Just another school shooting, yawn.

[boing]

Fentanyl is a synthesized opioid 50x stronger than heroin and 100x more potent than morphine. In 2020, fentanyl was listed as the leading cause of death among Americans between the ages of 18-45. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were roughly 107,600 drug overdose deaths in the US in 2021 – a 15% increase from the year previous. Of those deaths, roughly 66% involved fentanyl.

100,000 drug overdose deaths in one year but everyone wants to ban firearms that are responsible for a comparably small amount of deaths. Now, who would be pushing the use of fentanyl, well, that well-known City of New York telling you how to take an ultra-lethal drug safely. You can even feel empowered.

When the US government starts taking deadly illegal drugs seriously and keeping known killers off the streets I will start looking at their gun safety ideas, until then they are a joke.

.

[PHXPhlyer]

Fentanyl is a synthesized opioid 50x stronger than heroin and 100x more potent than morphine. In 2020, fentanyl was listed as the leading cause of death among Americans between the ages of 18-45. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were roughly 107,600 drug overdose deaths in the US in 2021 – a 15% increase from the year previous. Of those deaths, roughly 66% involved fentanyl.

100,000 drug overdose deaths in one year but everyone wants to ban firearms that are responsible for a comparably small amount of deaths. Now, who would be pushing the use of fentanyl, well, that well-known City of New York telling you how to take an ultra-lethal drug safely. You can even feel empowered.

fentanyl-1200x640.jpg

When the US government starts taking deadly illegal drugs seriously and keeping known killers off the streets I will start looking at their gun safety ideas, until then they are a joke.

.

Somewhat agree.
The local news has almost as many articles on a daily basis regarding major drug busts (fentanyl, meth, and heroin usually together) as gun violence deaths.
These entail thousands of pills, pounds and pounds of heroin and meth, illegal guns, and large amounts of cash.
Unfortunately, for every one bust no telling how much more gets through to where ever.

PP

[llondel]

A lot of drug overdose deaths are because of unknown quality and dubious additives. The other argument there is to legalise, regulate and tax it all and let people take the stuff if they want to. Add legislation that doubles sentences for crimes committed under the influence, and laws mirroring the alcohol-related restrictions for certain activities. Darwin will take care of those who really want to overdose, the rest can benefit from a safer environment and available help if they ask for it. Chances are it will reduce drug-related crime and the costs associated with it.

[Woody]

[Dushan]

You see, it’s not the gun, it’s the perp.

But a perp with a knife kills people at a slower rate than one with an AR-15 and there's more chance to stop him because he's got to get close to people.

That may be, but it's still the perp and not the gun. The gun is an inanimate object being use illegally. By itself it does nothing. In hands of law abiding it does nothing nefarious. Stop obsessing on guns and start thinking about the real problem that is causing the criminals to commit crimes. There are thousands of gun laws all designed to prevent events like these, yet the carnage continues. 300 million (low estimate) guns in hands of 200 million law abiding people are not the problem. The problem is the few hundred/thousand individuals who commit crimes. Let's deal with them before we start taking constitutional rights from law abiding citizens.

[llondel]

Let's deal with them before we start taking constitutional rights from law abiding citizens.

The 2A gives the right to bear arms. Who defines the term "arms"? Clearly it doesn't cover all weapons because there are certain weapons that are not allowed, so the definition itself is not written into the Constitution and can be changed by Congress. If we want to go by the intent of the Founding Fathers, I'd say that the definition should be restricted to what was available when it was written because clearly that's what they had in mind.

[John Hill]

If the right to bear arms is so important why are there so many people without guns?

If it is a phreaking right everyone should be issued with a gun!

[boing]

Except Llondel the reason why people were to bear arms is to protect themselves from tyrannical government. You surely cannot believe that the framers were not thinking ahead, they demonstrated their foresight in many areas. When they stated "arms" they clearly meant, in light of their intentions, that the arms of the citizen would be equal, or they would probably have said better, than those available to any tyrant. That is the simplest logical explanation of the 2nd and this is confirmed when viewed in the light of later commentaries in the Federalist Papers. It is totally beyond belief that the framers, having recently gone through a war of independence, would decide that future arms would be only those intended for hunting and recreation.

John. This country has freedoms, that's the whole point you seem to miss, you are free to have a gun, you are free to not have a gun. A small minority manage to have guns when they shouldn't. The trick is to legislate in such a way that people who should not have guns are denied ownership while the rights of the majority are protected by the Constitution - that's the tricky bit. People are truly suspicious of the government, an example would be a California law banning certain weapons by name. Some people could live with a list of banned guns but the law, after defining the list, had to conclude with a statement something like "and any other firearms that may be added to this list in the future". That was an immediate red flag that turned many basically sympathetic people suspicious.

.

[llondel]

Except Llondel the reason why people were to bear arms is to protect themselves from tyrannical government. You surely cannot believe that the framers were not thinking ahead, they demonstrated their foresight in many areas. When they stated "arms" they clearly meant, in light of their intentions, that the arms of the citizen would be equal, or they would probably have said better, than those available to any tyrant. That is the simplest logical explanation of the 2nd and this is confirmed when viewed in the light of later commentaries in the Federalist Papers. It is totally beyond belief that the framers, having recently gone through a war of independence, would decide that future arms would be only those intended for hunting and recreation.

But clearly they are not equal. Assuming the armed forces would stand with the government and fire on their fellow citizens, they have way more firepower. Artillery, aircraft, bombs, missiles, tanks, all sorts of stuff.

[G-CPTN]

Identified by her shoes.

and:- budding artist

[boing]

Llondel.
That is a very great assumption. Remember that the military oath's first section is to pledge loyalty to the Constitution.

.

[Dushan]

Let's deal with them before we start taking constitutional rights from law abiding citizens.

The 2A gives the right to bear arms. Who defines the term "arms"? Clearly it doesn't cover all weapons because there are certain weapons that are not allowed, so the definition itself is not written into the Constitution and can be changed by Congress. If we want to go by the intent of the Founding Fathers, I'd say that the definition should be restricted to what was available when it was written because clearly that's what they had in mind.

Remember that the 2A was written with intent to give "the people" the ability to confront a tyrannical government. So whatever the government had, at the time, would have been appropriate, just like now. And don't confuse "the government", such as police with the "armed forces" whose purpose is to defend the USA from foreign enemies.

So if the police and the ATF and FBI and the hundred other agencies can carry AR-15s so can the people.

[Dushan]

If the right to bear arms is so important why are there so many people without guns?

If it is a phreaking right everyone should be issued with a gun!

It's a right (I know a foreign concept for some here) not a requirement.

Some people choose to own firearms and some don't. It is a free country (another foreign concept).

[llondel]

Let's deal with them before we start taking constitutional rights from law abiding citizens.

The 2A gives the right to bear arms. Who defines the term "arms"? Clearly it doesn't cover all weapons because there are certain weapons that are not allowed, so the definition itself is not written into the Constitution and can be changed by Congress. If we want to go by the intent of the Founding Fathers, I'd say that the definition should be restricted to what was available when it was written because clearly that's what they had in mind.

Remember that the 2A was written with intent to give "the people" the ability to confront a tyrannical government. So whatever the government had, at the time, would have been appropriate, just like now. And don't confuse "the government", such as police with the "armed forces" whose purpose is to defend the USA from foreign enemies.

So if the police and the ATF and FBI and the hundred other agencies can carry AR-15s so can the people.

If you've got a tyrannical government then I don't think they'll be worried about the finer points of using the armed forces against domestic enemies. It'll be a police officer nominally in charge with a bunch of soldiers as deputies to do the real work. Always assuming, as I said, that the armed forces would obey such orders.

[Dushan]

Always assuming, as I said, that the armed forces would obey such orders.

As boing pointed out the oath is to the Constitution not some fat policeman.

[Undried Plum]

Remember that the 2A was written with intent to give "the people" the ability to confront a tyrannical government.

2A was a botched cut'n'paste job from The Bill of Rights, as were several others from the first few Amendments to the hasty scribblings of the first draught of the communistic constitution of The Empire.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Whilst things are peaceable, you don't necessarily need the equipment, but you still need the right, if things go screwy.
When you do need a 'militia', as in Ukraine right now, you don't need everyone to have a weapon. There are huge numbers of Ukrainians doing their bit by distributing aid, keeping the children entertained in the shelters, or towing MBTs away with tractors. And, of course, planting crops with those same tractors. We all gotta eat. But you do need some to step up, get handed a rifle, and go do the nasty on the bad guys. It helps if they've handled a weapon before. Because if they haven't......

[prospector]

Why is it that so many folk in America are so upset about firearms in America, yet are quite happy to spend billions of dollars on armaments that kill multitudes of people in other countries?? Of course the answer is obvious, once again follow the money trail. Saw a list published the other day, may be able to find it again, with the names of Congress members and senators and the share holdings they have with the companies that get the huge orders from the Pentagon daily.