Amen to that.
When in doubt I would rather err on the side of caution as once the damage is done it can't be undone.
Cutting CO2 emissions doesn't harm the economy but rather creates new opportunities for new businesses (see Denmark's and Germany's wind power industries). It may harm some old businesses that refuse to adapt, but those may fail sooner or later anyway.
Life is all about change and those who refuse to adapt will sooner or later go the way of the dodo.
As for guns, I don't mind hunting rifles and pistols for the coup de grâce. Those are legal with a permit even in countries with strict gun control like Germany. Even pistols for defending your home are OK with me (though those are usually a greater threat to the owner and his/her family than a potential intruder).
What I find concerning are people who hoard arsenals of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like for "self protection" (true collectors excluded) - against whom they want to protect themselves?
Without getting all "gun nerd" on ya, I do find that I often have this discussion with non gun nerds and my next statement usually shocks them.
I don't support an "assault weapons" ban...but I would support a hand gun ban would one come up.
The reason is, If you go by the numbers, violent crimes are committed by handguns by a large, large margin. More people were actually killed by hammers in 2015 than by "assault rifles".
I keep putting assault rifle in quotes because what is sold to common people at gun shops are not assault rifles at all. They are merely semi-automatic rifles that look like their military counterparts. Calling an AR-15 and a M16 both assault rifles is like calling a Siberian husky and a Timber wolf both Wolves. Here is a cool concise read outlining the difference:
http://tribunist.com/news/when-you-hear-someone-call-an-ar-15-an-assault-rifle-show-them-this/
I'm also ok with high capacity mag bans. Plenty of research has shown that proper practice and training can enable someone to put Rounds down range just as fast with three, ten round magazines as someone untrained with a single 30 round magazine. I've done the drills multiple times and not only am I just as fast with the ten rounders, I'm actually more accurate. A properly trained person can unload and reload their rifle in less than a second.
Furthermore, I think we need to really up the ante with weapons violations punishments. Depending on the severity, I'd be ok with cutting someone's hands off. After all, you can't shoot a gun with no hands.
As for the "what are they protecting themselves from" question, the answer is "the government". The second amendment is the second amendment for a reason. It's that important, otherwise it would be the 12 or 13th. It's literally the second thing they thought of out of all the things they needed to cover. Without a way to encite fear into the government of the citizens being able to defend themselves adequately from oppression, the government has no reason
not to exert control over their citizens. No, a rifle or handgun isn't going to stop a tank, but a few hundred of them will, and plenty of bigger weapons will be lying on the ground if something like this happens, but we have to have a way to get to that point first. Often the threat of force is enough to keep a balance. What did teddy Roosevelt say? "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" Take that stick away, and your leverage is gone. The second amendment is one of the
reasons we have the freedoms we have today, not in spite of it. However, in contrast to that, I will say that buying a Swim cap and shaving you body doesn't make you Michael Phelps. You have to practice and log range time. Responsible gun ownership means not only keeping your weapons out of everyone's hands but your own at all times, but also ensuring you know what the heck your doing with it. That's my biggest beef with most of the gun owners in the country these days, most of them couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag and I'm supposed to be OK with these people carrying in public? No thanks.
Anyway, off my soapbox, and back on topic.
Yes, cutting co2 emissions does indeed harm the economy. Just look at the coal miners in WV that are currently unemployed for an example. These people need work. WV has a really terrible economy now directly due to the clean air act and legislation that has put people out of work. The less people that draw a paycheck, the less income tax the government collects. This state went from a massive tax surplus to a huge deficit in the last 8 years simply from legislation that has shut down coal mines and related businesses.
I'm totally fine with cleaner forms of energy, but These new resources and jobs need to be in place before you phase out the old ones. Otherwise you cut the governmental cash flow and put more people on government assistance. You can't just throw people in poverty like that and say "good luck" (Not you specifically, that's not what I mean).
So anyways, this reply became way more wordy than I intended. I'm all for being a good custodian of the environment, but we need to think about the human impact of this stuff first and the environmental impact second. Get people transitioned to these new jobs instead of pulling the rug out and telling them to wait for a new pie in the sky job opportunity that may or may not come in the next 5-10 years. In the same vein we also need to start make college education more affordable and stop the university extortion of the public, but that's a whole new topic.
Good talk guys!
