Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
CaptainSlow said:
The obvious solution is that all three year olds should be armed. An armed six year old wouldn't shoot an armed three year old, so in this example the three year old was asking for it.
Obvious solution seems to be not to purchase guns illegally and leave them where children can get at them. The gun was illegally purchased (from a gang banger) and illegally owned. According to existing laws, he should not have had that gun. So instead of suggesting, however satirically, that 3yos start arming themselves for protection, what do you propose to do about illegally held guns purchased illegally from gang members?
Or is this just going to be another case of laughing about how stupid fat Americans are?
creampuff said:
CaptainSlow said:
The obvious solution is that all three year olds should be armed. An armed six year old wouldn't shoot an armed three year old, so in this example the three year old was asking for it.
Obvious solution seems to be not to purchase guns illegally and leave them where children can get at them. The gun was illegally purchased (from a gang banger) and illegally owned. According to existing laws, he should not have had that gun. So instead of suggesting, however satirically, that 3yos start arming themselves for protection, what do you propose to do about illegally held guns purchased illegally from gang members?
Or is this just going to be another case of laughing about how stupid fat Americans are?
Blib said:
Were all the 'toddler' shootings (I can't believe that I wrote that), carried out using illegally held firearms?
There are some which are the result of legally held guns stored improperly. But illegally held guns in the hands of people associated with crime or gangs or previous felony convictions or have substance abuse problems are very, very over represented in cases where children get shot. creampuff said:
Blib said:
Were all the 'toddler' shootings (I can't believe that I wrote that), carried out using illegally held firearms?
There are some which are the result of legally held guns stored improperly. But illegally held guns in the hands of people associated with crime or gangs or previous felony convictions or have substance abuse problems are very, very over represented in cases where children get shot. Blib said:
So, that will be a 'no'.
I don't see the point of that statement. If you want to know if in every case ever recorded the gun has been illegally owned, the answer is obviously 'no' and you already knew that before you asked, everyone with a grain of thought already knows it and it was not necessary to ask the question. So why did you ask it?It does seem to be splitting hairs.
To the kids involved it makes no difference whether the gun was illegally owned or not.
Having more guns in general circulation than citizens means that one way or another things like this are going to occur.
Last time I looked, there wasn't an IQ test taken before you can buy a gun.
I seem to remember that a previous shooting was done using an 'economy' gun that didn't have a safety.
Pretend that not a single gun existed in the USA but they were going to be introduced in the near future.
What laws would you want in place before the first gun went on sale?
That's the laws that the country should be aiming to have now.
To the kids involved it makes no difference whether the gun was illegally owned or not.
Having more guns in general circulation than citizens means that one way or another things like this are going to occur.
Last time I looked, there wasn't an IQ test taken before you can buy a gun.
I seem to remember that a previous shooting was done using an 'economy' gun that didn't have a safety.
Pretend that not a single gun existed in the USA but they were going to be introduced in the near future.
What laws would you want in place before the first gun went on sale?
That's the laws that the country should be aiming to have now.
longshot said:
I seem to remember that a previous shooting was done using an 'economy' gun that didn't have a safety.
Pretend that not a single gun existed in the USA but they were going to be introduced in the near future.
What laws would you want in place before the first gun went on sale?
That's the laws that the country should be aiming to have now.
There's no point talking about a situation which cannot be, you can only work out what can be done with the situation as it stands, which is millions of unregistered guns and a population with no inclination to hand them in. You could talk about how to register future purchases or register owners or reduce the number of guns in circulation, but it is pointless making up a situation where there are no guns around and suddenly we are going to make laws on that basis. Pretend that not a single gun existed in the USA but they were going to be introduced in the near future.
What laws would you want in place before the first gun went on sale?
That's the laws that the country should be aiming to have now.
Mechanical safeties depend on the model of gun, not the cost btw and even with a mechanical safety, a child can turn it off in an instant. The pistol which you see your typical armed British policeman with has no mechanical safety; if they draw the gun, it will fire when the trigger is pulled without having to do anything else. The way to stop children from shooting each other is to make sure guns in the house are locked up where children cannot get to them. This goes hand in hand with not smoking crack and leaving your illegally bought gun laying around.
creampuff said:
The way to stop children from shooting each other is to make sure guns in the house are locked up where children cannot get to them. This goes hand in hand with not smoking crack and leaving your illegally bought gun laying around.
This is true, however too many people will not lock up their guns, as they need them for self defence, or at least think they do.
mygoldfishbowl said:
Minemapper said:
And in the twisted logic of gun-world, watch this get spun as an example of why banning guns 'doesn't work' (Chicago is supposedly a 'gun free zone').
Insanity.
Banning guns from an already gun free zone in America will not work. Insanity.
But Chicago and New York and other heavily gun controlled areas don't exist in a vacuum-as this story proves.
And all those 'illegal guns' well they're not produced in some underground factory-theyre basically legal guns traded on illegally. But even a gun register is opposed!!
creampuff said:
longshot said:
I seem to remember that a previous shooting was done using an 'economy' gun that didn't have a safety.
Pretend that not a single gun existed in the USA but they were going to be introduced in the near future.
What laws would you want in place before the first gun went on sale?
That's the laws that the country should be aiming to have now.
There's no point talking about a situation which cannot be, you can only work out what can be done with the situation as it stands, which is millions of unregistered guns and a population with no inclination to hand them in. You could talk about how to register future purchases or register owners or reduce the number of guns in circulation, but it is pointless making up a situation where there are no guns around and suddenly we are going to make laws on that basis. Pretend that not a single gun existed in the USA but they were going to be introduced in the near future.
What laws would you want in place before the first gun went on sale?
That's the laws that the country should be aiming to have now.
Mechanical safeties depend on the model of gun, not the cost btw and even with a mechanical safety, a child can turn it off in an instant. The pistol which you see your typical armed British policeman with has no mechanical safety; if they draw the gun, it will fire when the trigger is pulled without having to do anything else. The way to stop children from shooting each other is to make sure guns in the house are locked up where children cannot get to them. This goes hand in hand with not smoking crack and leaving your illegally bought gun laying around.
t themselves if you smoke within 100 yards of their precious offspring yet they keep a weapon designed to kill in the house. Americans are stupid...creampuff said:
Blib said:
So, that will be a 'no'.
I don't see the point of that statement. If you want to know if in every case ever recorded the gun has been illegally owned, the answer is obviously 'no' and you already knew that before you asked, everyone with a grain of thought already knows it and it was not necessary to ask the question. So why did you ask it?Edited by Blib on Wednesday 21st October 09:26
gavsdavs said:
creampuff said:
This goes hand in hand with not smoking crack and leaving your illegally bought gun laying around.
I'd rather have a crack smoker in my house than a gun, legal or not.At least a crack smoker is only hurting himself and isn't a danger to others around him.
gavsdavs said:
I'd rather have a crack smoker in my house than a gun, legal or not.
At least a crack smoker is only hurting himself and isn't a danger to others around him.
The gun isn't going to hurt anyone unless there are irresponsible people get their hands on it - your resident crackhead for example At least a crack smoker is only hurting himself and isn't a danger to others around him.
Unfortunately it's a religion. Ever tried to persuade a fervent Christian that there's no God, that they're just wrong? I'd be amazed if you succeed.
Here's a view I came across which just made me think that perhaps the Americans are beyond help:
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm
The article above just dumbfounded me. It's not a piss-take, or if it is, it's a really very good one. The guy seems to take the view that having a gun makes everyone more civilised, because if you have a gun you have the same power as everyone else, thus they have to persuade you to their course of action.
This presupposes that there are loads of violent people out there trying to force you to do things against your will, and that there's no controls (such as, I dunno, a police force) to keep order. The author states "I don’t carry it [a gun] because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid." And there's the problem. In a civilised society, such as Britain or Spain or Italy there's no need to carry a gun. In almost all circumstances you can walk around unafraid. This guy seems to take the view that even if he's unafraid, better to have a gun so that he's definitely unafraid. And that if everyone carried a gun there'd be perfect civilisation.
He conveniently ignore the fact that some are more willing to shoot than others, and that the lawbreaker, the one who refuses to conform, is highly likely to shoot first, whereas the law-abiding and responsible gunowner would take steps to verify that they were in danger before opening fire. So the baddies win in that situation anyway. Unless, of course, these armed good guys walk into every building pretending they’re Jack Reacher, looking for lines of sight, rehearsing how they’d react in a takedown and generally hoping for some action to prove to themselves that their fears aren’t paranoid. And, after a while, you end up with Bernard Goetz. Or you have a fantasist who cracks and takes out a school, or goes postal with his (almost always blokes, isn’t it?) colleagues. Or you just have a six year old who picks up Daddy’s gun and acts out a scene from Die Hard.
Batst mental. And OK, the view from the link above comes from a niche-within-a-niche, Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, but Ted Nugent, NRA's poster-boy for gun-fuelled idiocy, references and endorses it in one of his "gunz iz grate" books (I'd not recommend that you try reading one, they're aimed at sub-primates). Nevertheless we have to accept that the gun-religious really do believe fervently in their absolute need to have a gun, and that to them it’s a real totem of their understanding of America.
Here's a view I came across which just made me think that perhaps the Americans are beyond help:
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm
The article above just dumbfounded me. It's not a piss-take, or if it is, it's a really very good one. The guy seems to take the view that having a gun makes everyone more civilised, because if you have a gun you have the same power as everyone else, thus they have to persuade you to their course of action.
This presupposes that there are loads of violent people out there trying to force you to do things against your will, and that there's no controls (such as, I dunno, a police force) to keep order. The author states "I don’t carry it [a gun] because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid." And there's the problem. In a civilised society, such as Britain or Spain or Italy there's no need to carry a gun. In almost all circumstances you can walk around unafraid. This guy seems to take the view that even if he's unafraid, better to have a gun so that he's definitely unafraid. And that if everyone carried a gun there'd be perfect civilisation.
He conveniently ignore the fact that some are more willing to shoot than others, and that the lawbreaker, the one who refuses to conform, is highly likely to shoot first, whereas the law-abiding and responsible gunowner would take steps to verify that they were in danger before opening fire. So the baddies win in that situation anyway. Unless, of course, these armed good guys walk into every building pretending they’re Jack Reacher, looking for lines of sight, rehearsing how they’d react in a takedown and generally hoping for some action to prove to themselves that their fears aren’t paranoid. And, after a while, you end up with Bernard Goetz. Or you have a fantasist who cracks and takes out a school, or goes postal with his (almost always blokes, isn’t it?) colleagues. Or you just have a six year old who picks up Daddy’s gun and acts out a scene from Die Hard.
Bats
t mental. And OK, the view from the link above comes from a niche-within-a-niche, Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, but Ted Nugent, NRA's poster-boy for gun-fuelled idiocy, references and endorses it in one of his "gunz iz grate" books (I'd not recommend that you try reading one, they're aimed at sub-primates). Nevertheless we have to accept that the gun-religious really do believe fervently in their absolute need to have a gun, and that to them it’s a real totem of their understanding of America.Edited by longblackcoat on Wednesday 21st October 13:30
longblackcoat said:
Unfortunately it's a religion. Ever tried to persuade a fervent Christian that there's no God, that they're just wrong? I'd be amazed if you succeed.
Here's a view I came across which just made me think that perhaps the Americans are beyond help:
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm
The article above just dumbfounded me. It's not a piss-take, or if it is, it's a really very good one. The guy seems to take the view that having a gun makes everyone more civilised, because if you have a gun you have the same power as everyone else, thus they have to persuade you to their course of action.
This presupposes that there are loads of violent people out there trying to force you to do things against your will, and that there's no controls (such as, I dunno, a police force) to keep order. The author states "I don’t carry it [a gun] because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid." And there's the problem. In a civilised society, such as Britain or Spain or Italy there's no need to carry a gun. In almost all circumstances you can walk around unafraid. This guy seems to take the view that even if he's unafraid, better to have a gun so that he's definitely unafraid. And that if everyone carried a gun there'd be perfect civilisation.
He conveniently ignore the fact that some are more willing to shoot than others, and that the lawbreaker, the one who refuses to conform, is highly likely to shoot first, whereas the law-abiding and responsible gunowner would take steps to verify that they were in danger before opening fire. So the baddies win in that situation anyway. Unless, of course, these armed good guys walk into every building pretending they’re Jack Reacher, looking for lines of sight, rehearsing how they’d react in a takedown and generally hoping for some action to prove to themselves that their fears aren’t paranoid. And, after a while, you end up with Bernard Goetz. Or you have a fantasist who cracks and takes out a school, or goes postal with his (almost always blokes, isn’t it?) colleagues. Or you just have a six year old who picks up Daddy’s gun and acts out a scene from Die Hard.
Batst mental. And OK, the view from the link above comes from a niche-within-a-niche, Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, but Ted Nugent, NRA's poster-boy for gun-fuelled idiocy, references and endorses it in one of his "gunz iz grate" books (I'd not recommend that you try reading one, they're aimed at sub-primates). Nevertheless we have to accept that the gun-religious really do believe fervently in their absolute need to have a gun, and that to them it’s a real totem of their understanding of America.
His reason v force argument is weak when guns are involved there is very limited time for reason hence why you see so many US police shooting very quickly. A few seconds delay and it's game over. You arm everyone and it can only get worse. Here's a view I came across which just made me think that perhaps the Americans are beyond help:
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm
The article above just dumbfounded me. It's not a piss-take, or if it is, it's a really very good one. The guy seems to take the view that having a gun makes everyone more civilised, because if you have a gun you have the same power as everyone else, thus they have to persuade you to their course of action.
This presupposes that there are loads of violent people out there trying to force you to do things against your will, and that there's no controls (such as, I dunno, a police force) to keep order. The author states "I don’t carry it [a gun] because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid." And there's the problem. In a civilised society, such as Britain or Spain or Italy there's no need to carry a gun. In almost all circumstances you can walk around unafraid. This guy seems to take the view that even if he's unafraid, better to have a gun so that he's definitely unafraid. And that if everyone carried a gun there'd be perfect civilisation.
He conveniently ignore the fact that some are more willing to shoot than others, and that the lawbreaker, the one who refuses to conform, is highly likely to shoot first, whereas the law-abiding and responsible gunowner would take steps to verify that they were in danger before opening fire. So the baddies win in that situation anyway. Unless, of course, these armed good guys walk into every building pretending they’re Jack Reacher, looking for lines of sight, rehearsing how they’d react in a takedown and generally hoping for some action to prove to themselves that their fears aren’t paranoid. And, after a while, you end up with Bernard Goetz. Or you have a fantasist who cracks and takes out a school, or goes postal with his (almost always blokes, isn’t it?) colleagues. Or you just have a six year old who picks up Daddy’s gun and acts out a scene from Die Hard.
Bats
t mental. And OK, the view from the link above comes from a niche-within-a-niche, Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, but Ted Nugent, NRA's poster-boy for gun-fuelled idiocy, references and endorses it in one of his "gunz iz grate" books (I'd not recommend that you try reading one, they're aimed at sub-primates). Nevertheless we have to accept that the gun-religious really do believe fervently in their absolute need to have a gun, and that to them it’s a real totem of their understanding of America.Edited by longblackcoat on Wednesday 21st October 13:30
Debating religion with Christians is fun. Start with God created heaven and earth ... and dinosaurs?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff