Climate Cult Now Linking “Gun Violence” To Climate Crisis (scam)

Have I seen this one before? I’m not sure, at least in this specific manner. But, this is a cult, so, no matter the issue, they’ll link it

Is climate change linked to gun violence? A new study shows how KC area is impacted

On the hottest day of 2022 in Kansas City, three people were shot and killed. Three more were shot and survived, the Kansas City Police Department said.

The temperature clocked in at 101 degrees on July 23, according to Jared Leighton, a lead forecaster with the National Weather Service in Kansas City.

With 171 homicides, this year became the second deadliest on record in Kansas City — and some of those fatal shootings may be linked to an unexpected cause: climate change.

Researchers analyzed more than 116,000 shootings in 100 cities and found that nearly 7% could be attributed to days with above-average temperatures, not only in the summer, but also at other times of the year when it was unseasonably warm.

In Kansas City, Missouri, the percentage of shootings tied to days with above-average temperatures was 6.13%, while in Kansas City, Kansas, it was 7.86%, according to the study published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“An increase in warmer temperatures and more frequent extreme heat events due to climate change may create environments with higher risk of firearm violence in the future,” the study said.

So, people are more likely to be out and about committing crime when it’s warmer? Huh. What does this have to do with a slight rise in temperatures over the past 170 years, which the climate cultists blame on Mankind?

Anecdotally, more violence occurs in the hotter months, said Janell Friesen, spokeswoman for the Unified Government’s Public Health Department. She noted that the study also touches on environmental justice.

“Structural racism and discriminatory policies and practices have led to inequities in the impact of climate change and environmental hazards, including a greater impact on BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of color),” Friesen said. “The Health Department is working to better understand how it can tackle environmental justice issues, and how this connects to addressing other public health issues like violence.”

Good grief. Oh, wait, is Friesen and the health department saying that BIPOC folks are more likely to get violent and shoot things up when it gets warmer? Isn’t that racist?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

18 Responses to “Climate Cult Now Linking “Gun Violence” To Climate Crisis (scam)”

  1. H says:

    About 6000 children in the USA were wounded or killed by gunz in 2022.
    When will gun grabbers start allowing children to be armed for self defense?

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      About 500,000 prenatal children were deliberately murdered by abortion in the USA last year. When will abortionists be outlawed?

      Remember when Biden bragged about using taxpayer dollars to get the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter fired?

      Well on Dec. 27 the USVI AG filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan for its support of Jeffrey Epstein

      Biden flew down to USVI same day

      Just days later, the USVI AG was fired

      I’m sure it’s just a coincidence!

      Once the pedo put his foot down shit happens. Liars, all liars.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      State and local laws putting age restrictions appear to be unConstitutional.

      2nd Amendment:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Conservatives have effectively shortened the Amendment to: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

      Based on that, it appears that there is no Constitutional basis for infringing the right of youngsters to keep and bear Arms. Of course, the dirty little secret is that the Constitution does not determine what is Constitutional, but the Supreme Court does.

      Common sense informs that 8 year old boys shouldn’t have pistols and that mentally unstable men shouldn’t have AR-15s, but the Constitution, ya know.

      • Dana says:

        The Supreme Court has held that minors have fewer rights than adults, though in no case of which I have heard has the Court stated that the rights of minors under the Second Amendment are restricted.

        A person’s constitutional rights can be restricted, under the Fourteenth Amendment, as long as due process of law is followed. That means, in effect, those convicted of felonies can and do lose some of their constitutional rights, including their Second Amendment rights and right to vote. But simply declaring someone to be mentally unstable, without a legal determination of such, should be insufficient to suspend someone’s constitutional rights.

        Of course, the laws which have been passed which could have at least made things more difficult for a few mass shooters have frequently been ignored. The Colorado Springs shooter could have been charged for his previous standoff with police, and a felony conviction would have barred him from owning a firearm. Colorado had one of the so-called ‘red flag’ laws, but such was never used against him. Nikolas Cruz, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School killer, had many interactions with the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, but they always let him go, so he had no criminal record when he wanted to buy an AR-15. The oh-so-sympathetic liberals infesting the Broward County School Board, not wanting Mr Cruz put into the ‘school-to-prison pipeline,’ declined to refer Mr Cruz to law enforcement for an in-school assault, which, if convicted, would have barred him from buying an AR-15.

        • Professor Hale says:

          Of course, we have been through all of this before. The Democratic party activists don’t read anything from our side so they act as if they are making some new creative argument each time. Gun ownership policy has been argued and discussed for HUNDREDS of years. There is literally no new argument that can be made.

          I myself recall just a few months ago responding to Hairy (total waste of my time) that minors do indeed have a God-Given right to self preservation (natural law for atheists) and that their parents exercise that right on their behalf with gun ownership or hiring armed guards until they reach the age of majority, just as they under the law exercise and hold other rights on behalf of their children.

      • alanstorm says:

        Conservatives have effectively shortened the Amendment to: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

        Well, child, that’s because the first part is an explanatory clause. It has no legal meaning.

        Since it carries no weight, the 2nd Amendment boils down to…

        Wait for it…

        Keep waiting…

        “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

        Considering that the founders were about 3,000% more intelligent than you and had just finished a war in order to run their own affairs, second-guessing them is an idiot’s game.

        The fact that you play this game with abandon is telling.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Oh Stormy,

          “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”, is exactly what I said! Thanks for agreeing.

          But the fact is that the Supreme Court justices second guess the founders all the time, don’t they? Five justices decide what “infringed” means. Another five justices might change the definition!

          Clearly, the Court permitted “infringing” the right of Americans to keep and bear machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. It seems you support some infringement after all.

          Why do YOU think “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”, is so flexible?

          Do you think the founders added that meaningless bit about militias to confuse the issue?

          • david7134 says:

            You have zero idea as to the Constitution. This set of rules dictates what the government can do. If a particular problem is not mentioned in the Constitution, then the government can not act on it. But, the Founding Fathers knew that ass holes like yourself would try to manipulate the law for their purposes so they set up the Bill of Rights, thus the second amendment. Now, go to the Federalist Papers to understand what the Fathers were thinking in writing up an amendment. In the last 250 years, the second amendment does reserve our ability to own guns. Then you favorite bit of stupidity has to do with machine guns. Yes, you can own such an item and many of my friends do own them. But the government being ass holes like yourself know the the Constitution allows ownership so they disregard the law and prosecute those that purchase guns that they deem frightening. They know you can not afford to fight the disregard of your rights.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            david c,

            The government infringes the right to keep and bear a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun. You may not understand what infringe means.

            Calling people assholes is not much of an argument but we are all far too familiar with your limited abilities and resulting frustration.

            The question is: Why are some infringements OK, but not others?

          • david7134 says:

            Sorry but since you called Kye’s wife a whore, I can’t help but call you an ass hole. And, I don’t “discuss” with you.

          • Elwood P Dowd says:

            Fair enough, daffy dave d.

            I’ll just ignore your ignorance from now on.

  2. Born in the USA Elwood P. Dowd says:

    A zygote, embryo or fetus is neither child nor person so cannot be “murdered”.

    Ukrainian Prosecutor Shokin was not fired for investigating Hunter Biden, but for general corruption. The EU had been urging Shokin’s firing too.

    The US Virgin Island AG Denise George WAS fired by Gov Bryan after George filed a massive lawsuit against JPMorgan, related to the Epstein trafficking case. Bryan had been unhappy with George before the JPMorgan suit. Why does Lucifer think that President Biden would protect JPMorgan??

    • Dana says:

      The Uneducated in the law in the USA Mr Dowd wrote:

      A zygote, embryo or fetus is neither child nor person so cannot be “murdered”.

      This is untrue. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004:

      recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”[1]

      The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism. Due to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual U.S. states, although 38 states also recognize the fetus or “unborn child” as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.

      The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not “be construed to permit the prosecution” “of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf”, “of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child” or “of any woman with respect to her unborn child”. The reticence of a federal law to authorize federal prosecution of a particular act committed under federal jurisdiction does not prevent states from passing their own laws against the act committed under their jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the definition of all unborn babies as “members of the species homo sapiens” in section (d) says what proposed “personhood” laws say.[3] Sponsors of such proposals say such legal language will trigger the collapse clause in Roe v. Wade, by establishing what they suggest Roe said must be established for legal abortion to end.[4] Several state supreme courts have ruled that sections (a) through (c) are not threatened by Roe,[5] but no court has addressed whether Roe can survive the suggested triggering of its collapse clause by section (d).

      The repugnant and now overturned Roe v Wade decision turned on the declaration that preborn children were not legal persons, which was pretty much the same reasoning employed by Chief Justice Roget Taney in Dred Scott v Sandford, which held that Negroes did not have the constitutional rights of white Americans because white Americans did not see them as equal. Germany during the 1930s, though they had a far different legal system, essentially held that Jews simply had no legal rights in Germany, albeit they took rights from the Jews piecemeal rather than whole.

      The distinguished Mr Dowd, like so many of his liberal colleagues, apparently sees nothing wrong with declaring some people non-persons.

      • Elwood P Dowd says:

        One difference is that Negroes and Jews were and are recognized as human persons. Other persons (KKK and Nazis, respectively) did not respect that. Zygotes et al are not persons.

        It is possible that conservatives will pass laws over the objections of the citizenry declaring that fertilized eggs are “persons”, but their objective is not to save “lives” but to control women. Millions of “babies” will still be flushed down the toilet resulting from undetected miscarriages.

  3. ST says:

    Damar Hamlin Collapse on the Field and Suffers Cardiac Arrest – Video (Updated)

  4. Professor Hale says:

    Of course climate change is definitely related to gun “violence”. It’s the same activists pushing both issues. That is the only way that they are related.

  5. Jl says:

    “Gun violence now linked to climate crisis..”
    You knew they would eventually link it to the climate or the unvaccinated….

  6. UnkleC says:

    The warmer than “average” temperatures occur in a season generally referred to as summer, July is in the summer. When summer happens around, things get hot in the ‘hood and some people do some things. Been happening for a long time. Not a crisis.

Pirate's Cove