want, haul out the "tyranny of the majority" rant and use it to justify pretty much anything - in your case, raising arms against fellow citizens.

We are not speaking of just anything Carp, but a right the Founders enshrined in the Constitution. As precious to some as the First or Fourth amendments.

How about this. If the majority ever repeals the 2nd, and/or institute laws providing for reasonable gun control, those of you who don't get your way either a) take the fight to the courts, b) accept the new laws, or c) find another country to live in.

No, I like taking a few willing States, and there will be some.

Oh there is no question that repeal is currently in the minority. But it's not because the majority see it as a right. It's because the majority don't interpret the 2nd the way you do, and see no need to amend the constitution. If we cannot get gun control, however, expect that percentage to rise. And our discussion is about if it actually IS repealed. If that happens, it will be because the minority view has become the majority view. We saw it happen for same sex marriage. It's possible for gun "rights" as well.

What? How do you know how the majority interprets it? But the fact is, you are in a distinct minority when it comes to repeal...

And perhaps you missed this:

Tell me how that works Carp. First, going towards repeal people would be stocking up on firearms, as happened every time Obama went after guns (or just suggested it). We now have 340 million fire arms in the US. How do you get them out of the hands of the owners? Even if some willing give them up, there will be millions who won't. What then? Gun confiscation?

[Sparko]

Of all of the gun related deaths, the ones that were done by illegal guns would not change with increased gun control, because they are already ILLEGALLY obtained and used. Of the legal gun related deaths, suicides and murders, the murderers/suiciders would simply change to another method of killing. If they want someone dead, including themselves, they will use any means available. About the only thing more restrictions might change is accidental deaths. But so would better training on how to handle and secure guns.

The legal gun owners are not the problem. Taking all guns away to prevent gun violence that is mostly done by illegal gun owners is like taking cars away from responsible people to prevent drunk drivers from killing people. Worse because that might actually stop the drunk drivers if there were no cars, but the illegal gun owners will still have guns even if you outlawed them from responsible citizens.

[Roy]

Of all of the gun related deaths, the ones that were done by illegal guns would not change with increased gun control, because they are already ILLEGALLY obtained and used.

As has been seen in the UK and Australia, increased gun control makes it harder to obtain guns illegally - there are less available to be stolen. So the illegal gun-related deaths would decrease also.

Why is this in Nat Sci?

[Sparko]

As has been seen in the UK and Australia, increased gun control makes it harder to obtain guns illegally - there are less available to be stolen. So the illegal gun-related deaths would decrease also.

Why is this in Nat Sci?

I think it is here because it started out discussing climate change?

But Roy, there are already so many guns in the USA, you could cease manufacturing them and completely outlaw them and you wouldn't make a dent in the illegal gun market. Might make them more expensive but it you wouldn't get them off the streets.

And now the technology to 3D print them exists too. People can make their own at home.

And by outlawing guns, you would actually increase the number of people owning illegal guns because current legal owners would not give them up and become defacto illegal gun owners. The government would be manufacturing criminals.

And look at the UK now. No guns? use a knive. Now people are wanting to ban knives. Where does it end. If people want to kill each other, you can't legislate it away.

[Sparko]

in case carp missed this:

And there is substantial historical evidence that the intent of the amendment was to ensure adequate arms for a nation that did not want a formal military, a position that was reversed after the Bill of Rights was ratified as the early leaders discovered the impossible logistics of protecting a nation with a "well regulated militia." I realize the NRA and gun advocates love to dismiss that history - or claim it doesn't exist (because, after all, it would substantially undermine the "I have a right to guns" message), but that doesn't actually make it go away.

Not according to the SCOTUS in DC v Heller.

The Supreme Court held:[47]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militiadoes not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

===
So as I said, it isn't just limited to militia use, but the type of weapons it is written to allow are military type weapons that a militia would use, not just hunting rifles.

[One Bad Pig]

in case carp missed this:



Not according to the SCOTUS in DC v Heller.

The Supreme Court held:[47]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militiadoes not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

===
So as I said, it isn't just limited to militia use, but the type of weapons it is written to allow are military type weapons that a militia would use, not just hunting rifles.

So, I should be legally able to mount a belt-fed .50 Cal on the roof of my car, right?

[seer]

So, I should be legally able to mount a belt-fed .50 Cal on the roof of my car, right?

Ya gota love Texas...

Driving, firing tanks now possible for civilians in Texas

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/life...000263-3275120

[carpedm9587]

Because guns don't kill people any more than cars or other implements.

Oh horse hockey. A gun is a tool DESIGNED to kill. That's it's purpose. That is why it was created. A car is a tool designed to carry people from Point A to Point B. This "people kill people" trope is stupid, IMO. People kill people with guns designed to kill people at a distance and (with today's capabilities) LOTS of people.

You've included suicides, which are not included in "your guns are killing us" And even including them, it's still a miniscule fraction of a percent that have been used to kill. So, again, no. Our guns are not killing us.

And again - the U.S. has more deaths due to guns per capita than ANY other country - including war-torn, terrorist-filled ones. You cannot rationally pretend easy access to guns is not part of the problem.

Again, a miniscule sliver of one percent.

Your percentages are meaningless, Bill. Anyone can drive a percentage down by flooding the market with a product. That doesn't make the product "less dangerous."

No. It's that literally almost no gun owner has used their gun to kill another. The small fraction that have are statistically insignificant. Again, no. Our guns are not killing us.

So we're all being killed by imaginary guns that don't exist... got it...

Really.

Not so much...