Forums → WEPR → Gun control in the US
| 1089 | 401559 |
Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.)
I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons.
Supporting evidence: the following skit:
What's your reason?
Setting: A gun shop, modern day.
A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please."
The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?"
The Customer says "I need one for personal protection."
The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell."
The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!"
The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left.
Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun."
Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks.
The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting."
The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy.
The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states.
The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff.
Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says.
The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot!
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet.
The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!"
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves.
Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says.
The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other".
"Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly.
The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer.
"Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows.
"Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"
Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?
- 1,089 Replies
"it cannot happen to me."
...said the people who buy guns for safety and protection despite the reality that guns in the home are more likely to shoot the residents (gun owner and family) or friends they know than an attacker/intruder/potential rapist/burglar/hamburglar/ninja/pirate/oscar the grouch/assassin/zombie.
Homes with guns are more likely to have homicides and ER trips due to gun shot wounds (both on purpose and "accidental".Fun fact did you know homes with dirt bikes are more likely to have dirt bike accidents.
Did you know home with dirt bikes in them are more likely to have dirt bike accidents.
Did you know home with dirt bikes in them are more likely to have dirt bike accidents.
What an idiotic thing to say. Accidents can happen with nearly everything, homicides however usually not. To add with that, the purpose of a gun at home is most often for self-defence, so it kinda doesn't make sense if it actually increases the risks, which it does.
Not to mention dirt bikes aren't a tool made for the sole purpose to maim or kill. Guns are tools with death in mind.
I'm sorry my reply is so late. I don't get a lot of time on the computer much anymore so hopefully I can reply, if needed, to this one in a more timely matter.
Tin hats, all kinds of them, all sizes of the, you can buy them online now at www.tinhatnutjob.com, hurry and get yourself a tin hat, 10% of profits will go to cheeseburge organization and NRA.
If buy a tin hat before 1st match you get 50% discount.
TIN HATS, AS OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED.
What do I even make of that? The tragedy here is you think you have a compelling argument. (Or whatever you want to call that) Honestly, its the people like you that are so ignorant and full of bias that you think you are funny? Or clever?
At least the two past posters had an argument. Whether or not I agree with all of it is another story. But you. Seriously. And you think people are going to have a serious conversation with you?
I'm trying to tell people that America is shifting in a direction that people from Soviet states are warning is happening here. And you laugh at it? I'm done with you.
------
Getoffmydangle,
You have to understand, with your logic people cut themselves (and severely at times) with kitchen knives. You would want to ban knives because of a small percentage of accidents?
I do think you are very wrong on this. Many people own guns but only a very small percentage of those gun owners hurt themselves. You are picking out a very small group of people to push an idea.
Accidents are not justifications to ban or limit non-criminals. You cannot protect people from themselves unless you want ultimate control over people....whats that called?
I'm sorry, but it sounds like you don't have much life experience and live in some theoretical world. - How do you stop a criminal with a gun? Words? Smiles? Harsh language to piss him/her off more? Rainbows? None of the above. You disarm the threat with a weapon of equal or greater value.
Its silly to think that someone is more safe without a device to defend themselves with against people who wish to do harm. Your logic on that issue is really illogical. What keeps actors, performers, the president, and other VIP's safe? Armed guards.
Those people in Sandy's path need housing, food, and supplies, and perhaps to not be living at sea-level, but not more guns.
How is someone suppose to protect their home and their possessions from robbery and or a mob? Have you seen the Katrina photo's of the mobs just looting and raiding private business and personal homes? Do you really think the police have time and effort to protect every single house? Of course not.
Honestly, the rest of your argument suggests that you want to protect the criminal. Stop protecting the criminals!
Then you just have a bunch of homeless, shelterless, disaster-struck, desperate, hungry people with guns.
Because they can't use knives? Because they can't use baseball bats? Because they can't use their own hands? Your bad logic is bad.
I think your bias is really strong, just like mine. So we are not going to come to an understanding on this issue.
Kasic
Making policy to determine safe usage is not dismantling freedom or the bill of rights.
In a way it is and in a way it isn't. Again, I will state, you have to look at who is leading the charge here. And again I will tell you, its the same people who have been quoted that they would disarm America in a heartbeat.
Criminals who have felonies don't have the right to own a weapon. That's because they went through Due Process to have their rights removed. Doctors and therapists do not have the right to take rights away that Obama think they should. "Report your friends and family to the proper authorities." I wonder where the world has heard that before......
More strict gun control means there's less guns out there for criminals to get a hold of, and still doesn't take away people's rights to own a weapon.
Because banning alcohol worked? Right? Because banning Meth and Crack from off the streets helped? Right?
Because the ban of guns in Chicago didn't make them the country leader in homicides? Right?
Sandy Hook's State had the most strict gun controls in the country. That didn't stop the shooter from stealing the guns and killing children did it?
You mean having more in-depth background checks, to make sure people who want to own guns aren't going to go on a rampage, even if it's a very small amount that actually do so?
Have you even bought a gun? Do you know what background checks are required? I do. The background check, checks if you have a criminal background. That's it. Its not a future telling device that will say whether someone will go nuts. How can you even tell what the future holds? What kind of in-depth "background check" is going to fix that? Seriously. Think about that one for a second considering our Sandy Hook shooter was denied gun purchases. But guess what, he was still able to get a hold of weapons by stealing them from someone else. Namely, his mother. Who he also murdered.
So you might argue that his mother should not have guns. Ok. How far in the family line should a gun ban go if someone in the related family has mental issues? Uncles and aunts? Cousins? My point is, you can't tell who is going to just wake up one morning and go on a shooting spree. Its better to be prepared (and don't ever confuse prepare with paranoia) for these situations than post some stupid little signs that criminals/nut jobs give two effs about.
You mean making it so that weapons, which were made for war, are not so common it's extremely easy to get a hold of one?
See, this is where you lost me. You assume that a big bad black gun that is MISNAMED an assault rifle is somehow on the calibre of what the army issues. An assault rifle is automatic. You cannot just go to a sporting goods store, or gun shop, or a gun show and buy automatic weapons.
People don't have tanks. People don't have mortar systems. People don't have bombs or nukes. Obviously, its not so easy to get a hold of a "weapon of war".
Owning a gun is not necessarily being prepared for bad things in life, nor is it impossible to be prepared without owning a gun.
I absolutely agree with this. A gun isn't the be-all end-all to the worlds problems. But it can keep people safe but please, do not coddle criminals.
Again, I will state, you have to look at who is leading the charge here. And again I will tell you, its the same people who have been quoted that they would disarm America in a heartbeat.
I don't think it matters who thinks what, so long as the proper things get done and it stops at the right time, even if they want to keep pressing it back. I would agree with racist bible thumpers on the right for them to have their own religion without persecution, but I wouldn't follow them off the cliff of insanity and prejudice when they want to keep going and make it illegal for anyone else to have a different religion. Hitch your wagon to the horse that's willing to work and jump ship before it drags you under.
Criminals who have felonies don't have the right to own a weapon. That's because they went through Due Process to have their rights removed. Doctors and therapists do not have the right to take rights away that Obama think they should. "Report your friends and family to the proper authorities." I wonder where the world has heard that before......
As far as I am aware, doctors and therapists do not have that right right, as you said. However, with the executive order Obama issued (wasn't it ruled unconstitutional anyways? I haven't been paying too close attention) doctors could report people who they believed were dangerous and had access to firearms. That is nothing like what you said.
Because banning alcohol worked? Right? Because banning Meth and Crack from off the streets helped? Right?
It did reduce the amount. It just increased the proportion of illegal activities because such activities were then called illegal. Of course it didn't stop it. I've said as much many times in this thread, banning guns does not make them disappear. I do not advocate a ban, I advocate more strict procedures to help limit the amount of guns available, and more measures taken to secure illegal firearms.
Because the ban of guns in Chicago didn't make them the country leader in homicides? Right?
You'll have to prove that it was the banning of guns which caused the homicide rate. I am not well versed in that area, but it seems far more reasonable to me that Chicago banned guns because of their high homicide rate. Opposite cause and effect.
Sandy Hook's State had the most strict gun controls in the country. That didn't stop the shooter from stealing the guns and killing children did it?
Quote me where I've said I think people shouldn't have guns. I have said exactly the opposite many times. Trained people carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, help prevent things like that. I have said this before. I've long thought it stupid that security guards at schools are armed with at most a taser.
Have you even bought a gun?
No.
Do you know what background checks are required? I do. The background check, checks if you have a criminal background. That's it.
That's the problem. It doesn't check for a whole host of other things which it should. Would you sell the materials for a bomb to someone without a criminal record? Even if they just said they want to blow up some snowmen for lols and Youtube videos? No, at least not without further proof that they won't end up hurting someone through ignorance, rashness, or anger.
Its not a future telling device that will say whether someone will go nuts.
Obviously not, since the people who go nuts are buying guns beforehand with the current system.
How can you even tell what the future holds? What kind of in-depth "background check" is going to fix that? Seriously.
If someone had been in say, (random figure) 6 car accidents over the course of 10 years of driving, I would say they are a fairly careless person. Unless the accidents were not their fault. If they are constantly being fired from jobs for harassment, anger issues, or similar things, they likely have a personality problem. That kind of in-depth background check. Plenty more could be added to the list, and while one thing alone may not be conclusive, I can sure as hell tell you right now, there are a lot of irresponsible idiots who own guns.
Think about that one for a second considering our Sandy Hook shooter was denied gun purchases. But guess what, he was still able to get a hold of weapons by stealing them from someone else. Namely, his mother. Who he also murdered.
His mother, who should have been aware of her child's mental problems. His mother, who should never have kept a gun anywhere where he could get to it. His mother, who was one of these irresponsible people I keep talking about over and over again. Would an in-depth background check have prevented him from stealing the gun somehow? Who knows. That's why I still advocate what I said earlier in regards to the shooting.
So you might argue that his mother should not have guns. Ok. How far in the family line should a gun ban go if someone in the related family has mental issues? Uncles and aunts? Cousins?
No. I have never said anything like that. My point was that she was irresponsible to allow her son to access the gun. I do not know where she kept it. Was it in a gun cabinet? Under her bed, or in a drawer? Locked in a safe? Hidden in the closet?
I do think that mental illnesses which are dangerous and hereditary should warrant an additional increase in scrutiny to require that they see a psychologist first to ensure they do not have said mental illness.
Not that autism is dangerous or causes violent tendencies anyways. Also, trust me in saying that I am not just prejudiced against people with a mental illness, as I have Aspergers, which is a form of high-functioning autism.
My point is, you can't tell who is going to just wake up one morning and go on a shooting spree.
Never said that you could.
Its better to be prepared (and don't ever confuse prepare with paranoia) for these situations than post some stupid little signs that criminals/nut jobs give two effs about.
Sure it is. Doesn't mean that we still shouldn't make sure people buying potentially lethal weapons aren't morons who have poor inhibition control.
See, this is where you lost me. You assume that a big bad black gun that is MISNAMED an assault rifle is somehow on the calibre of what the army issues. An assault rifle is automatic. You cannot just go to a sporting goods store, or gun shop, or a gun show and buy automatic weapons.
I'll admit I'm not well informed on exactly what laws are currently in relation to those details. I'm not against assault rifles because they're assault rifles, but because, from my knowledge, they are much more powerful, have a larger clip, and have a longer range than a pistol, in addition to automatic fire (unless modified otherwise).
Though you can't prove that Chicago's gun bans made it the crime-festered city it is today by looking at a statistic, it is more than obvious that it did not help at all.
Insanity is trying the same thing under the same conditions over and over again, expecting the same results...
Just saying.
Different. Expecting different results.
Sorry about that, thought one thing but typed another. I can't edit my post, apparently...
Though you can't prove that Chicago's gun bans made it the crime-festered city it is today by looking at a statistic, it is more than obvious that it did not help at all.
if you ban guns in just 1 city or only 1 state then ofcourse it wont work as people just drive outside the city/state and buy a gun there and bring it back to the city/state.
and beside that, is it stupid to think that it will change in a matter of months or years. it will take decades befor the usa culture becomes less violent. (if it will become less violent at all. (you never know whit them)
(you never know whit them)
So close. You almost forgot to include your prejudice.
Anyways, it's as partydevil says. Violence comes from things other than simply having weapons around.
So close. You almost forgot to include your prejudice.
Actually, Partydevil does have a point to a certain extent. America does possess a rather violent culture. The country's legacy is that of violence, when the people wanted something, they often used force to get it. One of the looming problems of American history is that people tend to forget that America is an extremely young country. And that youth is an important factor when trying to sort out its history from the rest of the world.
Canada is also a young country, but we're also far more moderate. We're a defensive nation. Our culture is not as violent. But, this also stems from the fact that socially and culturally, we adapted a great many things from the English.
I mentioned this somewhere else, but if you were to place the two American parties, and the three Canadian parties on the political scale, our Conservatives would be slightly less right than the Republicans, out Liberals (who are center left) are further left than the Democrats (which are center right) and then the New Democratic Party (which is left wing).
Did you know home with dirt bikes in them are more likely to have dirt bike accidents.
You have to understand, with your logic people cut themselves (and severely at times) with kitchen knives. You would want to ban knives because of a small percentage of accidents?
To the both of you:
You don't buy dirt bikes and kitchen knives with the primary intention of self defense and making your home safer. Your comparisons are invalid, therefore neither of your arguments hold any water (cuz they've got holes in them). There is no irony in buying a dirt bike to go dirt biking and then having a dirtbike accident... same thing for cooking knives and cutting yourself. But (!) when you buy an item for self-defense, or to protect your home, and said item does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning if you can't figure that out.
I'm sorry, but it sounds like you don't have much life experience and live in some theoretical world. - How do you stop a criminal with a gun? Words? Smiles? Harsh language to piss him/her off more? Rainbows? None of the above. You disarm the threat with a weapon of equal or greater value.
Lol, 1st of all, you know what happens when you assume right?
2nd -since you are soooo well traveled and grizzled by your worldly experience, regail us with your tales of all the times you stopped criminals and disarmed threats!
3rd - nobody here said that police, secret service, and other well-trained personnel should not be able to do their jobs effectively. In fact, to see how the police think about gun control click here. But if you are not talking about professional crime fighters and security personnel, and you are referring to civilians trying to stop crime, i'd refer you to all of the statistics that I previously cited, and more, showing the frequency of civilians stopping an armed assailant vs something less desirable happening. link
Its silly to think that someone is more safe without a device to defend themselves with against people who wish to do harm. Your logic on that issue is really illogical. What keeps actors, performers, the president, and other VIP's safe? Armed guards.
Its not silly, its a statistical fact. And just to clarify, You might feel safer holding a gun, thats what happens when you hold a gun, but that feeling doesn't actually make you safer, you just feel safer.
2nd- again you are conflating untrained vigilantees with trained professionals and the secret service. Nobody here is suggesting that the president and his family should not be protected by well-trained, highly armed professionals. Straw-man much?
Have you even bought a gun? Do you know what background checks are required?
I'm sorry if you were personally inconvenienced, but that doesn't change the huge numbers of guns in this country that were sold illegally and/or without a background check. Guns bought on the internet or at a gun show can be bought in many states without a background check. Arguing that background checks are not the cure-all magic elixir is not really an effective argument that they shouldn't be strengthened.
Honestly, the rest of your argument suggests that you want to protect the criminal. Stop protecting the criminals!
please, your going to have to spell that one out for me
I got to go, will be back later
Actually, Partydevil does have a point to a certain extent. America does possess a rather violent culture. The country's legacy is that of violence, when the people wanted something, they often used force to get it. One of the looming problems of American history is that people tend to forget that America is an extremely young country. And that youth is an important factor when trying to sort out its history from the rest of the world.
I never disagreed with that. Just the quoted statement, where he added something unnecessary to his post for the sole purpose of insulting Americans.
His mother, who should have been aware of her child's mental problems. His mother, who should never have kept a gun anywhere where he could get to it. His mother, who was one of these irresponsible people I keep talking about over and over again. Would an in-depth background check have prevented him from stealing the gun somehow? Who knows. That's why I still advocate what I said earlier in regards to the shooting.
I don't think anyone should be surprised at the level to which people will delude themselves about family members especially their own son.
I'll admit I'm not well informed on exactly what laws are currently in relation to those details. I'm not against assault rifles because they're assault rifles, but because, from my knowledge, they are much more powerful, have a larger clip, and have a longer range than a pistol, in addition to automatic fire (unless modified otherwise)
By that logic, you might wanna rethink your stance on hunting rifles. Most hunting rifles fire a more powerful and destructive round and have a longer range than a pistol or assault rifle. These "assault rifles" are not capable of fully automatic select fire only semi-auto (which technically makes them not assault rifles by definition). Also, glock makes a 33 round pistol magazine.
Lol, 1st of all, you know what happens when you assume right?
2nd -since you are soooo well traveled and grizzled by your worldly experience, regail us with your tales of all the times you stopped criminals and disarmed threats!
3rd - nobody here said that police, secret service, and other well-trained personnel should not be able to do their jobs effectively. In fact, to see how the police think about gun control click here. But if you are not talking about professional crime fighters and security personnel, and you are referring to civilians trying to stop crime, i'd refer you to all of the statistics that I previously cited, and more, showing the frequency of civilians stopping an armed assailant vs something less desirable happening. link
I never disarmed any foes or stopped world domination plots with my CC but I stopped someone from robbing me. It was an old fashioned Hollywood mugging scenario. He wanted my money I pushed him back, pulled my gun and he ran away. I really isn't a very heroic or interesting story.
I personally think police chiefs have an agenda on the whole gun ban idea. It's easy to blame guns instead of your own ineptness to lower crime rates. It's the same way switchblades and balisongs became scapegoats. They also have a very skewed view on it since their job has them deal with criminals (that have guns) all day. They won't lose their right to own guns its everyone else that will. It becomes very easy to say yeah they should be deprived of this or that while, knowing that they are above that and exempt from it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised at the level to which people will delude themselves about family members especially their own son.
Which is exactly why I am saying she was irresponsible and should likely never have owned a potentially lethal weapon.
By that logic, you might wanna rethink your stance on hunting rifles. Most hunting rifles fire a more powerful and destructive round and have a longer range than a pistol or assault rifle. These "assault rifles" are not capable of fully automatic select fire only semi-auto (which technically makes them not assault rifles by definition). Also, glock makes a 33 round pistol magazine.
Perhaps, but hunting rifles are made for hunting. That's what people use them for. You don't hunt with an assault rifle. I would agree that large clip handguns might be reasonable to restrict, or have modified.
It's easy to blame guns instead of your own ineptness to lower crime rates.
It's just as easy to claim the police are inept and that people don't use guns for crimes. The statistics show otherwise.
They also have a very skewed view on it since their job has them deal with criminals (that have guns) all day.
Because for no reason we should listen to the people most experienced with illegal firearms in an issue regarding firearm usage.
They won't lose their right to own guns its everyone else that will.
How many times does this need to be said?
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
Was that enough? Please tell me it was. Good. Now let's stop bringing in the false dichotomy fallacy.
You must be logged in to post a reply!