Here's how it worked for us, before we moved. The kids were playing in the fenced in backyard, while we watched them through the large, glass double doors. One of the neighbors called the police and made an anonymous complaint about "unsupervised kids outside". Having received a report mentioning kids, the police were bound by law to issue a report to CPS. Having received a police report mentioning kids, CPS was bound by law to investigate, including surprise interviews of the kids at school, and the above mentioned search of the house, with "consent" extracted under duress. Apparently, the same anonymous neighbor can do this every two weeks, triggering mandatory investigations, and there is zero recourse.
"You can let me in now, or you can make me do the paperwork and I'll take your kids away." I've heard of CPS agents actually saying that. It's terrifying how much power they have to tear families apart, and it's all extrajudicial, with no practical recourse for the families.
Every time I watch a video, listen to a song, or observe anything else, I am making a recording, or copy, in my brain. The technology to read out and play back those recordings is presently under development. If it's illegal to make a copy, it's illegal to observe.
Sure, it cost $800 million to develop this drug. That includes $400 million for the CEO, and another $100 million for the rest the C suite.
I'm one of those. I haven't flown since around 2003, purely because TSA. I refuse to allow myself to be treated as a criminal.
It won't be long until we have software that can generate on demand appropriate video with sound that can defeat any "likeness" test.
1500 children were emotionally harmed by the sad trombone sound and rejection.
No one is forcing you to subscribe to cable TV.
Why would they automatically exclude all neighbors in private residences?
Exactly. The police will not protect you; they won't even protect a school full of kids. It's on us to protect ourselves and our families; you are your own first responder.
"We" tried making it harder for people to get alcohol. Harder for people to get drugs. How did that work out? It created and fueled organized crime. It cost our society trillions of dollars and millions of lives. Prohibition is an act of evil.
So you count yourself among those calling for a total gun ban. Those full autos are 9mm pistols, one of the most common firearms in the country. Nations with total bans on civilian guns still have booming black markets for guns. The criminals are still all armed. The only difference is that the good guys are defenseless.
Those who can't buy something they want legally, either make it, or buy it illegally from someone else who made it. Gun control is DRM for mechanical objects. It only effects the law abiding. Full autos are illegal as heck, but every gang banger in Minneapolis has one. The cops say there's nothing they can do about it, because the conversion is too easy and cheap. As far as no one suggesting banning all guns, um, yeah, there are prominent politicians who are pushing that very thing.
Tim Cushing: "The cops won't protect you." Also Tim Cushing: "You should give up the means to protect yourself."
According to Matt Easton, who is both, police will frequently confiscate presumptively, and then you have to go to court to beg for their return.
You may find this meta-analysis informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgiQ-LmJGMY
The UK has banned curved swords, and the carrying of pocket knives. They're trying to ban kitchen knives with points. You have to be over 18 and show ID to buy a box of plastic butter knives. Technicians get their toolboxes raided for screwdrivers (they're a lethal weapon, you know.) Yet they still have a violent crime problem. Not exactly an example to emulate.
None of what you are advocating would have any impact on violent crime. At best, it could reduce accidental harm, such as negligent discharge. I strongly support maximizing firearm training for every one who touches a gun. Making it a prerequisite creates a financial hurdle however, a filter to only allow the well-off to be armed. Government funded training, available to all, could meet both of our goals in that respect. If you advocate limiting the type of arms available to the public, you want the people to be at a disadvantage as compared to the government. This is not as bad as total disarmament, but it's a step on that path. Gun "buybacks" (it's not "back", they were never the government's guns in the first place) repeatedly result in the collection of antique, damaged, and scrap guns that no one wants anyway. There are also those who quickly make several guns that meet the minimum requirements for the buyback, to turn a quick profit at the public's expense. How much are you proposing that I (as a taxpayer) pay to for he government to collect a homemade pipe gun? Then those who sold their scrap and junk guns will often use that money to buy nicer guns. Is that your goal? But overall, though you and I may be able to find some middle ground where we could both be reasonably content, if you support the politicians who are pushing for gun control, you are supporting total civilian disarmament, because that is what they're pushing for. They are not advocating training programs or gun safety.
*black market
Couldn't find out which neighbor, but none had kids anyway.