Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The chips in newborns has been suggested for several years. Go search for it. It would be the first step to total control. The government would always know your location. They would claim it is for protection from kidnapping, etc. GPS chips in guns will probably come first.
If I fretted over every possible such concern, I'd get no sleep, but if you insist...
This too, like so many things going on around us, has both the pros and cons to consider. There are the medical pros and the privacy cons, and then of course there is the fear we are FORCED to have such a thing implanted rather than have the choice to do so for medical purposes.
Hey, but you go on about all your government conspiracies all you want. I know that's your thing and entirely common in these gun threads. We all know why, but we don't all live our lives with the same fears, real or imagined. I surely don't.
Please note the emotion driving the gun grabbers is raw fear. This fear has at least two components. One is the fear of being shot by someone they know either accidentally or on purpose. Another is being shot in a robbery or holdup. Another is being a bystander at a mass slaughter by crazies. Basically it is a fear of getting killed by a gun. I also believe that if they have to carry a gun in self defense they might have to kill someone else and are terrified of the guilt.
As Lady Jessica in the novel Dune said, "Fear is the mind killer. Know your fear and make it yours and it will loose power over you." Or something close to that.
The commonality of these fears is not just there is a gun involved but there is a person involved. Either themselves or someone else. Given this consideration it makes as much sense to ban people as it does to ban guns. So if someone is totally terrified by firearms they can go to some isolated island somewhere and have everything they need delivered by airdrop so there will never be another person around that might hurt them. Except themselves.
This is because the gun is not the dangerous item. People are!
Listen...
I'm not a "gun grabber," and I've got no fear of guns like you describe, but this ongoing compulsion to describe gun control advocates in this way is really all about chest pounding gun owners -- apparently needing to appear macho and fearless -- while demonstrating they really have no clue what drives the more serious gun control advocates.
For example, I was in Utah just recently with my in-laws. Also there were other in-laws from Vegas where of course they have friends directly affected by the Route 99 massacre. My one sister-in-law was adamant that no one needed guns like Paddock used. She has no "raw fear" about guns in general, having grown up in Utah where guns are more a part of growing up there in general. She just feels strongly that weapons like Paddock used are a bit much for any citizen to own in light of what someone like Paddock can do with them with evil intent.
Right or wrong, not my point. My point is that this ongoing effort to suggest those sentiments are born of emotion and/or a result of "raw fear" makes all of you using that argument look like out-of-touch nimrods.
My other sister-in-law and husband, who live in Vegas, are quite emotional about neighbors who were shot at the concert, one in the head, but they are not gun control advocates.
At least stop with all the stupid propaganda going both ways in this debate and maybe just maybe these threads won't read like so much garbage.
Ammunition is an integral part of keeping and bearing arms. It's also illogical to think that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights did not consider a future and the advancements that come with that future.
Attempting to suggest what our founding fathers did in the context of their day also applies today in the same way is problematical at a minimum, mostly an argument that suits the agenda rather than supports it from a factual, reasoned or logical standpoint. Not when today's facts and realities are accounted for anyway, but here again, pretend all you like! There surely is no stopping you!
Pretend much like I did when I was a young lad pretending to fight the Indians. Fun!
Even if guns were completely banned, there would be those who would try to get guns. New Orleans is already one of the most murderous cities in the USA. I imagine guns would be smuggled in through New Orleans. The only way people would turn in their guns is through force (besides buy back).
some interesting stats and graphs regarding gun violence in America vs other places.
IMO we need stricter gun laws. What we have right now isn't working and the amount of gun deaths is staggering.
Well, here is a horrific incident in New Rochelle that ended in death and had nothing to do with guns. The proliferation of guns cannot be used as a tangent to deflect from serious and profound problems.
Well, here is a horrific incident in New Rochelle that ended in death and had nothing to do with guns. The proliferation of guns cannot be used as a tangent to deflect from serious and profound problems.
This leads to another question. What kind of parents did that have?
Your question reminds me of a few others...
How many kids are born with good parents vs bad parents? What difference does it make?
How many kids raised in dysfunctional family environments are going to begin cutting classes at an early age, and what are they likely to do regardless what the parents and/or adults want them to do? Get into street trouble with their fellow troubled friends or study in the library?
Not really sure why this want of input about kids behaving badly landed in this thread, but suffice to say when kids do turn violent, let's hope they choose fists rather than knives and knives rather than guns as their weapon of choice...
How many kids are born with good parents vs bad parents? What difference does it make?
How many kids raised in dysfunctional family environments are going to begin cutting classes at an early age, and what are they likely to do regardless what the parents and/or adults want them to do? Get into street trouble with their fellow troubled friends or study in the library?
Not really sure why this want of input about kids behaving badly landed in this thread, but suffice to say when kids do turn violent, let's hope they choose fists rather than knives and knives rather than guns as their weapon of choice...
Fists and handheld weapons such as knives are seen by much of the violent youth section as being an anachronism to conflict resolution in todays world. Yesterdays bans on switchblade (now called 'automatics') knives, are considered even by LE to be gestures of impotence. The days of the switchblade being the weapon of choice in gang violence are way over.
Matter of fact switchblades are now legal again in an ever growing number of jurisdictions. This is largely due to the fact that people with CCWs are no longer an exception but much more of a rule. Gang members wearing leather jackets and white T shirts carrying a switchblade is as yesterday as West Side Story. Pugilistic confrontations involving "violent youth" has become an ....endangered, if not outright extinct, animal. Replaced by hi cap handguns stolen from both private and government sources of inventory.
"Good" or "bad" parenting makes little if any difference insofar as that goes. Gangs of violent youths are more concerned with easy money from drug dealing and being seen as dangerous and living life behind a gun is the most expeditious means to those ends. That genie is long out of the bottle. But as I think about it the glorification via media of that image is not a late 20th century thing. I'd say the real kickoff was post Civil War, 1870s, with characters like the James/Daltons and the Lincoln County Regulators (WH Bonney, Scurlock, Bowdrie and company). The keeping of "Bad Company" being considered to be a good thing. The "cool" kids all lived their lives under the cover of Sam Colt. Today it's under cover of Glock with 15 rounds instead of a paltry 6 and there is no longer any attempt to whitewash the image with analogies to Robin Hood. The actual criminal image is considered to be far more cool.
What defines a given individuals "street cred" , with the image of being dangerous and not to be trifled with being basically the same as the aforementioned frontier characters, is still central, but todays "young guns" prefer to be seen as the bad guys. With not even a meager attempt to gloss things over.
Drygulching, backshooting from ambush, is considered to be the preferred methodology over the High Noon face to face gunfight, the latter being seen as showing a severe lack of street smarts and further lack of resolve to fight to win. That worldview has been popularized in music, movies and TV shows the same way Jesse and Billy were popularized with dime novels. The difference being in the unabashed motive of power and personal gain with modern criminal activity as opposed to the dime novel Robin Hood with a sixgun image of elsewhen.
Either way is pretty unique to American culture though. And both takes made American society poorer for their having been used. Both target the glamour of a violent lifestyle utilizing the hot headedness of youth to sell copy. Particularly male youth with its hunger for adventure and recognition. Adventure and recognition being obtained from behind a gun. Violence as the sole means by which all dreams can come true.
Indeed parenting is not the primary factor to the problems inherent. Regardless of what parents may desire for their children they are up against it trying to contend with a billions of dollars blitz that's selling a bad equals good product. So, in the context of this thread kids behaving badly actually does fit. At least when why they behave badly as in violently is drug down to the framework.
More guns equals more killings- very simple. More laws are not the answer- I don't know that there is an answer. Americans are fascinated with and have a love affair with guns. The "horse is out of the barn"- with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation already, there is no answer. Yes, people have the right to own a gun to defend themselves. I don't want one, however. I do believe that parents should be held responsible when their children get guns from their house and kill people, however.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
