When will this stop?
Never, unfortunately.
The problem is that the NRA claims to represent gun owners and defend their rights, not to represent the gun industry.
It is the nature of all lobbying groups to claim they represent far more then their members and major funders. Generally it is done in the disguise of "choice" or "freedom" or your "Rights as a consumer".
And that far too many gun owners believe it.
I feel that is more a flaw of our corporate media and general low level of national debate in this country then the NRA. After all, lobbying groups and politicians are going to keep taking money and exchange it for influence, unless people force them not to.
One more thing:
Groups like the NRA are FAR more powerful then any individual could be. Being a "legal construct" gives you far more real freedoms then any flesh and blood person. Individuals come and go, but the NRA lives on!
If you're reading this thread, you no longer have an excuse. The NRA is sick, and it's full of disingenuous people willing to deceive the American public (poorly, I might add) in order to get what they want.
Going through the thread. What would you say their goal is?
Excluding the NRA's other statements. The statement of how guns in the hands of police officers on school grounds will make them safer and that we protect important things with armed guards. This idea of not protecting our most important aspects of our lives and civilizations, our children, with equal if not greater vigilance and method shows a lack of common sense and more of illogical idealism at its best.
I have experienced this first hand in my life.
She was abducted from a mall that had banned guns, knives, and lead pipes, but also tasers, mace. She was abducted with a FAKE GUN. Now she is dead. She was caught at a moment of opportunity. Where she was seen as being elderly and week, leaving a place of money and disarmament. If she was just ALLOWED to have a gun these two would have NEVER even considered doing this stunt because it could have meant a threat to their health, liberty, and even their life. If there were no guns allowed in the US prior to this time, the story would have not had been much more different, other than perhaps the level of exploration they tried on my good friend but clearly in the verity of targets they would have had, but as guns do exist and even a ban will not keep guns out of the hands of those who are willing to break the law in our nation of freedom and world wide communication, the threat with a fake gun could have still been taken for a valid one.
So if you see the gun tool as some sort of evil (which I personally think is not only very simple, but unrealistically idealistic, as it implies that all killing of humans as evil) you must still accept the Pandora's box situation. Guns are out and about and there is nothing we can do but use these tools to try and counter itself.
|
What is it called when you wince and laugh at the same time and then feel a little guilty about it? Because I just did that.Fortunately he joined the border patrol a few years later and could then shoot Mexicans legally. I'm sure it was a great relief to him.Absolutely. His conviction was thrown out due to improper jury instruction. He was probably still guilty of the crime with which he was charged, assuming the facts outlined in that link are accurate. He committed the act that resulted in the victim's death, he had clear intent to kill, and there were no clear mitigating circumstances that might have otherwise justified the act.My link and your link are the same. Carter got off on a technicality, not because the facts of the case fell in his favor.A group of nuts led by a convicted murderer staged a coup and took the joint over.Half-true; Carter's conviction was overturned on appeal. He did, however, totally shoot and kill a 15 year-old kid who, at the moment of the shooting, likely did not constitute a threat to Carter's life.
We used to say "LoLsob"...
Great. The NRA has become the responsible gun owner's Al Sharpton.
they've been that way for a while. Gun ownership went from half the people all owning one gun to 1 person in 8 owning 4 guns. The only way they can keep the industry going is by selling more and bigger guns to the people who already have them.
So how long do you think it would take for an overworked, underpaid, sleep-deprived teacher to let their guard slip for a second?
I have experienced this first hand in my life.
She was abducted from a mall that had banned guns, knives, and lead pipes, but also tasers, mace. She was abducted with a FAKE GUN.
■ The fake gun used in the case was stolen from The Sports Authority at the mall minutes earlier, and the mall claimed it was done with the help of an employee who provided a device to remove the gun from its packaging, then high-fived Chandler and Baskerville before they left the store. The lawyer for The Sports Authority declined to comment.
...so here's where things come unstuck in the first place.
AT THE MALL.
So yeah, moar guhnz REALLY HELPED poor Bobbie.
fake or otherwise, they had the drop on her regardless, all you would have done is give the guys a real gun when they took hers.
Sorry mate, the rest of your enws article sort of suggests a whole raft of social problems were playing out at the time, and not a one of them is solved with a gun.
■ Customers in the PDQ Mart in Woodbridge said they pleaded with the store manager to call 911, or let them use his phone to call 911, because Bosworth was clearly in trouble. But during the 14 minutes Bosworth and the two teens were there, the store manager refused. The lawyer for the PDQ Mart did not return a call seeking comment.
WHY? Had someone called the cops, NOBODY would be dead?
■ Securitas argued that simply because they were the security guards for the mall they had no duty to protect Bosworth. And under Virginia law, they were right. They were dismissed as defendants. Twice. The Securitas lawyer declined to comment.
You know, guys with guns? Hey look, guns not helping here either...
■ The mall’s general manager repeatedly told his superiors of the problems with gang violence there (Chandler and Baskerville were “Bloods” wannabes). In 2007, the manager wrote, “We have the beginnings of a gang war here in Springfield. The mall may easily become the chosen battlefield.” The lawyer for Vornado said he had no comment.
Still no guin solution here either.
Seems the BEST WEAPON here would have been what we call a telephone.
One call to the cops.
A whole lot of phone calls later to the mayor.
Your solution would have just seen dead bodies.
So how long do you think it would take for an overworked, underpaid, sleep-deprived teacher to let their guard slip for a second?
Not long.
How long you reckon before a bunch of bored teen students tried stealing the gun 'for teh lulz'?
Or some kid gets shot by an armed teacher "breaking up a fight"?
Wait, so you are suggesting that there could actually be a significant number of situations in which teachers having guns could lead to a range of likely unwanted consequences and deaths by accident (or design) that we can already clearly forsee? Whodathunkit!
Excluding the NRA's other statements. The statement of how guns in the hands of police officers on school grounds will make them safer and that we protect important things with armed guards. This idea of not protecting our most important aspects of our lives and civilizations, our children, with equal if not greater vigilance and method shows a lack of common sense and more of illogical idealism at its best.
I have experienced this first hand in my life.
She was abducted from a mall that had banned guns, knives, and lead pipes, but also tasers, mace. She was abducted with a FAKE GUN. Now she is dead. She was caught at a moment of opportunity. Where she was seen as being elderly and week, leaving a place of money and disarmament. If she was just ALLOWED to have a gun these two would have NEVER even considered doing this stunt because it could have meant a threat to their health, liberty, and even their life. If there were no guns allowed in the US prior to this time, the story would have not had been much more different, other than perhaps the level of exploration they tried on my good friend but clearly in the verity of targets they would have had, but as guns do exist and even a ban will not keep guns out of the hands of those who are willing to break the law in our nation of freedom and world wide communication, the threat with a fake gun could have still been taken for a valid one.
So if you see the gun tool as some sort of evil (which I personally think is not only very simple, but unrealistically idealistic, as it implies that all killing of humans as evil) you must still accept the Pandora's box situation. Guns are out and about and there is nothing we can do but use these tools to try and counter itself.
Maybe you overlooked it earlier in the thread. I commented that the Columbine High School had an armed guard the day of the shooting.
I made this point, because the presence of an armed guard is not a guarantee of preventing a shooting.
Going through the thread. What would you say their goal is?
If you're reading this thread, you no longer have an excuse. The NRA is sick, and it's full of disingenuous people willing to deceive the American public (poorly, I might add) in order to get what they want.
The NRA is a registered 501(c)(4) organization - a lobbying group, in other words. In fact, they are either the 1st or 2nd most powerful lobbying group in the country, depending on who you ask. It is, essentially, the political arm of the conventional firearms industry, and is supported by the people it manages to rope into believing that their rights are endangered, that owning guns is of critical importance, and that giving money to the NRA is the best way to protect the America they love.
Their off-the-wall press conference makes a lot more sense when you come at it from the standpoint of a heavily-invested lobbying group trying desperately to clean up its industry's PR disaster.
It's also worth noting that the NRA's attempt to (comically) blame video games isn't necessarily an attempt to destroy the video games industry. Even they probably don't believe that America will decide to blame video games for Connecticut. What they're trying to do is change the topic of the national conversation. The more people talking about whether video games are to blame (even if they're saying, "Of course video games aren't to blame!"), the fewer people there are talking about how firearms can be linked to criminal violence.
Just stopping by to remind you that, as with tabletop games, no proven correlation has ever been made between video games and real life violence,
AND
As with tabletop gamers, incidences per capita of attempted suicide, successful suicide, and other violence for video gamers is lower than amongst groups of their non-playing peers,
AND AS IS MOST IMPORTANT TO THIS THREAD:
You should NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER blindly trust the mouthpiece of an organization when its "best suggestion" is a future filled with what that organization stands for.
In other words, anybody here who believes the NRA has only your best interest at heart when it envisions a future where every child in America is brought up under a culture of persistent guns, where their teachers are armed, where their schools are filled with armed custodians and guards, and where every person in that child's life is an open carrier, well then you should just wrap your lips around a tailpipe and inhale for all you're worth the next time some oil company promises you that the world will be better off because their gas has slightly fewer pollutants than the next brand.
The only sane future is one where guns are steadily weeded out of our lives, until the best and only important thing about them at all, is that they are fun to pretend to shoot in a video game.
|
You should NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER blindly trust the mouthpiece of an organization when its "best suggestion" is a future filled with what that organization stands for.
So if Paizo tries to convince me that re-upping my subscribing to the APs will also renew my man card, cook my dinner and magically grant me six-pack abs (nay, *eight* pack abs, but only if you order in the next 15 minutes!), I should stop to think that maybe there's a teensy little conflict of interest there?
Ah, what a world that would be, where the RPG lobby was some shadowy organization that had it's own 'model legislation' writing body, and multiple congresscritters in it's nasty pocketses. :)
Lisa could give rambling press conferences blaming the upswing in fireball massacres and longsword rampages on the natural gas industry and steelworkers and dairy farmers (leaving even her supporters thinking, 'dairy farmers? wth?').
I am more concerned about the IPCC, WWF, Greenpeace, and so on ad nauseam, preaching as the solution for the world's ailments to be more control of people's lives, more wealth transfer from the rich to the poor countries, more power for environmental organizations, more administrative control of every human activity "for environmental purposes", a suspension of democracy to solve the environmental crisis, and so on, and the thousands of intelligence and anti-terrorist organizations talking about how there should be more control of the individual, less integrity vs the state, more surveillance and surveillance systems, more checkpoints, more administrative power to pro-surveillance functionaries, more legislation to "protect the public", and so on and so forth...
The NRA seems to me to be merely more obviously a lobbying organization.
I enjoy the fact that you think being nice to poor people is more problematic than having more guns in our culture.
If all they did was "being nice to poor people" I wouldn't have a problem with them.
A healthy world is one where the fanatical environmentalists get supreme power in all things?
If all they did was "being nice to poor people" I wouldn't have a problem with them.
As long as we're going to be inaccurate about the NRA, I can be inaccurate about those other organizations too, right?
It is just fascinating that it is obvious to people here that the NRA is a lobby group and that its claims of representing anything but the interests of their industry are only a smokescreen. It is an entirely different matter with the IPCC, apparently that is not a lobbying group and they DO represent salvation for our planet. Funny how people see things, is all. Personally, I think the NRA can rot in Hell, I have no arguments for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading most of this thread, I am (again) very glad that the only guns I have ever actually seen were carried by policemen. And that the majority of these policemen will never have to use their weapons on duty.
That knowledge makes me feel safer than any gun of any size I could carry with me.
IMO, the NRA has lost the last shred of credibility they could have ever possesses. They could have come to the table with real, meaningful reform. I mean, sure, they represent a group that wants to sell guns to the masses. I get that. But they can do so in a responsible way. They could offer things like magazine limits, purchasers of military grade weapons must must go for a psych evaluation or demonstrate a need to own such a weapon, a retooling of certain weapons to make conversion to fully automatic more difficult.
But no, video games are the problem and putting armed guards in schools is their solution. If they were genuinely serious about reforms, I'm sure the Dems in congress would be happy to have them at the negotiating table to write whatever law is going to come out of this. But with whatever they were shoveling, I doubt they are going to be welcome at any negotiating table.
Get well soon, Mikhail!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is just fascinating that it is obvious to people here that the NRA is a lobby group and that its claims of representing anything but the interests of their industry are only a smokescreen. It is an entirely different matter with the IPCC, apparently that is not a lobbying group and they DO represent salvation for our planet. Funny how people see things, is all. Personally, I think the NRA can rot in Hell, I have no arguments for them.
Seriously? The IPCC is going to be your pick?
The organization that is constantly undergoing peer review from thousands of scientists around the world. You want to put them in the same category as the NRA?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is inevitable that people will snap and seek to kill others. Even if we were to give some credence to the claims that video games, music, astrology, and whatever else are 'responsible'... the fact that attacks like this occur in radically different cultures throughout the world and back through history shows that the 'impact' of these common scapegoats is minimal at best.
Rather, there are really only two significant factors at play here.
1: How easy it is for a dangerous person to get hold of a weapon
2: How destructive that weapon is
The same day as the attack in Sandy Hook another man snapped and went on a violent rampage at a school... in China... with a knife. He chased and stabbed more than 20 young children before being run off by some adults with brooms. However, there were no fatalities.
AR-15 in the US = 27 dead
Knife in China = 0 dead
It should be a simple cost benefit analysis. Banning civilian access to knives would actually cost more lives than it saved. Banning civilian access to large magazine / high rate of fire weapons, on the other hand, would save many lives and cost nothing but lost enjoyment of collectors and target shooters. I'm sure that some people would enjoy owning and safely setting off nuclear weapons too... but fortunately not even the NRA is crazy enough to ignore THAT cost/benefit disparity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is just fascinating that it is obvious to people here that the NRA is a lobby group and that its claims of representing anything but the interests of their industry are only a smokescreen. It is an entirely different matter with the IPCC, apparently that is not a lobbying group and they DO represent salvation for our planet. Funny how people see things, is all. Personally, I think the NRA can rot in Hell, I have no arguments for them.
The gun industry in America makes billions of dollars a year. Making sure people are scared in their boots and buying guns to "protect" them is part of the business. The NRA is a lobbying group that works under the direction of the gun industry.
The IPCC is NOT a lobbying group. It is a global, intergovernmental scientific organization. Where is the profit motive in getting people to reduce carbon emissions?
I mean, seriously, you sound like a wackadoo. You're not even comparing apples to oranges here, you're comparing apples to computers.
|
It is just fascinating that it is obvious to people here that the NRA is a lobby group and that its claims of representing anything but the interests of their industry are only a smokescreen. It is an entirely different matter with the IPCC, apparently that is not a lobbying group and they DO represent salvation for our planet. Funny how people see things, is all. Personally, I think the NRA can rot in Hell, I have no arguments for them.The gun industry in America makes billions of dollars a year. Making sure people are scared in their boots and buying guns to "protect" them is part of the business. The NRA is a lobbying group that works under the direction of the gun industry.
The IPCC is NOT a lobbying group. It is a global, intergovernmental scientific organization. Where is the profit motive in getting people to reduce carbon emissions?
I mean, seriously, you sound like a wackadoo. You're not even comparing apples to oranges here, you're comparing apples to computers.
You doubt there there are industries poised to make a huge profit on the green movement?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You doubt there there are industries poised to make a huge profit on the green movement?
I think you sort of answer your own question if you think about it.
"Poised." Yes, there are hypothetical companies that may or may not exist yet that could make money off the green movement. Since alternative energy STILL isn't heavily invested in, those industries don't have the money to lobby with any serious effect. And even so, the entire point of alternative/sustainable energy sources is that they require enormous initial investment in infrastructure but are virtually free in the long-term. Therefore anyone making a long-term investment in such a company, such that it could sway the minds of the entire world to invest in it, would not see a dime of their returns in that long-term.EVEN IF THEY DID, the IPCC is not such a lobbying group. They are scientists from a plurality of nations, so the assertion that a) some company or companies (which you couldn't name if you tried) have somehow subverted the integrity, individually, of thousands of scientists who b) all have other employers and day jobs, and contribute on a volunteer and nonpaid basis, thus removing the profit motive for them from the IPCC, is absurd.
And even if THAT were the case. People have been crying about global warming for 40 years and trying to push for sustainable energy solutions. The idea that, now that SOME people are listening, and there's SOME minor (comparatively) investment in said sustainable energy solutions, that retroactively that makes the data going back 2/5 of a century a massive rouse on behalf of companies that did not exist at the time, all done by (again) a plurality of individual scientists working for a huge variety of oranizations, universities, etc... That suggestion? It is conspiracy theory on the level of "flying nazis that live inside the hollow earth", and deserves to be mocked as such.
the videogames hasn´t the fault, im a psichologist and newest research says that the subject came with his own issues and blame the games. the same for the music.
someone remember when every time some gringo kills a lot of gringos, the news always blame marilyn manson or videogames, or even D&D
when i was younger, i remember one news where a kid kills his family or shoot them or alike, and the reporter at his home took a ravenloft book and yield "evil stuffs in his possetions, he adore the evil"
im still laugh at all of that.
the games, movies, cartoons, music, even the guns hasn´t the fault of one guy take his mental illnes and start to shooting to anyone!!
i have a pair of guns at my place, im a videogame player, i hear rock, metal, classic, jazz, bosa nova, tango, etc. i play tablegames, and im 30 yo, and never happen nothing to me, or my family (my child knows the power of the weapons, he watch at tv violence, and he blames you the gringos for making the boriest tv ever...)
he plays soccer, and is yelow band in wushu... he read a lot of books (tolkien, lovecraft, baudelaire, etc) and his only 10 and believe me, here in my country, never gonna watch those news from someone killing someone only for the videogames!!
thats all your goverment fault since they sell guns as a popkorn, and sensure evrything with blood
my son and i laugh with the movies without blood because, youre goverment has to take it away to show you something not real happenning instead the flying man at the screen!!
start chats with youre childrens, stop blaming the enterteinment and start blaming your guns regulations!!
■ The fake gun used in the case was stolen from The Sports Authority at the mall minutes earlier, and the mall claimed it was done with the help of an employee who provided a device to remove the gun from its packaging, then high-fived Chandler and Baskerville before they left the store. The lawyer for The Sports Authority declined to comment.
See I can bold things too.
So yeah, moar guhnz REALLY HELPED poor Bobbie.
fake or otherwise, they had the drop on her regardless, all you would have done is give the guys a real gun when they took hers.
Stop with the straw-man argument.
1. I wasn't arguing that if she had a gun it would be different.
2. She didn't have one so we don't know what would have happened.
3. If she did we don't know would have happened.
To remind you, my argument that the ability to simply have guns at the location could have prevented the confrontation, as it would have no-longer seen as a point of opportunity.
Oh...
"Securitas argued that simply because they were the security guards for the mall they had no duty to protect Bosworth. And under Virginia law, they were right. They were dismissed as defendants. Twice. The Securitas lawyer declined to comment."
Can't trust anyone to take any responsibility for your safety other than for yourself.
Maybe you overlooked it earlier in the thread. I commented that the Columbine High School had an armed guard the day of the shooting.
I made this point, because the presence of an armed guard is not a guarantee of preventing a shooting.
And that is supposed to mean what? Guns are not perfect, and nether are the one's wielding it. Nothing is perfect and that is clear. Just got to do the best you can. So yeah the guard didn't work. However they were safer with one there.
Fire Fighters don't save everyone caught in a fire all the time.
Stop with the straw-man argument.1. I wasn't arguing that if she had a gun it would be different.
2. She didn't have one so we don't know what would have happened.
3. If she did we don't know would have happened.
Yey you said...
If she was just ALLOWED to have a gun these two would have NEVER even considered doing this stunt because it could have meant a threat to their health, liberty, and even their life.
Thats pretty absolute right there. I bolded it in case you missed the statement you are now trying to deny you made.
I'd also point out that the Mall 'code of conduct' is not a law, they are simply asking you not to carry a weapon. They have no way of knowing whether you have one or not, so it's still your choice to carry.
They weren't stopping people at the front gate and strip searching people, so I don't see how your point stands up.
Was she a registered gun owner?
Did she normally carry, except in this instance left her gun elsewhere because of the policy? Can you provide a source?
You doubt there there are industries poised to make a huge profit on the green movement?I think you sort of answer your own question if you think about it.
"Poised." Yes, there are hypothetical companies that may or may not exist yet that could make money off the green movement. Since alternative energy STILL isn't heavily invested in, those industries don't have the money to lobby with any serious effect. And even so, the entire point of alternative/sustainable energy sources is that they require enormous initial investment in infrastructure but are virtually free in the long-term. Therefore anyone making a long-term investment in such a company, such that it could sway the minds of the entire world to invest in it, would not see a dime of their returns in that long-term.EVEN IF THEY DID, the IPCC is not such a lobbying group. They are scientists from a plurality of nations, so the assertion that a) some company or companies (which you couldn't name if you tried) have somehow subverted the integrity, individually, of thousands of scientists who b) all have other employers and day jobs, and contribute on a volunteer and nonpaid basis, thus removing the profit motive for them from the IPCC, is absurd.
And even if THAT were the case. People have been crying about global warming for 40 years and trying to push for sustainable energy solutions. The idea that, now that SOME people are listening, and there's SOME minor (comparatively) investment in said sustainable energy solutions, that retroactively that makes the data going back 2/5 of a century a massive rouse on behalf of companies that did not exist at the time, all done by (again) a plurality of individual scientists working for a huge variety of oranizations, universities, etc... That suggestion? It is conspiracy theory on the level of "flying nazis that live inside the hollow earth", and deserves to be mocked as such.
The environmental organizations have been crying about the coming enviropocalypse for decades. Twenty years ago, it was seriously claimed that the atmosphere would be ripped away from the earth in fifty years. Then it was claimed that the sea level would rise by a rather impressive 70 meters (!!!) in fifty years. Now it's called climate change, always with the doom date set to fifty years away. Global warming was apparently not really the big problem, given that there has been snow in Iraq and Turkey these last few winters, so now they call it climate change instead. There has been clear data showing that extreme weather has become LESS frequent, and yet they claim now that every big storm is a sign of an INCREASED frequency due to our sinful living. Even data well and truly debunked is revived, such as the infamous "hockey stick" curve. Their quality control is so lacking that they use any data they can find, i.e. the famous glacier meltdown in thirty years data. Their precious climate model is based on data that has been destroyed when they moved (I am not joking here, sadly), and claims that there was a severe deep freeze during the 60s. Since this might get its reliability questioned, they cut in tree ring data to "hide the decline" there.
I could go on. Point is: If they were truly so certain of their cause, they wouldn't need to cover up or dissemble. And yet they do. Worst of all, they are always referring to "consensus", which is not part of the scientific method at any point, and anyone who does not agree with them is shouted down, including calling them paranoid, corrupt, or equally bizarre things (nazis inside the Earth, anyone?).
Stands to gain? Yes. It has been true for a good long while now that you can't publish or work in the environmental science area if you question the AGW hypothesis.
I suggest you read the treaties signed at Copenhagen, Durban, Rio and so on before claiming MY viewpoint is the nutty one. Seriously.
EDIT: Sorry for editing, should have put in a new message.
I suggest you read the treaties signed at Copenhagen, Durban, Rio...
Why don't you just tell me what you're on about instead of making me do your homework for you?
Working in the insurance/reinsurance industry, I can tell you that the occurence frequency of of big time, bad-ass natural disasters IS rising.
As your insurance fees, obviously... :)
The environmental treaties these last few years have been increasingly bizarre. They are always claimed to be failures, that the biggest polluters do not sign up for big enough limitations. America always seems to draw the process out, only to turn around at the last possible moment to agree completely and sign all of it. And the weeks after the signing, every environmental organization complains that since this wasn't enough, we are ALL DOOMED (tm). In fifty years (tm).
What the treaties actually DO accomplish is not discussed in the media. Each of them builds up funds of truly staggering amounts of money. Not just one, either, but dozens and dozens of them. They also detail how these funds are going to be governed - and at no point is there any discussion of any kind of democratic influence on the process.
Why isn't this discussed? Because people might feel a pissy economy while enormous amounts is pulled out is an equation they don't like? I find it strange that these treaties are even called climate treaties.
Oh, and I think it was the Durban treaty that actually claimed that war was going to disappear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the treaties actually DO is virtually nothing, since they're not binding, and they attempt to (among other things) use economic means to an ecological end, I agree. They fail to collect anything near this amount because, again, it's non-binding and people are loathe to give up money. The amount of money they WANT to collect, some 300 billion by 2020? Is the tiniest of fractions of the GDP of the countries involved, and less than half of what the US alone spend on military budget in a single year.
Why don't you enlighten us as to what exactly you're afraid the lunatic's favorite bogeyman, the UN, is going to do to you.
Ah, I forgot the best part. Annex I countries (the industrialized countries) will need to reduce their carbon emissions by MORE THAN 100% compared to 1990 levels by 2040.
Consider it. Consider it VERY carefully. Enjoy breathing while you're still allowed to.