Do you think that guns should be Outlawed

[SS-Block]

Originally Posted by Bondgirl

I was watching the news tonight and Obama said gun culture needs to change since the killing of those.young children I hope this is action and not just words

I hope any action also applies to overzealous and, or panicky police.

[Bondgirl]

why does the gun lobby groups have so much power over the government of America when the government should be in power also police should always be armed because of the poeple there really comes the timer to know who ts in charge of a nation

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by creekin111

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and not a single shot was fired. He did it with crap he bought from a hardware store. Literally.

And out of the x amount of people who build bombs how many end up blowing themselves up while making these bombs, compared to the number of people who buy guns to kill and end up shooting themselves dead with a gun?

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

Actually, no. He obtained a lot of the materials by stealing them or committing fraud. It took him from mid-1994 through early-95 to collect all of the materials and then 2 days to build the bomb. On top of that, in making the bomb, he put himself in possession of an unregistered destructive device, which is illegal.

Now with all of this in mind, the question comes up: If Timothy McVeigh had been able to walk down the street and by bombs legally, would he have killed more, less, or about the same amount of people?

BAM! (no pun intended)

[bourahioro]

It's simple - The Right to Bear Arms is outdated. This piece of the constitution was written WAY before crazies started shooting shit up... This needs to be revamped.

The ONLY people that should have guns are Military, Police AND hunters... However, I include hunters with a few stipulations - Firstly, you should have to be tested and earn your firearms license (like you would a drivers license, not just an easy, one day test). Secondly, I believe that in addition, you should also have to undergo psychiatric examinations EVERY YEAR, if deemed unfit, you should have to surrender your license and weapons and then see a psychiatrist for a minimum period of time before having your license and weapons returned.

I don't believe that anyone that isn't a law enforcement officer or enlisted in the military should even have the option to own a handgun. Hunters should be able to own rifles and bows (If deemed fit).

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Prohibition doesn't work. I feel sorry for anybody who approaches issues like this based on emotion or kindergarten logic(in your case- no guns would mean less violence). As for your pity toward me, save it for yourself. And your condescension here is basically an insult, so your argument basically self-detonates anyway.

Facts are not kindergarten logic.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Guns are not the problem. People are. I would like to point out I read a story that in China some guy just used a knife to cut up a 20 or so people in a school of grade schoolers. It is my understanding this has been a problem there this year. I will say few deaths with knives, so far. Guns are a very efficient and easy way to kill many people at one time.

Yeah, the knife thing happened. How many died?

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

There are a few big reasons why they are not and can not do anything to get rid of guns.

1. The second Amendment in our Constitution allows people to own guns (arms). The Constitution is the basis of all our laws.

2. The gun lobby is too strong

3. Because most people feel the laws we have on the books work

4. Because a few nuts are not spoil it for everyone

5. It takes years and years for anything to get passed into law. Nothing as big as this is going to get changed quickly.

I'll stop you at number 1, because that's absolutely not what the 2nd amendment is talking about. It's talking about militia, ie military. The right to "keep and bear arms" means the militia got to keep their weapons when the fighting was over, instead of handing them over after battles.

What's an 'arm' anyway? They had muskets and flint lock pistols back then, we have machine guns and atomic bombs now. Should every citizen have a right to an atomic bomb?

Of course not. Why? BECAUSE THEY KILL PEOPLE. And they do it on a mass scale. Their only purpose is to blow up and kill, yet we often cite it as a defense measure. "Nuclear deterrent." And all that.

The same exact arguments are made about guns. Oh, its for defense. Here take ten. It's crap. Guns kill things, and that's their only purpose.

How we can regulate cough syrup so that people wont make meth and not do a damn thing about the thousands of gun related deaths every year is just astounding.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by electriclite

And out of the x amount of people who build bombs how many end up blowing themselves up while making these bombs, compared to the number of people who buy guns to kill and end up shooting themselves dead with a gun?



BAM! (no pun intended)

You can't go into a Wal Mart and buy a bomb. Like I said before, any idiot can pull a trigger.

Besides, we regulate things like bomb making materials. If you're a farmer and you buy bulk fertilizer, the FBI shows up personally at your door to make sure you're not building bombs.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

You can't go into a Wal Mart and buy a bomb. Like I said before, any idiot can pull a trigger.

Besides, we regulate things like bomb making materials. If you're a farmer and you buy bulk fertilizer, the FBI shows up personally at your door to make sure you're not building bombs.

Yes I think that's part of the point I was trying to make, thank you.

[Preston_79]

I wonder why some countries like Switzerland that have a gun in every home have almost no gun crime?

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. But the suicide rate is about double what it is in America. Japan has the same suicide rate as Switzerland despite the citizens not having access to guns.

Many believe that we need gun laws in the United states because we don't have the same community structure that they have in Switzerland. That's the root of the problem, making well adjusted citizens, not guns control.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Preston_79

I wonder why some countries like Switzerland that have a gun in every home have almost no gun crime?

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. But the suicide rate is about double what it is in America. Japan has the same suicide rate as Switzerland despite the citizens not having access to guns.

Many believe that we need gun laws in the United states because we don't have the same community structure that they have in Switzerland. That's the root of the problem, making well adjusted citizens, not guns control.

I do have to agree with the last part, even though I'm not expert on Switzerland other than, "I really want to see that one day on a backpacking trip."

What I do know is that Switzerland is tiny, and is the 9th wealthiest country in the world. A small country of well-off citizens, I'd say from a common sense perspective, would obviously have less crime overall. (And I'd be right - the US has 38 times the crime rate Switzerland has.)

There are probably many cultural factors that go into each country. If we regulated gun the way other countries did, it wouldnt work THE SAME WAY as the other countries. If we did it like, England, it wouldnt be as effective; if we did it like Japan, it wouldnt be as effective - in one way or another. Our border is too big and there are already too many guns on the streets. It would take a decade at least, and the plan would likely need tweaking, with new laws made and old ones repealed every election.

Our country is full of morons. We settled women's rights fifty years ago, but jesus look at that last election, trying every which way to fuck women over by repealing access to all kinds of healthcare. Other countries were extremely confused, and yet one of those idiots was almost our commander in chief.

But it would be PROGRESS.

[Preston_79]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

I do have to agree with the last part, even though I'm not expert on Switzerland other than, "I really want to see that one day on a backpacking trip."

What I do know is that Switzerland is tiny, and is the 9th wealthiest country in the world. A small country of well-off citizens, I'd say from a common sense perspective, would obviously have less crime overall. (And I'd be right - the US has 38 times the crime rate Switzerland has.)

There are probably many cultural factors that go into each country. If we regulated gun the way other countries did, it wouldnt work THE SAME WAY as the other countries. If we did it like, England, it wouldnt be as effective; if we did it like Japan, it wouldnt be as effective - in one way or another. Our border is too big and there are already too many guns on the streets. It would take a decade at least, and the plan would likely need tweaking, with new laws made and old ones repealed every election.

Our country is full of morons. We settled women's rights fifty years ago, but jesus look at that last election, trying every which way to fuck women over by repealing access to all kinds of healthcare. Other countries were extremely confused, and yet one of those idiots was almost our commander in chief.

But it would be PROGRESS.

I've been told though that the reason crime is so low in some countries is simply because they don't have all the same laws that we have on the book here in America. Rarely in Switzerland is anyone put in jail for more than a year unless the commit murder.

[DaveyJoeG]

I love seeing the argument against gun control is that drugs are illegal but it's still easy to obtain drugs. So criminals would still be able to get guns if they want to... but I bet those same people would never approve of legalizing drugs, despite the fact that they are only harmful to people who choose to use them, not innocent bystanders. A major problem is the gun culture of our country, we love that shit. And when our own government is kicking in doors with assault rifles and shooting up families because of the drug war, it's no wonder that we live in fear and want to pack heat ourselves. Sorry to keep bringing up the drug war, but I think there's a correlation there, and if we just start giving reefer to the crazies, we might be able to tone down some of the violence.

[adamjohnson]

As of 2004, every day in the United States, 8 children are killed by guns. We're busy mourning a tragedy, but in reality it basically happens every 3 days.

Mental health care needs to be addressed, sure, but it's not really the problem. Not every gun death a mentally ill person on a shooting spree. Plenty mentally sound people kill other mentally sound people. Then there's accidental shooting, which is - statistically - much more likely to happen if you own a gun, than if not.

Firearms are the fourth leading cause of accidental deaths among children ages 5 to 14.

If, say, a child's toy, or a piece of furniture, or even a chemical found in the home was found to be the FOURTH LEADING CAUSE of accidental death among any age rate, we would all act swiftly to make sure that problem goes away permanently.

But not this. This we're not even allowed to talk about.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by Preston_79

I wonder why some countries like Switzerland that have a gun in every home have almost no gun crime?

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. But the suicide rate is about double what it is in America. Japan has the same suicide rate as Switzerland despite the citizens not having access to guns.

Many believe that we need gun laws in the United states because we don't have the same community structure that they have in Switzerland. That's the root of the problem, making well adjusted citizens, not guns control.

"Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias"

Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.

Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.
For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.
Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.
Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

EK: As I understand it, there’s a stronger link between guns and suicide than between guns and homicide. And one of the really interesting parts of your paper is your recounting of the Israeli military’s effort to cut suicides among soldiers by restricting access to guns.
JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.

Notice that Switzerland and Israel are countries where military service is compulsory for (at least) all 19 year old males. Meaning a lot more people are trained on how to use and store a weapon properly. And the Swiss actually have militias and have mandatory training every year.


Gun Politics in Switzerland

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

Facts are not kindergarten logic.

The idea that "things"(i.e. guns) can cause us to act in ways we are unable to resist is a reversion to the kind of childhood thinking that sees power in our toys, Pez dispensers, and other material things. Such thinking presumes that we are little more than mechanisms upon which the inanimate world exercises its free will. It's totally fucking insane. But it is precisely to that level of childish thinking to which we must be reduced if we are to remain subject to institutional domination, after all.

[Mr. Guiltless]

And it is really fucking appalling that the president et al sheds "tears" for these kids all the while being responsible for the deaths of many more kids in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fucking disgusting.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

The idea that "things"(i.e. guns) can cause us to act in ways we are unable to resist is a reversion to the kind of childhood thinking that sees power in our toys, Pez dispensers, and other material things. Such thinking presumes that we are little more than mechanisms upon which the inanimate world exercises its free will. It's totally fucking insane. But it is precisely to that level of childish thinking to which we must be reduced if we are to remain subject to institutional domination, after all.

Of course it's crazy. No one thinks that.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

And it is really fucking appalling that the president et al sheds "tears" for these kids all the while being responsible for the deaths of many more kids in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fucking disgusting.

[Mr. Guiltless]

^What's your problem?

If the prez really was against the death of children, he would have rewarded Assange and WikiLeaks for uncovering them in those two countries, instead of trying to destroy him.

[Preston_79]

Some studies indicate that the mere presence of a weapon increases the likelihood of a violent attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_effect

Initial evidence
Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage proposed the weapons effect in their experiment assessing the causal relation between firearms and impulse aggression. In a controlled laboratory setting, experimenters induced anger in half of the participants while the other half of participants did not receive anger induction. The participants were then placed in room containing either firearms or neutral objects, such as badminton rackets, and then given the opportunity to act aggressively by administering electrical shocks to another individual. The results showed angered participants exposed to a rifle or revolver administered significantly more electric shocks than the angered participants exposed to neutral objects.
Subsequent evidence
More recent research has shown that weapon-associated words, also known as the weapons priming effect, increase the likelihood of aggressive responses which may be mediated through weapon-use context and individual familiarity with weapons. Further research suggests that the weapons priming effect's ability to predict aggressive behavior is diminished among frequent weapons users, and a heightened potential for weapon effects exists in societies with lower levels of weapons availability.

[Preston_79]

I'm just supplying information as it comes to me. I've only stated that I would not ban guns, but believe me, I love guns. Guns should be more regulated, but maybe mandated gun safety classes for everyone at the same time would be a good thing (everyone who's already gone through mental evaluations) and making improvements in quality of life in general, which really encompasses a lot of stuff. Tackle the problem from both ends, because the solution is not to do away with guns, or raise the price of ammunition, etc.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Notice how such little attention has been to the side effects of the psychotropic drugs which the shooter was prescribed in contrast to the gun hysteria.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Notice how such little attention has been to the side effects of the psychotropic drugs which the shooter was prescribed in contrast to the gun hysteria.

Because - again - not every gun-related death is a mentally ill person on a killing spree.

I agree that we need to talk about mental health in this country much more than we do, that our system is broken and must be fixed — but the fact is, most people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=19000

You're so busy trying to figure out exactly what was wrong with Adam Lanza — and that's a discussion to have at some point — but right now we really need to stay focused on gun control, the thing that can stop something like this from happening tomorrow. Because at the rate we're going, that possibility isn't exactly non-existent. In fact, it's basically already happening.

Again, EVERY DAY an average of 8 children die EVERY DAY in this country. This mass shooting happens EVERY THREE DAYS. A reporter picked a day and reported their stories. Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007....usgunviolence

Yes, we can talk about both guns and mental health, but we must prioritize action on guns — it's concrete, and it's doable today. Guns are a problem, a known commodity, and we must do something about them.

Listen, no matter how good a therapist is, no matter what medications a person is on, sometimes people still kill themselves and/or others. Mental health services do need to be improved, but those services can't do it all. Some acts are inexplicable and senseless, and even within a system of excellent mental health care, there will be acts that defy explanation. We need to make it harder for these things to happen. Launching into a conversation about mental health takes away from the issue of gun control, especially in a nation this easily distracted. Especially in a nation this sick.

Think, man. A crazy person may remain a crazy person thanks to our shit healthcare, but a crazy person cant become a crazy person on a shooting spree without access to the weapons in the first place. And focusing on the other issue IGNORES the thousands of other gun-related fatalities that had NOTHING to do with mental health.

[DuncanIdaho]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

the FBI shows up personally at your door to make sure you're not building bombs.

False. You fill out a shit ton of paperwork and that is it, all provided by the company selling/manufacturing the fertilizer. If something odd shows up in the paperwork THEN the FBI might come a knockin.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

I love seeing the argument against gun control is that drugs are illegal but it's still easy to obtain drugs. So criminals would still be able to get guns if they want to... but I bet those same people would never approve of legalizing drugs, despite the fact that they are only harmful to people who choose to use them, not innocent bystanders. A major problem is the gun culture of our country, we love that shit. And when our own government is kicking in doors with assault rifles and shooting up families because of the drug war, it's no wonder that we live in fear and want to pack heat ourselves. Sorry to keep bringing up the drug war, but I think there's a correlation there, and if we just start giving reefer to the crazies, we might be able to tone down some of the violence.

I know what you mean. It's similar to how being exposed to murder and mayhem in the media taints people's souls, making them prone toward violence, just not the murder and mayhem that's in the bible.

Originally Posted by DuncanIdaho

False. You fill out a shit ton of paperwork and that is it, all provided by the company selling/manufacturing the fertilizer. If something odd shows up in the paperwork THEN the FBI might come a knockin.

I think the point is that in NO situation is the FBI going to show up at your door because you bought a gun. To go along with the drug comparison Davey brought up, it's similar to the federal tracking of psudoephedrine/ban on ephedrine, something that undeniably lessens the production of meth. Sure, meth is still around, but it's making it a lot harder for people to get it. (And as a personal aside, I'd much rather have access to more effective nasal decongestants)

The overall theme seems to be that saying "well people still do this" argument is silly because essentially it's saying "what's the point in even trying" -- So if we are going to compare this to that, don't stop where we need to make our point. The fact is that you can't go down to the store and buy a bomb. And to really continue completing the comparison, it's easier to make a gun than it is to make a bomb.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

The overall theme seems to be that saying "well people still do this" argument is silly because essentially it's saying "what's the point in even trying" -- So if we are going to compare this to that, don't stop where we need to make our point. The fact is that you can't go down to the store and buy a bomb. And to really continue completing the comparison, it's easier to make a gun than it is to make a bomb.

Depends on the bomb. I can go to the Smart & Final next door and get what I need for a bomb right now. A "Hindenburg Bomb"(see George Heyduke) with a 2 liter of Coke and a few other supplies.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Depends on the bomb. I can go to the Smart & Final next door and get what I need for a bomb right now. A "Hindenburg Bomb"(see George Heyduke) with a 2 liter of Coke and a few other supplies.

And if that becomes a giant epidemic killing a dozen people every single day, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT NEXT. Geez.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

And if that becomes a giant epidemic killing a dozen people every single day, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT NEXT. Geez.

Yeah, we'll get some Coke bans going... maybe gravity too, in case gun control leads to an uptick in the number of people being pushed off of cliffs.

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

Actually, no. He obtained a lot of the materials by stealing them or committing fraud. It took him from mid-1994 through early-95 to collect all of the materials and then 2 days to build the bomb. On top of that, in making the bomb, he put himself in possession of an unregistered destructive device, which is illegal.

Now with all of this in mind, the question comes up: If Timothy McVeigh had been able to walk down the street and by bombs legally, would he have killed more, less, or about the same amount of people?

Why and where would they make bombs legal?

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

And if that becomes a giant epidemic killing a dozen people every single day, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT NEXT. Geez.

Since this is a movie site, this quote from Se7en immediately came to my mind after reading your post: "It's impressive to see a man feeding off his emotions."

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Bourne101

Yeah, we'll get some Coke bans going... maybe gravity too, in case gun control leads to an uptick in the number of people being pushed off of cliffs.

Don't be foolish.

A common, over the counter chemical was being used in making meth. So they banned it. It hasn't stopped people making meth, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt, does it. It's just inconvenienced a small group of people with stuffy noses.

If an ingredient in your bomb is going to be banned, I'm sure it falls in the "few other supplies" categories.

My point was and is, just because something ELSE is ALSO dangerous, doesnt mean we shouldnt address THIS one. That argument is, as was said, basically a "why bother" argument. And it doesnt hold up.

Why should we bother? BECAUSE IT'S PROGRESS. Because it saves lives. We dont know what the future will hold. But inaction is not going to make this problem get any better. Period.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Since this is a movie site, this quote from Se7en immediately came to my mind after reading your post: "It's impressive to see a man feeding off his emotions."

Yeah, a pretty basic ones too. Compassion. Empathy. Things like that.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

Don't be foolish.

A common, over the counter chemical was being used in making meth. So they banned it. It hasn't stopped people making meth, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt, does it. It's just inconvenienced a small group of people with stuffy noses.

If an ingredient in your bomb is going to be banned, I'm sure it falls in the "few other supplies" categories.

My point was and is, just because something ELSE is ALSO dangerous, doesnt mean we shouldnt address THIS one. That argument is, as was said, basically a "why bother" argument. And it doesnt hold up.

Why should we bother? BECAUSE IT'S PROGRESS. Because it saves lives. We dont know what the future will hold. But inaction is not going to make this problem get any better. Period.

Dude, I was being sarcastic and agreeing with you.

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

Yeah, a pretty basic ones too. Compassion. Empathy. Things like that.

Except that Reason. Logic. Aren't mutually exclusive with those.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless

Except that Reason. Logic. Aren't mutually exclusive with those.

Two things you clearly do not possess in any of your arguments.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Bourne101

Dude, I was being sarcastic and agreeing with you.

Getting hard to tell these days.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

Getting hard to tell these days.

Yeah, that post was just an exaggerated version of what some pro-gun people expect authorities to say if guns were banned.

I'm with you 100%.

[creekin111]

I'm sorry I just have to mention its pretty lame where this thread is going. lol

[Mr. Guiltless]

Originally Posted by Bourne101

Two things you clearly do not possess in any of your arguments.

How can they appear that way to someone who's clearly governed solely by his emotions?