i have to decide if becoming thirsty when you are dehydrated is positive of negative feedback. from what i understand, negative feedback is when orders are put out to reduce a stimulus, so thirst would be negative. im not sure exactly what negative feedback is and im completely don't know what positive feedback is. can someone please explain them to me and answer if thirst is positive or negative?
thanks!Positive and negative feedback controls in homeostasis?
I think that it would be negative also because it is reversing the the current condition.
Positive feed back is when something is being produced, a signal is sent to produce more of that product.
Negative feedback is when the a product is produced causing a signal to be sent to stop it's production.Positive and negative feedback controls in homeostasis?
I think it is negative because it is bad if you are dehydrated.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Which of the following interactions is an example of a negative-feedback control system...?
. Which of the following interactions is an example of a negative-feedback control system in the human female reproductive cycle?
a. the stimulation of follicles to mature in response to the production of FSH and LH by the anterior pituitary
b. the effect of estrogen produced by a follicle on the LH and FSH produced by the anterior pituitary
c. the transformation of the cells of the ruptured follicle into the corpus luteum
d. the high level of estrogen that causes the anterior pituitary to release a surge of LHWhich of the following interactions is an example of a negative-feedback control system...?
d is an example of positive feedback so that is out
b seems more likely an increase in estrogen will decrease LH secretion since their is more estrogen in the bloodstream which might in turn have an effect on FSHWhich of the following interactions is an example of a negative-feedback control system...?
Answer is (B) but again we should know why :
Negative feedback loops resist change by sensing a stimulus . For example, a negative feedback within the brain of a bird or mammal (Whale for example) a small region above the roof of the mouth called the hypothalamus is a biological thermostat. The hypothalamus has a genetically determined ideal temperature for body (e.g., in man about 37掳C or 98.6掳F), Specialized hypothalmic nerves measure the temperature of body through the brain while other nerves analyse arriving messages from temperature sensors in the skin (the hypothalamus then triggers the mechanisms of producing heat). When the temperature of the body drops below a certain point, the hypothalamus signals effectors, the muscles, to begin to contract. At first, of these contractions are small and occur at different times in different muscle. As the signal increases, muscle cells begin to fire messages in synchrony and the individual begins to shiver. These contractions generate heat and thus help to counteract the initial stimulus. If the environment is too cold body cannot keep up with heat loss, hypothermia may set in lowering the internal temperature is sensory confusion and ultimately leading to death. If, on the other hand, environmental temper ature is high, the individual can experience hyperthermia-high body temperature which can be damaging or even fatal.
While negative feedback loops resist internal change, positive feedback loops bring about rapid change.
Good luck did you like http://bisbio.in?
a. the stimulation of follicles to mature in response to the production of FSH and LH by the anterior pituitary
b. the effect of estrogen produced by a follicle on the LH and FSH produced by the anterior pituitary
c. the transformation of the cells of the ruptured follicle into the corpus luteum
d. the high level of estrogen that causes the anterior pituitary to release a surge of LHWhich of the following interactions is an example of a negative-feedback control system...?
d is an example of positive feedback so that is out
b seems more likely an increase in estrogen will decrease LH secretion since their is more estrogen in the bloodstream which might in turn have an effect on FSHWhich of the following interactions is an example of a negative-feedback control system...?
Answer is (B) but again we should know why :
Negative feedback loops resist change by sensing a stimulus . For example, a negative feedback within the brain of a bird or mammal (Whale for example) a small region above the roof of the mouth called the hypothalamus is a biological thermostat. The hypothalamus has a genetically determined ideal temperature for body (e.g., in man about 37掳C or 98.6掳F), Specialized hypothalmic nerves measure the temperature of body through the brain while other nerves analyse arriving messages from temperature sensors in the skin (the hypothalamus then triggers the mechanisms of producing heat). When the temperature of the body drops below a certain point, the hypothalamus signals effectors, the muscles, to begin to contract. At first, of these contractions are small and occur at different times in different muscle. As the signal increases, muscle cells begin to fire messages in synchrony and the individual begins to shiver. These contractions generate heat and thus help to counteract the initial stimulus. If the environment is too cold body cannot keep up with heat loss, hypothermia may set in lowering the internal temperature is sensory confusion and ultimately leading to death. If, on the other hand, environmental temper ature is high, the individual can experience hyperthermia-high body temperature which can be damaging or even fatal.
While negative feedback loops resist internal change, positive feedback loops bring about rapid change.
Good luck did you like http://bisbio.in?
Negative feedback control of sex hormones can be found at two levels: _________.?
Negative feedback control of sex hormones can be found at two levels: _________.
a) The cerebrum signaling the hypothalamus as well as the anteriopr pituitary secreting gonadotropic hormone
b) The hypothalamus secreting the relasing hormone as well as the anterior pituitary secreting gonadotropic hormone
c) The thalamus secreting releasing hormone as well as the anterior pituitary secreting growth hormone
d) The anterior pituitary secreting gonadotropic hormone as well as the adrenal cortex secreting releasing hormone.Negative feedback control of sex hormones can be found at two levels: _________.?
Lil Butterfly,
Your answer is “D”, because the neurons in the hypothalamus secrete gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is transported through local blood capillaries to the nearby anterior lobe of the pituitary gland. The whole cascade of hormone secretions, from the hypothalamus to the anterior pituitary gland to the gonads, is tightly controlled by feedback effects of the gonadal steroids, which in turn act on both the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland to regulate the secretion of GnRH and of gonadotrophins. In the male these feedback effects are always negative. This means that when secretion of the male hormone, testosterone, increases, the release of GnRH and luteinizing hormone - LH will decrease — inhibited by the rising level of testosterone in the blood.
Hope this helps
matador 89Negative feedback control of sex hormones can be found at two levels: _________.?
Lil Butterfly,
And, as usual, you're welcome!
m.89
D
d
a) The cerebrum signaling the hypothalamus as well as the anteriopr pituitary secreting gonadotropic hormone
b) The hypothalamus secreting the relasing hormone as well as the anterior pituitary secreting gonadotropic hormone
c) The thalamus secreting releasing hormone as well as the anterior pituitary secreting growth hormone
d) The anterior pituitary secreting gonadotropic hormone as well as the adrenal cortex secreting releasing hormone.Negative feedback control of sex hormones can be found at two levels: _________.?
Lil Butterfly,
Your answer is “D”, because the neurons in the hypothalamus secrete gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is transported through local blood capillaries to the nearby anterior lobe of the pituitary gland. The whole cascade of hormone secretions, from the hypothalamus to the anterior pituitary gland to the gonads, is tightly controlled by feedback effects of the gonadal steroids, which in turn act on both the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland to regulate the secretion of GnRH and of gonadotrophins. In the male these feedback effects are always negative. This means that when secretion of the male hormone, testosterone, increases, the release of GnRH and luteinizing hormone - LH will decrease — inhibited by the rising level of testosterone in the blood.
Hope this helps
matador 89Negative feedback control of sex hormones can be found at two levels: _________.?
Lil Butterfly,
And, as usual, you're welcome!
m.89
Report Abuse
D
d
An example of homeostatic control through positive feedback in HUMAN SYSTEMS ?
A nerve impulse (action potential) in a nerve builds to its peak through positive feedback--the opening of sodium channels causes in influx of sodium which causes the inside of the cell just under the membrane to become less negative, this causes more sodium channels to open, more sodium enters, the inside becomes even more less negative, that causes more channels to open, etc......An example of homeostatic control through positive feedback in HUMAN SYSTEMS ?
Positive feedback amplifies changes made by a stimulus, in other words, it maximizes the effect of a stimulus. An example of positive feedback would be childbirth, where contractions (through the use of the hormone oxytocin) are intensified until the child is out.smokey eye
Positive feedback amplifies changes made by a stimulus, in other words, it maximizes the effect of a stimulus. An example of positive feedback would be childbirth, where contractions (through the use of the hormone oxytocin) are intensified until the child is out.
How do I get good controlled feedback on my amp?
I want to get it fairly controlled.... and as much as I can!How do I get good controlled feedback on my amp?
When you say controlled feedback, I'm assuming that you're referring to the technique where the acoustic output of your amplifier is exciting either the root note or a harmonic related to the pitch you're playing.
High gain is part of the equation. The compression that happens when a tube is overloaded is the other part.
Compression is a tool that's used in every recording your ever heard. Think of it as an hand on the volume control of your amp. It turns down the very loud parts and turns up the very soft parts. Technically speaking, it reduces the dynamic range of the signal, and helps it cut through a mix of instruments.
The other part of the equation is the acoustics of the speaker, the room, and the instrument itself. Different woods will want to feedback at different frequencies.
Position is not always directly in front of the amp (unless all you're looking for is a high pitched squeal). You'll probably need to face the amp, but changing the angle of the guitar in relationship to the speak can produce diffent pitches of feedback.
I had a chance to work on a local crew for a Santana show a few years ago. During sound check, Carlos would walk around the stage to figure out where different notes would feedback. He's have his guitar tech mark those locations with what notes for feedback there.
Short of volume/distortion/compression, there is a device called a Sustainiac that can be installed in your guitar to give you this effect. It replaces the neck pickup, and actually provides a magnetic drive signal to keep the string vibrating. This let's you get the feedback effect at any volume level.
http://www.sustainiac.com/
Finally, DO NOT use unpotted pickups. Unless, again, you're only looking for a high frequency squeal.
Good luck.
Greetings from Austin, Tx
KenHow do I get good controlled feedback on my amp?
Use a lot of gain, like a distortion pedal run into a distorted amp. Use an un-potted humbucker pickup. Stand with the pickups facing the amplifier's speakers. Get ready to look for a new place to live.
Low volume move body of guitar close to amp
Lots of highs and mid's turn the amp up till you get some :)
Enjoy!
When you say controlled feedback, I'm assuming that you're referring to the technique where the acoustic output of your amplifier is exciting either the root note or a harmonic related to the pitch you're playing.
High gain is part of the equation. The compression that happens when a tube is overloaded is the other part.
Compression is a tool that's used in every recording your ever heard. Think of it as an hand on the volume control of your amp. It turns down the very loud parts and turns up the very soft parts. Technically speaking, it reduces the dynamic range of the signal, and helps it cut through a mix of instruments.
The other part of the equation is the acoustics of the speaker, the room, and the instrument itself. Different woods will want to feedback at different frequencies.
Position is not always directly in front of the amp (unless all you're looking for is a high pitched squeal). You'll probably need to face the amp, but changing the angle of the guitar in relationship to the speak can produce diffent pitches of feedback.
I had a chance to work on a local crew for a Santana show a few years ago. During sound check, Carlos would walk around the stage to figure out where different notes would feedback. He's have his guitar tech mark those locations with what notes for feedback there.
Short of volume/distortion/compression, there is a device called a Sustainiac that can be installed in your guitar to give you this effect. It replaces the neck pickup, and actually provides a magnetic drive signal to keep the string vibrating. This let's you get the feedback effect at any volume level.
http://www.sustainiac.com/
Finally, DO NOT use unpotted pickups. Unless, again, you're only looking for a high frequency squeal.
Good luck.
Greetings from Austin, Tx
KenHow do I get good controlled feedback on my amp?
Use a lot of gain, like a distortion pedal run into a distorted amp. Use an un-potted humbucker pickup. Stand with the pickups facing the amplifier's speakers. Get ready to look for a new place to live.
Low volume move body of guitar close to amp
Lots of highs and mid's turn the amp up till you get some :)
Enjoy!
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Are you against gun control or you for it? Please give me your feedback?
For those in California, I strongly wish for your feedback. I'm putting a survey together and would like to get some feedback from those people. if you are not in California, can you tell me waht state your in and what your gun laws are and what you feel the problem is and how it should be solved.
Thanks a millions!Are you against gun control or you for it? Please give me your feedback?
Against it.
Castro - Hitler - Stalin all for it.
When the government knows where all the guns are - they know where to go to take them away. A well armed society is a safer society.
A well armed society will not be tyrannized by a wayward government.Are you against gun control or you for it? Please give me your feedback?
I'm from Upstate New York.
With the exception of laws making possession of a gun by convicted felons and those persons with a documented mental illness illegal ... I am totally against gun control laws!
The problem with gun control laws is fairly easy to see ... the people who would use a gun to break other laws will not care if they are violating gun control laws too!
The solution is also fairly simple. If the government can not show that the applicant has a violent criminal past (including domestic violence), or has a mental illness (including drug or alcohol dependency) they should be required to issue a gun owner's permit. That permit should be valid as a concealed carry license until revoked, with the only reasons for revoking the permit being documentation of a mental illness or violent criminal offense.
No firearm should be illegal to own based on it's look, action or capacity, including full auto firearms!
Once we level the playing field with the criminals of society ... the honest citizen having access to firepower equal to the criminal's, you can bet the violent crime rate would drop like a broken elevator!
I live in California. I'm against most gun control. I whole heartedly support an instant background check for every single gun transfer, to make sure the buyer is not a criminal or kook. But other then that, I believe most of the gun control laws we currently have or are being proposed are completely ineffective or unconstitutional.
A recent example, the gun control proponents are pushing for recording of ammunition purchases. We already did that before. It was stopped because it never once solved a crime. Now it's back.
Gun registration does nothing to prevent crime, but it sure provides a handy list for those wishing to seize guns at a later time.
Waiting periods can help, but can also do harm. I've read more then one story of people, usually women, who believed their lives were in jeopardy, the cops unable to help, and were unable to get the gun in time to prevent some psycho ex boyfriend/husband from killing them as they waved the restraining order in his face.
I live in Crook County IL where King Richard the Nimrod and his court jester Jessie Jackson reign.
The problem I have is that even though gun control was to slow down gun crimes and limit criminals, only those who are law abiding will follow. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. So gun control only limits the legal, responsible, and law abiding firearm owners.
Also, Chicago has a higher homicide rate than this time last year. Homicides in Chicago are majority gun related. Yet Chicago has a handgun ban in city limits. That is the most strict gun law out there. So if gun bans work, why is Chicago in such deep doodoo when it comes to violence.
Now I am not effected directly by Chicago laws but Crook County is defiantly not gun friendly and if they could would adopt stricter gun laws (too many on the books to list).
My main question is this. There are 48 states that allow conceal carry. Why don't they have the problems Mayor Daley spoke of after the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment.
Arizona - has very few gun laws.
I am against gun control, and I feel there is no problem living in this state. Crime does not seem to be a major issue in Phoenix and Tuscon and other major cities here as it does in CA cities (I'm not saying there is no crime here, it's just not as much as LA or other 'gun control' cities).
My personal belief is that gun control just increases crime with guns. Criminals will always have guns, no matter what you do. I would rather be in a place where a criminal is afraid to commit a crime due to fear of civilians may be carrying guns, than live in a place where criminals know no one can stop them from commiting a crime. It's just safer to have guns available than to ban them.
Actually, I believe that everyone above the age of 18 should be required by law to carry a concealed gun on themselves. Yes, there would still be violence and deaths initially, but eventually people will realize that they could die very easily if they piss someone else off, so idealy people will start to be more civil towards each other, and crime rates would drop...
As people like me like to say, 9/11 would never have happened if guns were allowed on planes. Someone tries to kijack it, and every other passenger shoots the terrorists on site. Problem solved.
I am in favor of strong, sensible gun control. The US has the weakest gun laws in the industrialized world, and also the most crime of any comparable country. You would have to be blind to think there is no connection.
The problem is that people are unable to distinguish between gun rights of law-abiding citizens and gun rights of criminals. For example, the NRA says they are against criminals having access to guns, but whenever a law comes up that would block access to guns for criminals (such as background checks at gun shows before buying a gun) they oppose it.
Obviously we have to have some limitations and processes related to gun use and ownership. We can't have Bob Joe hunting deer with a rocket launcher. I don't think anyone would object to a certain level of limitation on gun ownership.
I don't like guns, but if the people who own them are intelligent and safe in their use, then I don't have a problem with it. It's the idiots out there with guns that worry me. I think people should have to pass a thorough examination before being allowed to own a gun because safety is more important than your right to bear arms.
Just as we can take away someone's right to freedom by jailing them after a crime, I think we can take away other rights like owning weapons. If you can't behave, then you can't have a gun, at least for violent offenders.
And I hate that stupid saying ';only criminals will have guns';. You know what? That's better than all the idiots in the world having guns, so I'll take my chances.
Those are my thoughts.
FL here...
Guns are not just a right, but a possible requirement if ever you have to defend your country from enemies foreign or domestic. The governent should never have ALL of the firepower.
However, there should always be reasonable regulations that help keep the public safe. I support the 5 day waiting period (cool off period) before you can recieve a handgun from a dealer. Convicted felons cannot and should not be able to legally carry guns. You shouldn't be able to own a military grade weapon unless you are in the military. I believe guns should have to be registered the same way you register a car...e.g. a gun title...which should be free of charge. You should have the right to conceal a weapon anywhere, as long as it's not a school, government building, medical facility, bank, or any place/event that sells alcohol.
Responsible, law abiding people need to arm themselves. Criminals already have guns.
NC here.
Gun control is extremely short sighted. Only law abiding people are going to follow the law. The fact is that criminals are responsible for crime not guns. We need to quit playing with these people and lock up violent offenders........that would help cut crime, not worrying about how many guns I have in my home. I've owned a gun since I was a little kid and I have yet to rob a liquor store or hold someone up on the street.
Look at this idiotic places that have gun control and check out their crime rates. It just doesn't work.
I'm a law enforcement officer and I'm all for law abiding people owning guns.
Nope in 2008.
I'm for gun control, but not total elimination of guns. I do agree that people, in general, have a right to own a gun. But I do not agree that they have a right to own a gun without limitations set to protect citizens (and especially children) from idiots and criminals. For example, I believe that guns should be required, by law, to be locked safely to protect children. If a child uses your gun to harm someone, YOU should be punished for it for not keeping that gun safely away from them. I also believe that limitations should be placed on who can own a gun, and what kind of gun they should be allowed to own. The Founding Fathers had muskets in mind, not uzis, when they wrote the Constitution. Considering that we have a standing army and navy now, and organized law enforcement, the militia-element of the second amendment is obsolete. Our laws should reflect this, as well as common sense. If you want a gun, fine. But there is absolutely no excuse for fighting against common sense means of keeping people safe. The fact is that the average gun owner is not qualified to police their neighborhood. I, for one, would feel a lot safer if they kept their freakin' guns in a locked cabinet where they belong until they have time to go hunting or to the gun range, where guns actually belong.
p.s. Wow. I thought the pro-gun people would come up with a LOT better and more logical arguments than this! You really think that your handgun is going to protect you from the government!? OMG, LOL!!!!! That is freakin' hilarious!! And who is going to protect me and my family from a crazy nut that actually believes this baloney? And you really think that 9-11 would not have happened if guns were allowed on planes? That is equally crazy, because of two things:
1. The terrorists would have had guns, and everyone would have been dead before you could have done a thing about it.
2. Four planes were crashed in the 9-11 attacks. All it takes is a single bullet hole in the fuselage of a plane to potentially bring it down. So how many times has some crazy guy went into MacDonalds or the Post Office to blow people away? Now put those guys on a jet airliner. Four planes crashed in 9-11 is not as big a deal as losing an airliner full of people a dozen times every year because of nuts on jets with guns. you don't trust the government? Well, I don't trust YOU. Fair enough? I think so. What a weak argument.
Now let's consider the ';crime would go up if only the criminals had guns'; argument. Few civilized nations in the world have as lenient of gun laws as the United States. And yet, the United States is one of the leaders in gun violence in the entire world. That's a fact, although I am sure you'll deny it. (The NRA has made up statistics before, and I am sure they will do it again). Compare that to Britain or Germany, where people are not allowed to keep guns in their homes. LOL! the only nations with more gun violence are the ones with LESS lenient gun laws. Take a look at the Middle East, for example. What a pathetic argument in favor of more guns in the hands of citizens.
An armed society is a polite society. Nobody would dare vent their road rage or try a drive by shooting if they knew more than likely every one they can see is packing a pistol JUST like they are. Criminals give less than S#%t about laws. The ONLY people affected by gun laws are the LAW ABIDING citizens. Look at all the numbers out there - not people's FEELINGS about this issue. The numbers say over and over - LESS gun control equals less crime. The tighter the gun controls on the average citizen, the more apt criminals are to use guns during a crime. Ask yourself this; when I dial 911 do I want to bet my LIFE the responding officers are on the job or hanging out at the Dunkin Dough-nuts?
I live in New York (up state) After 31 yrs in law enforcement, New York took nine months to approve my pistol permit... Do you think that inspires confidence in me or any law enforcement folks that know about it that we are being treated fairly by our government? I know that the red tape is designed to discourage law abiding citizens from even trying to get the required permit when the constitution GUARANTEES they are authorized to possess a gun. Why do you think they made it the SECOND right in the Bill of Rights?
I live in Phoenix Arizona. Every morning I switch on the tv for the news and every morning there is the usual list of shootings. Most are drug related or house invasions where one or more invaders are shot dead. As long as these mental midgets are killing each other or being killed by legally owned guns that's ok by me. I'm against gun control.
I live in VT. I don't have a gun, so I'm not really sure what the laws are.
I am for gun responsibility, though. I think if you have a gun, it is your responsibility that it doesn't kill anyone. This means if you leave your gun sitting out on your kitchen table and someone comes along and picks it up and kills somebody, you are responsible (as well as the shooter, of course).
they could tweak it to include medical backgrounds on mental disease.that is the only thing i would even remotely consider to change.this though is a violation of your right to privacy. so i really don't see that changing anytime soon.nor do i really think it should.i live in pa. and we have a good system of checks and balances here.i believe if you are able to own a firearm .you should be able to get it after the waiting period.
I am against gun control for one simple reason, government will not always be there to protect you. When government wants you to give up your gun, the implicit promise is that it will always be there to protect you. Do you think it can? I don't.
I live in Philly we don't really have gun control laws but we defiantly need them there is a 48 hr window for purchasing a weapon. They have tried to use incentive programs for turning in weapons as far as free sixers tickets or cash.
I'm in California. I'm against gun control.
I think when the founders spoke of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they meant it. And I think guns are the only way weak people can protect themselves from strong people.
Against gun control..
I mean.. saying guns kill people is the equivalent of saying pencils misspell words. Somebody has to pull that trigger.
I am from Nebraska..we don't have very strict gun laws.
Since true gun control is hitting your target
I am 100 percent in favor of it
I am in Arkansas
I don't own a gun, and don't want one. But I think gun control is a hollow cause. Gun control laws won't stop criminals from having guns, and they're the ones that cause the problems.
But the arguments used to defend gun ownership are flawed too. There really is no constitutional right to personal firearms, the constitution provides the right to own arms for use in a well regulated militia.. AKA a state army.
I'm from PA, but as a non-gun owner I don't know the laws in the state.
Thanks a millions!Are you against gun control or you for it? Please give me your feedback?
Against it.
Castro - Hitler - Stalin all for it.
When the government knows where all the guns are - they know where to go to take them away. A well armed society is a safer society.
A well armed society will not be tyrannized by a wayward government.Are you against gun control or you for it? Please give me your feedback?
I'm from Upstate New York.
With the exception of laws making possession of a gun by convicted felons and those persons with a documented mental illness illegal ... I am totally against gun control laws!
The problem with gun control laws is fairly easy to see ... the people who would use a gun to break other laws will not care if they are violating gun control laws too!
The solution is also fairly simple. If the government can not show that the applicant has a violent criminal past (including domestic violence), or has a mental illness (including drug or alcohol dependency) they should be required to issue a gun owner's permit. That permit should be valid as a concealed carry license until revoked, with the only reasons for revoking the permit being documentation of a mental illness or violent criminal offense.
No firearm should be illegal to own based on it's look, action or capacity, including full auto firearms!
Once we level the playing field with the criminals of society ... the honest citizen having access to firepower equal to the criminal's, you can bet the violent crime rate would drop like a broken elevator!
I live in California. I'm against most gun control. I whole heartedly support an instant background check for every single gun transfer, to make sure the buyer is not a criminal or kook. But other then that, I believe most of the gun control laws we currently have or are being proposed are completely ineffective or unconstitutional.
A recent example, the gun control proponents are pushing for recording of ammunition purchases. We already did that before. It was stopped because it never once solved a crime. Now it's back.
Gun registration does nothing to prevent crime, but it sure provides a handy list for those wishing to seize guns at a later time.
Waiting periods can help, but can also do harm. I've read more then one story of people, usually women, who believed their lives were in jeopardy, the cops unable to help, and were unable to get the gun in time to prevent some psycho ex boyfriend/husband from killing them as they waved the restraining order in his face.
I live in Crook County IL where King Richard the Nimrod and his court jester Jessie Jackson reign.
The problem I have is that even though gun control was to slow down gun crimes and limit criminals, only those who are law abiding will follow. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. So gun control only limits the legal, responsible, and law abiding firearm owners.
Also, Chicago has a higher homicide rate than this time last year. Homicides in Chicago are majority gun related. Yet Chicago has a handgun ban in city limits. That is the most strict gun law out there. So if gun bans work, why is Chicago in such deep doodoo when it comes to violence.
Now I am not effected directly by Chicago laws but Crook County is defiantly not gun friendly and if they could would adopt stricter gun laws (too many on the books to list).
My main question is this. There are 48 states that allow conceal carry. Why don't they have the problems Mayor Daley spoke of after the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment.
Arizona - has very few gun laws.
I am against gun control, and I feel there is no problem living in this state. Crime does not seem to be a major issue in Phoenix and Tuscon and other major cities here as it does in CA cities (I'm not saying there is no crime here, it's just not as much as LA or other 'gun control' cities).
My personal belief is that gun control just increases crime with guns. Criminals will always have guns, no matter what you do. I would rather be in a place where a criminal is afraid to commit a crime due to fear of civilians may be carrying guns, than live in a place where criminals know no one can stop them from commiting a crime. It's just safer to have guns available than to ban them.
Actually, I believe that everyone above the age of 18 should be required by law to carry a concealed gun on themselves. Yes, there would still be violence and deaths initially, but eventually people will realize that they could die very easily if they piss someone else off, so idealy people will start to be more civil towards each other, and crime rates would drop...
As people like me like to say, 9/11 would never have happened if guns were allowed on planes. Someone tries to kijack it, and every other passenger shoots the terrorists on site. Problem solved.
I am in favor of strong, sensible gun control. The US has the weakest gun laws in the industrialized world, and also the most crime of any comparable country. You would have to be blind to think there is no connection.
The problem is that people are unable to distinguish between gun rights of law-abiding citizens and gun rights of criminals. For example, the NRA says they are against criminals having access to guns, but whenever a law comes up that would block access to guns for criminals (such as background checks at gun shows before buying a gun) they oppose it.
Obviously we have to have some limitations and processes related to gun use and ownership. We can't have Bob Joe hunting deer with a rocket launcher. I don't think anyone would object to a certain level of limitation on gun ownership.
I don't like guns, but if the people who own them are intelligent and safe in their use, then I don't have a problem with it. It's the idiots out there with guns that worry me. I think people should have to pass a thorough examination before being allowed to own a gun because safety is more important than your right to bear arms.
Just as we can take away someone's right to freedom by jailing them after a crime, I think we can take away other rights like owning weapons. If you can't behave, then you can't have a gun, at least for violent offenders.
And I hate that stupid saying ';only criminals will have guns';. You know what? That's better than all the idiots in the world having guns, so I'll take my chances.
Those are my thoughts.
FL here...
Guns are not just a right, but a possible requirement if ever you have to defend your country from enemies foreign or domestic. The governent should never have ALL of the firepower.
However, there should always be reasonable regulations that help keep the public safe. I support the 5 day waiting period (cool off period) before you can recieve a handgun from a dealer. Convicted felons cannot and should not be able to legally carry guns. You shouldn't be able to own a military grade weapon unless you are in the military. I believe guns should have to be registered the same way you register a car...e.g. a gun title...which should be free of charge. You should have the right to conceal a weapon anywhere, as long as it's not a school, government building, medical facility, bank, or any place/event that sells alcohol.
Responsible, law abiding people need to arm themselves. Criminals already have guns.
NC here.
Gun control is extremely short sighted. Only law abiding people are going to follow the law. The fact is that criminals are responsible for crime not guns. We need to quit playing with these people and lock up violent offenders........that would help cut crime, not worrying about how many guns I have in my home. I've owned a gun since I was a little kid and I have yet to rob a liquor store or hold someone up on the street.
Look at this idiotic places that have gun control and check out their crime rates. It just doesn't work.
I'm a law enforcement officer and I'm all for law abiding people owning guns.
Nope in 2008.
I'm for gun control, but not total elimination of guns. I do agree that people, in general, have a right to own a gun. But I do not agree that they have a right to own a gun without limitations set to protect citizens (and especially children) from idiots and criminals. For example, I believe that guns should be required, by law, to be locked safely to protect children. If a child uses your gun to harm someone, YOU should be punished for it for not keeping that gun safely away from them. I also believe that limitations should be placed on who can own a gun, and what kind of gun they should be allowed to own. The Founding Fathers had muskets in mind, not uzis, when they wrote the Constitution. Considering that we have a standing army and navy now, and organized law enforcement, the militia-element of the second amendment is obsolete. Our laws should reflect this, as well as common sense. If you want a gun, fine. But there is absolutely no excuse for fighting against common sense means of keeping people safe. The fact is that the average gun owner is not qualified to police their neighborhood. I, for one, would feel a lot safer if they kept their freakin' guns in a locked cabinet where they belong until they have time to go hunting or to the gun range, where guns actually belong.
p.s. Wow. I thought the pro-gun people would come up with a LOT better and more logical arguments than this! You really think that your handgun is going to protect you from the government!? OMG, LOL!!!!! That is freakin' hilarious!! And who is going to protect me and my family from a crazy nut that actually believes this baloney? And you really think that 9-11 would not have happened if guns were allowed on planes? That is equally crazy, because of two things:
1. The terrorists would have had guns, and everyone would have been dead before you could have done a thing about it.
2. Four planes were crashed in the 9-11 attacks. All it takes is a single bullet hole in the fuselage of a plane to potentially bring it down. So how many times has some crazy guy went into MacDonalds or the Post Office to blow people away? Now put those guys on a jet airliner. Four planes crashed in 9-11 is not as big a deal as losing an airliner full of people a dozen times every year because of nuts on jets with guns. you don't trust the government? Well, I don't trust YOU. Fair enough? I think so. What a weak argument.
Now let's consider the ';crime would go up if only the criminals had guns'; argument. Few civilized nations in the world have as lenient of gun laws as the United States. And yet, the United States is one of the leaders in gun violence in the entire world. That's a fact, although I am sure you'll deny it. (The NRA has made up statistics before, and I am sure they will do it again). Compare that to Britain or Germany, where people are not allowed to keep guns in their homes. LOL! the only nations with more gun violence are the ones with LESS lenient gun laws. Take a look at the Middle East, for example. What a pathetic argument in favor of more guns in the hands of citizens.
An armed society is a polite society. Nobody would dare vent their road rage or try a drive by shooting if they knew more than likely every one they can see is packing a pistol JUST like they are. Criminals give less than S#%t about laws. The ONLY people affected by gun laws are the LAW ABIDING citizens. Look at all the numbers out there - not people's FEELINGS about this issue. The numbers say over and over - LESS gun control equals less crime. The tighter the gun controls on the average citizen, the more apt criminals are to use guns during a crime. Ask yourself this; when I dial 911 do I want to bet my LIFE the responding officers are on the job or hanging out at the Dunkin Dough-nuts?
I live in New York (up state) After 31 yrs in law enforcement, New York took nine months to approve my pistol permit... Do you think that inspires confidence in me or any law enforcement folks that know about it that we are being treated fairly by our government? I know that the red tape is designed to discourage law abiding citizens from even trying to get the required permit when the constitution GUARANTEES they are authorized to possess a gun. Why do you think they made it the SECOND right in the Bill of Rights?
I live in Phoenix Arizona. Every morning I switch on the tv for the news and every morning there is the usual list of shootings. Most are drug related or house invasions where one or more invaders are shot dead. As long as these mental midgets are killing each other or being killed by legally owned guns that's ok by me. I'm against gun control.
I live in VT. I don't have a gun, so I'm not really sure what the laws are.
I am for gun responsibility, though. I think if you have a gun, it is your responsibility that it doesn't kill anyone. This means if you leave your gun sitting out on your kitchen table and someone comes along and picks it up and kills somebody, you are responsible (as well as the shooter, of course).
they could tweak it to include medical backgrounds on mental disease.that is the only thing i would even remotely consider to change.this though is a violation of your right to privacy. so i really don't see that changing anytime soon.nor do i really think it should.i live in pa. and we have a good system of checks and balances here.i believe if you are able to own a firearm .you should be able to get it after the waiting period.
I am against gun control for one simple reason, government will not always be there to protect you. When government wants you to give up your gun, the implicit promise is that it will always be there to protect you. Do you think it can? I don't.
I live in Philly we don't really have gun control laws but we defiantly need them there is a 48 hr window for purchasing a weapon. They have tried to use incentive programs for turning in weapons as far as free sixers tickets or cash.
I'm in California. I'm against gun control.
I think when the founders spoke of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they meant it. And I think guns are the only way weak people can protect themselves from strong people.
Against gun control..
I mean.. saying guns kill people is the equivalent of saying pencils misspell words. Somebody has to pull that trigger.
I am from Nebraska..we don't have very strict gun laws.
Since true gun control is hitting your target
I am 100 percent in favor of it
I am in Arkansas
I don't own a gun, and don't want one. But I think gun control is a hollow cause. Gun control laws won't stop criminals from having guns, and they're the ones that cause the problems.
But the arguments used to defend gun ownership are flawed too. There really is no constitutional right to personal firearms, the constitution provides the right to own arms for use in a well regulated militia.. AKA a state army.
I'm from PA, but as a non-gun owner I don't know the laws in the state.
Guitar Feedback control?
Does anyone know what the small boxes that guitarists hold to the strings to control/create feedback when playing live are called?Guitar Feedback control?
they are called an 'ebow'. they cause a difference to occur in the magnetic field around/over the guitar string.
this makes the string resonate on and on endlessly, causing the effect that you can hear and are referring to.
ps they are very easy to use, and don't require much skill or practice.Guitar Feedback control?
It's called an Ebow (as in electric bow).
You can also buy a Sustainer from Fernandes which fits in the neck pick up position of the guitar and does the same thing.
they are called an 'ebow'. they cause a difference to occur in the magnetic field around/over the guitar string.
this makes the string resonate on and on endlessly, causing the effect that you can hear and are referring to.
ps they are very easy to use, and don't require much skill or practice.Guitar Feedback control?
It's called an Ebow (as in electric bow).
You can also buy a Sustainer from Fernandes which fits in the neck pick up position of the guitar and does the same thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)