I need a license, registration, and insurance to drive a car.
Stoking fear? Right. One of the biggest fears is that the government will outlaw guns. Far-fetched, right? Tell you what. Hop in your time machine to five years ago. Go to Chicago and try to legally buy a gun. Guess what? For the average person five years ago, legally buying a gun was practically impossible. IT is not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you.
Thank you for proving my argument about the gun-proponents stoking fear. They've certainly got you in a tizzy.
As to the NRA quote, is there anything unfactual out there? Yes, we live in a very safe country. The odds of any bad violence happening to any one person out there is relatively small (of course, this varies GREATLY by zip code). But dangers are out there. How much danger is enough for you to carry a gun? Only YOU can decide that. However, it is up to you, and should not be up to a politician to tell you "no." Simply stated, if something bad DOES happen to you, how long would it take for you to call 911 and expect help to arrive? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Would that be fast enough?
You need some lessons on how to evaluate risk. The gun-proponents are big on the fallacy of "misleading vividness", and use this to stoke fear. It would be nice to have unbiased research, but thanks to Congress banning the CDC from researching gun violence in the mid-90s, we have no actual data.
For the record, I own guns (where I live, it would probably take 20 minutes for a sheriff to show up), but I do not carry one when I am away from home. But I have friends who do, and I respect their decision.
I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot. We are all human. We all make mistakes.
Obviously the bracelet will not stop the gun owner from suiciding with the gun. However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.
Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.
And you are damn right I have an agenda. I see the NRA and their ilk as stoking fear in the public in order to increase sales for the gun manufacturers (Glock, Beretta, etc.). Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.
Here's a quote from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the latest NRA convention:
We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you? We are on our own.
Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.
It a wonderful racket.
Veiled threats are veiled threats, regardless of which side makes them.
However, that article was simply a compilation of publicly available information. I could see how that could be interpreted as threatening (the argument about being a target for burglaries makes some sense), but it was done in a non-specific way.
Taking a picture or tweeting a cell-phone number is a much more personal, directed threat.
And it's real easy to throw around insults anonymously. I guess you're too much of a coward to even create a pseudonym to attach your posts to. But I find it's mostly the fearful cowards that feel they need the gun in the first place.
Assuming there's a battery indicator that will give you a decent amount of warning before it fails (say a month), if you have left your gun unused (not practicing using it) for that amount of time, you'll be incredibly lucky to use it properly in a crisis. You'll be more likely to have it taken from you and be killed by it.
How many people who buy guns for protection, who haven't been gun owners in the past, really know how to use them and are effective in defending themselves?
It's much more likely that they would end up getting killed with their own gun. Having or not having this lock will probably make little difference either way.
What it will go is reduce the number of accidental shootings, kids finding guns, etc. Even though you may not have kids living in your house, they might still be there visiting, and may even go searching for your gun, if they happen to hear that you have one.
I don't understand why the pro-gun people are so unwilling to accept any rationale for making guns even the tiniest bit more difficult to use, considering the thousands of gun deaths we have every year.
Look up the term "stochastic terrorism."
You don't see posting someone's cell phone number or taking a picture of their P.O. Box as threatening?
The threat doesn't have to be explicit to still be a threat, as in the stereotypical Mafia line "Nice little restaurant you have here. Hate to see anything happen to it."
Your problem is that you believe such a militia must be organized and commanded by the government. That is something the framers clearly thought should be avoided.
Really? What does "well-regulated" mean? Who is supposed to do the regulating? Doesn't the word "militia" imply that someone has to have command over it?
I would think that part of being "well-regulated" would be to require a safety device so that only the owner could actually fire the gun. Yes, it might be more difficult to use in a crisis, but it will reduce the number of accidental shootings that happen when some kid finds a gun.
Unless, of course, the Republicans decide that overturning them would serve them or their corporate overlords (see Voting Rights Act, Citizen's United, etc.)
Wow this is a really impressive list of standard Republican right-wing arguments. Well done.
1) Taxes are the fees we pay to maintain society. A tax cut may feel like relief in the short-term, but as the crumbling bridges and decaying school ruin the economy, the cuts cost far more that what who get back. And so-called pork-barrel spending is in the eye of the beholder. (Is the F-22 fighter program "pork"? Is Head Start "pork")
2) In fact, the time most poor people spend only a few months on public assistance. It's why we call it a "safety net", because we want to protect those who have fallen on hard times. While it's true there are people that spend a long time on the programs, it's really a very small percentage.
3) You worked and got out of poverty. Congratulations! My guess is you were fairly young, healthy, without too many family commitments, and managed to avoid getting profiled (by class or race) for extra judicial punishment along the way. Not everyone is so lucky.
4) If you want to prevent pregnancies, why not just pass out free contraceptives and have classes for STD prevention? Oh that's right, it's because you're regulating sexual behavior. You WANT there to be lifelong consequences. And if you think teenage pregnancy was rare in the past, you're sadly misinformed. What happened was the girls dropped out of school, consigned to a life of poverty. And as for teen-pregnancy being socially acceptable, there are some studies now that say that shows like MTV's "Teen Mom" actually reduce the rates of teen pregnancy.
5) Your "pro-life" argument is totally based on religious belief. Just because a set of cells may become "human" given time and the proper growth environment doesn't make it human life. Why? It's what you mean by life. Life could be the onset of consciousness, which probably doesn't really happen until weeks after the baby is born.
Do you honestly believe that it's more efficient for two (or more) different companies to lay down the communication hardware necessary for cable service, including broadband internet, that for there to be only one?
It's the same problem as electric or water service. It makes no sense for two companies to lay down water pipes serving the same area, so why does it make sense for cable?
The physical network aspect of cable, and broadband internet, is a natural monopoly, because of the amount of infrastructure investment required to create it.
Now if you want to talk about content providers, that's a different story. That is why broadband internet needs to be regulated as a "common carrier," to prevent situations like Comcast throttling NetFlix in favor of their own On Demand offerings.
Perhaps you should think a little before casting aspersions ("What crack are you smoking") on those you disagree with? Or do you enjoy being seen as an arrogant jerk?
Why do we have to take it?
We need to insist that High-speed Internet is regulated as a "Common carrier", like electricity.
We have Public Utility Commissions that oversee quality and cost for electric, water/sewer, and gas. Why in the world is broadband not added to that?
As long as it's treated under "Common carrier" regulations (like electricity) then yes.
Cable is a natural monopoly. Competition really doesn't work in this type of business.
What we really need is for cable high-speed internet service to be declared a "Common carrier", so they are required to not discriminate against NetFlix, etc.