US Gun laws are "License to murder"

Why do you always try and shift the blame from guns by bringing up alcohol and drugs? This discussion is about guns, and the killer used a multiple guns. Btw, we don’t tolerate drunk or drugged drivers in my State. This was a gun massacre not a bombing, and the incident did not happen in the UK or Australia, it happened in America.

Suggest that you stop pretending these gun massacres don’t happen on a regular basis, and do something to prevent them occurring in the future. Australia did something to reduce the incidence of gun massacres, all you do is make it easy by allowing people to carry concealed handguns and assault weapons.



Of course he was a NRA Rambo type. He couldn’t deal with life so he lashed out at society with “guns” rather than learning to communicate and handle difficult situations in a "civilised" manner”.



The gun amnesty worked in Australia. The reality is that you don’t really have any right to keep firearms in society. That is a NRA myth, as are the scare tactics regarding criminals. The real criminals here are thy NRA because they brain wash impressionable minds with all this second amendment nonsense about guns and glory!

I'm not pro-gun by any means but, Stone... your arguments are not strong.



The point was that explosives are relatively easy to make out of fairly accessible compounds and if he really wanted to wreak 'rambo style' havok then he could do so without a gun.

And are you really suggesting that using other countries as parallels in discussion is uncalled for? Theres no data for "America without guns" is there?

The issue with a gun is that its there when a person snaps... you ought not be looking for 'rambos' but instead looking for people pushed to the point of temporary insanity...

The sorts of people you tend to portray, being 'paranoid NRA fanatics stockpiling weapons' are, if pushed to the point where they will use it against a person are probably determined enough to seek other ways of slaughtering people en mass.

I think I have made my point. If there is no data on America without guns, then lets get some. That guy did not snap, he had been planning the massacre for months, since before the election. He chose to use guns not explosives. I think most NRA types would have guns as their weapon of choice. That's the whole point of bing in the National Riflemans Association, and having the "so-called" right to bear arms. And that has certainly been the case in other "gun" massacres.

The bit about Rambo is sourced from the wiki. The point being, he couldn’t deal with life so he lashed out at society with "guns" (and explosives, it was a movie) rather than learning to communicate, and handle difficult situations in a "civilised" manner”. Now, people can work towards changing that or they can live with gun violence.

You can believe all the NRA lies, or you can learn to think for your self. For example, pro-NRA Senators repeatedly stated that CCW permit holders were “law abiding,” completely ignoring a new study by the Violence Policy Center that found that over a two-year period from May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders murdered 7 police officers and wounded 3 others, including 44 homicides of private citizens.

So you'd rather someone used explosives rather than guns?

Neither guns or explosives. The point is to develop some communication skills, other than the use of gun or explosives, so people can handle difficult situations with out resorting to violence.

Really? Cause so far you haven't shown that concealed carry creates any more violence. There is obviously a benefit for it, but criminals are going to carry anyways. Have you found 'rambo style' mass shooting where the gunman had a CCW permit and was lawfully carrying their weapon at the time?



So you've lumped anyone that commits a crime, with a gun, into the 'Rambo' category? Just want to clarify there..



Did it? How many guns did you get vs the cost to acquire them? How many criminals gave up their weapons? Could that money have been spent elsewhere, say, in more police, and had a better result? I'm gonna guess yes. You may have had a gun amnesty (Don't fool yourself into thinking gun amnesty programs haven't been done here, they have. If people want to give up their guns that's fine by me.) But you're still 2.5 times more likely to be raped in Australia, and I think the 82% of Americans vs 64% of Australians feeling safe walking at night speaks volumes. Despite the vast difference in our gun policies your violence is not that different from ours. Better in some, worse in others, don't try to deny that.



Were you reading a different article than I was? It says nothing about his planning that I saw, or even multiple guns.



Have you *seen* the Rambo movies?



You're telling *me* to learn to think for myself? You're the one linking to the "Violence Policy Center" with such an awesome mission statement as A national educational foundation working to enhance gun control in America. That sure sounds fair and unbiased to me...

Sadly there aren't published numbers by all states on exactly how many people have CCW permits in them, but there are a few. Your VPC study shows 7 LEOs and 44 citizens, plus 6 shooters that commit suicide, so a grand total of 57 deaths over two years. I would say the CCW population is *FAR* less violent and less deadly than the population as a whole. And as a kicker, you *know* they have guns!

Florida alone published that they have 581,325 active permit holders as of the end of May this year. The total published (less than half the states with CCW's make it public that I can find) comes to 3,736,266. It's probably more than double that. Your implications to somehow say that CCW holders are more dangerous, in *any* way, than the normal population is just a joke Stone.

No just people, predominantly males, who hide behind their “guns” in the mistaken belief that it enhances their masculinity, rather than learning to communicate and handle difficult situations in a "civilised" manner”.



The Amnesty, worked, no problem about that. Even if it didn’t, it was a step in the right direction. A step away from lawless individuals running around with assault weapons looking for their well organised militia. Anyhow, what is the cost of gun violence in America? Have you got any idea? As to the criminals , they mostly shoot themselves. The big point you miss is most gun violence happens in the home, and is caused by relatives or friends. That we need guns to fight the “criminals” is just NRA paranoia.

As to violence, I’d agree that the Melbourne CBD is not some where I suggest go out at night on the weekend. The have been a lot of stabbings, and I wake up every Monday morning and thank God, that we don’t allow the public access to semi-automatic assault weapons and hand guns; because it would be carnage.



Try a search on Pittsburgh gym massacre, check out his blog.



I read First Blood years ago, and I may have forgotten how some of it goes. I know they changed the ending. “In the original, Rambo asks Trautman to allow him to die so he won’t have to be arrested. Trautman refuses but Rambo grabs the gun in his hand, pulling it to his stomach. The gun fires and Rambo dies in slow motion. Kirk Douglas, the original choice for the role of Colonel Trautman, wanted the film to end as the book did for "artistic" reasons. Douglas quit following arguments over Stallone's pressure for an alternate ending where Rambo survives. After a test audience shown the completed film objected to seeing Rambo die, the alternate ending favoured by Stallone was used (wiki).”



What wrong with a national educational foundation working to enhance gun control in America ? Seems like an excellent idea.



Obviously, if you are packing a concealed weapon with the intent to kill (use deadly force) then hey, you are dangerous!

I have nothing else to say but that you are a moron Stone. Not because you are anti-gun, but because you're absolutely obsessed with any one having a gun being a bad person that either A) thinks he or she is "Rambo" or B) Intends to kill someone.

Mate, I get those ideas from people like you. Perhaps, it's because I don't live in America, but yes strangely enough, I do think it is bad to kill or threaten fellow human beings. And lets face it, if you carry a concealed weapon or an assault rifle (lets say an AR 15, America’s favourite assault rifle) then you are going out armed to kill. As you know, the second amendment ain’t about duck hunting or shooting targets.

Guys, I really don't feel like name-calling is getting us anywhere. And I - for my part - can only acknowledge, that the pro-gunners are not going to change their POV or opinion (and how could they, as it goes directly against their own behavior).





you're constantly contradicting yourself, man... and you're watching too many movies/ or taking them too seriously.

I can't really speak for Stone, only assume that he - as myself - is not talking about trained personnel (as in (body)guards, police and military)...

Lurch: I'm not getting in your argument as you (again) failed to provide us with your sources. I am trying my best to make it easy on you guys by posting links where you can verify my arguments and statistics.

If you want to get taken serious in this discussion (at least by me), I'd like to ask you to kindly follow the same standards.

Stone: Sorry, though I understand your frustration, I beg you to review your way of argumentation and not to get stuck on that peculiar level... the facts speak for themselves and the studies (so far) prove that. Please come back to a more objective level.

This recent study proves:

I said it once I'll say it again:

That is the truth no mater were you are.

I wholeheartedly agree with that... people kill people...

It's only a matter of fact that they usually don't kill with their bare hands but with an instrument...

It further is fact that pulling a trigger is one of the "cleanest" and "most convenient" or "easiest" methods of performing the act.

I am not strictly against guns themselves.

I have repeatedly stated that I am for a legislation which successfully keeps guns out of hands of those people who obviously can't handle them.
I am for procedures that teach the rest how to handle them properly and I am for regulations that enables law enforcement to trace guns that have been abused back to their owners.

I really don't understand what is wrong with all that.

Pro gunners argue (along with NRA) that "law abiding citizens have to jump all the hoops in order to legally get a gun" - which is not true in the face of second hand and gun show sales. Pro gunners repeatedly argue that all "concealed carry permit-holders" (in general) are "only the good guys", which also is not true (in general)...

Pro gunners "usually" (in this thread) are not ready to admit that there is something seriously wrong with current gun legislation in the US and are not making any reasonable proposals as in how to curb the current situation -

IN WHICH INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE FROM THE HANDS OF CITIZENS WITH GUNS - for crying out loud...

It's preposterous that the government is prohibiting drugs - and currently foremost tobacco - at the same time continues to ignore the gun problem within the US...

Sorry FT, I didn't link a source because I didn't have a reliable one for the 'total' especially since it wasn't actually a total..

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Lets look at Florida though, from their state website. They have a decent sized population base, and decent gun rights. I would say their CCW community can represent a small chunk of the country.

Over 22 years, they have:

Applications: 1,600,464
Issued: 1,565,251
Denied: 10,436

So 0.6% of total applications are denied, about 2/3 of those denied are because of incomplete applications, not criminal histories. Keep in mind they *do* have standards, obviously felons can't own guns, so they can't have a CCW, domestic abuse takes you off the table, etc.

Of the 1,565,251 issued, only 4,927 (0.3%) have ever been revoked. Granted the majority of those revoked have been due to a crime, but only 167 of them have involved a gun.

So by my math, that's 3% of revocations, and 0.01% of total permits have been in a gun crime.

Now as a population that *definitely* has guns, by your logic crime rates should be up, suicide, and accidents should be through the roof in comparison to the population as a whole. That simply isn't the case. CCW holders are some of the most law abiding, responsible members of the community you will find.



I've always said that innocent deaths are a tragedy. There are no accidental gun deaths, only negligent. Gun owners have the personal responsibility to make sure their weapons are safe and secure. But you aren't arguing about the number of 'accidental' deaths, you have been whipped up and excited, and have the notion that somehow one accidental death is worse than another.

So what if there was a common type of accident that kills over 3,000 people every year (far more than the ~650 accidental gun deaths)? Where 1:4 fatalities was a child under 14. And males are 4 times more likely than females.

I'm not talking about car accidents, or other things that can be argued as being 'necessary' for a normal life. You don't seem to qualify a gun in such a category so I'm trying to keep the playing field even. So would you fight just as hard to stop something that kills 4 times as many people every year? Or is it more about the fact that it's a gun than you realize?

P.S. I agree, there is no need for name calling, remember, be civilized dP. We don't want them to think we're a bunch of crazy gun nut cowboys constantly drawing down.

I'm all for all of that, but there are right and wrong ways to go about that.

Good points Fire Tom.

To me, it just seems too easy to get firearms in America,and no one is willing to take any responsibility for the carnage they cause. “The purchases of two glocks by the health-club gunman, 48-year-old George Sodini, marks the third time the company has been linked to mass shootings since 2007. The company also sold guns and firearm accessories to the shooters of massacres at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Northern Illinois University in 2008”. Apparently, you just order your guns online, no questions asked. Then it's all apologies and excuses after the event. Just like this over used quote.



The inference being that guns/assault weapons/pistols etc. are ok. However, when you look at it, it makes about as much sense as saying:

Drugs don’t kill people, so drugs are ok

or

AIDS doesn’t kill people, so AIDS is ok

Come on guys, who are you kidding? Guns kill people!

As to the most over used NRA quote, how is it that somehow miraculously people still feel they have the god given "right to bare arms", and kill people. And hey, where is that well organised militia everyone belongs to?

You are aware that Glock is Austrian right?

H&K is German
Beretta is Italian
Benelli is Italian
FN is Belgian
Walther is German
Izhmash (makers of the AK's) are obviously Soviet
IMI (makers of the Uzi) are Israeli
SIG SAUER is Swiss/German
Norinco is Chinese
CZ is Czech


In fact most of the "assault weapons" that you are so scared of are European or Asian... Maybe you guys should stop making them before you start touting how 'evolved' you are.

So Lurch, now yoau are saying that they don’t sell guns in the good o’l U S of A. Are you sure?

Mexico also wants more gun control in the U.S., particularly when it comes to assault weapons.

“I would like to see the assault weapons ban reinstated – it’s not philosophical, it’s because of what we have seen on the ground…There is a direct correlation between the assault ban and expiring in 2004 and the numbers – simply the sheer numbers – of assault weapons that we seize in Mexico…We are both cognizant of what can and cannot be done right now – we will softly, diplomatically…continue to say that this is an important issue for us but I think the real perspectives of this moving on Capitol Hill these days are slim to say the least,” the official said.

“The Mexican government is not about challenging the Second Amendment. That’s a sovereign decision of the United States. It’s a sovereign decision of the U.S. Congress. That’s up to you guys. But the Second Amendment wasn’t adopted by the Founding Fathers to allow transnational organized crime to illicitly buy weapons in the Unites States and be illicitly cross them over international borders into countries where those calibers and types of weapons are prohibited,” the official said.

Thanks for coming back to reason

Lurch, the statistics you're quoting in terms of "citizens state of (perceived) safety" is what you are putting forth... no reliable sources for that? It would be quite interesting to see that.

As for Florida and the numbers of CCW licenses applied for and denied: fact is that ppl do *not* feel safe. Otherwise they wouldn't go for them. If I feel safe in my environment, I don't need to carry a gun to protect me. In the rest of the western world we don't even come to the idea of "needing" a gun for protection.

Please, it is important to note that the 1.6 million applications have been filled out over the period of 22 years - that's still ~72.000 licenses/ year, in Florida alone! Meaning that roughly one out of ten is having a CCW license...

Interesting to note this crime statistics of Florida.



:puke:

And 4.209 applicants committed crimes over the same period. Yea - that IS a small number. Still it is a number, innit?

Again I wholeheartedly agree: it's absolutely outrageous for European gun manufacturers to push guns into the hands of US citizens. There needs to be something done to change that as there is a problem on both ends of the line, supply and demand.

PS: In the meantime I'm trying to refrain telling anyone what they have to do (with their lives). I still feel compelled to ask:

Don't you trust your government?
Do you not feel safe in your environment (in the USA)?
Would you/ not agree that as long as there is demand, there will be supply (of guns)?

What do YOU feel needs to be done to improve the current situation?

Oh I apologize FT, I thought you were talking about the CCW stats. The Perception of Safety thing was straight from NationMaster, which is a source that both sides of this argument have used multiple times.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_per_of_saf_wal_in_dar-crime-perception-safety-walking-dark

4,209 people had their concealer permits pulled due to committing a crime. Only 167 of those people committed a crime with their gun. That is the important bit. 167, out of 1.5 million people. That does NOT mean that 167 people killed someone, menacing (drawing your weapon without cause) is a crime, and can / probably will get your CCW pulled.

I feel it's worth noting, apparently I didn't state it in my post but it's in the link, there are only 607,977 active CCW permits out of the 1.5 million that have been given out. Some have obviously expired and not been renewed. With the current population that roughly figures out to be about 1 in 30, not 1 in 10

1 in 318 have had their license revoked (isn't necessarily a violent crime)

1 in 9,373 have had their license revoked due to a crime using their weapon

Using the crime stats you posted is difficult, as it only counts # of crimes, not # of criminals. Repeat offenders show the same as multiple offenders. But regardless, for a state with apparently the highest violent crime rate, the CCW holders, those people who *definitely* have guns, but have jumped through the hoops to carry them legally, are more law abiding than the population as a whole.

Don't you find that odd? If guns are supposed to make us more violent, easier to provoke, and only means we "want to kill people"?

As for your questions...

I trust *parts* of my government. I don't necessarily trust the people, as we have become a nation of sheep. We are working our way towards a nanny state, where people have no sense of responsibility for themselves. That is one of the saddest things IMO. When people are so readily willing to pass the blame for their errors. The politicians listen to the people, and only hear the ones that scream the loudest. Fanatics will always have the loudest voice, and never listen to reason. Sadly if we try to fight back, we're labeled as ignorant, violent, "rambos", killers, cowboys, gun nuts, and a whole slue of highly offensive terms. We have no fight except common sense, but that's lost on most of the population.

So do I trust my government? That depends which part you're talking about I'm in law enforcement remember? I trust my fellows with my life, that is a must. They are family to me, I know they would kill to defend me, and most would probably die to save me, or anyone else for that matter.

Do I feel safe?

I feel extremely safe in most areas. I can walk around my neighborhood at any time of night and not feel the distinct need to have a gun, or weapon at all. But at the same time I know there are places in this country, and in my state, where that is simply not smart. There are places where crime is more prevalent. And there are times when that crime reaches out into 'safer' areas. To simply assume nothing bad can/will ever happen because I'm in a safe neighborhood is a fools gamble at best.

*Violence* is our problem, *Crime* is our problem. The people, and weapons, are not. Education is needed, more police presence, harsher punishment. Babying the criminals does not help. Giving them free outs with amnesty doesn't change anything. Through proper education we can quell the "accidents" and negligent shootings. We can stave off suicides, and we can encourage people to actually be responsible for themselves.

That cuts gun deaths, and gun violence, one cause, criminals. I'm fine with harsher punishments for crimes involving guns, but I don't think we need to make even more laws. Actually having the manpower to enforce the laws we already have would be the best place to start. Making more laws, with no ability to enforce them doesn't help us one bit.

So, if you don’t trust you governments then it would be better to understand where the paranoia coming from rather than trying to compensate by purchasing assault weapons.

I agree with taking responsibility. When is the NRA going to take responsibility for the violence of guns? Like there is not even an acknowledge of a gun violence problem. Every time a serious situation occurs, like the carnage the NRA caused when it put assault weapons back on the street, it is ignored. Even, foreign governments are asking that the assault weapons ban be reinstated, but all the little boys in th NRA care about is having military style weapons to play with.



As far as fanatics go, the NRA makes a very loud noise, and is an extremely powerful lobby group. It spends billions influencing politicians including presidents. And what are you fighting back against, again?

Really Stone? Are you jumping on the fear mongering campaign too and just calling everything an 'assault weapon'? Please.

I have a duty, and a responsibility to ensure my *own* safety. That shouldn't be anyone's job but mine. Maybe you live in large cities where police are always just around the corner, but that's not the case out here. If you're in rural county the nearest deputy could be 30+ minutes out, even with lights and sirens and driving far faster than is 'safe'

If you are that lone deputy, backup could be another 30-45 minutes out.

We as Americans, as humans, have a duty to ensure our own survival, not rely on others to keep us safe and happy. "A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone" is a very true statement for many Americans every day. Why on earth do you think it's acceptable to ask someone else to risk their life to save yours? That boggles my mind to be honest. If someone wants to risk theirs to save mine, that's great, I won't argue with them. But to ask.. no wait.. to expect someone to put their life on the line whenever you ask is beyond pompous. Yet people do it with the military, with law enforcement, and with EMS/Fire/Rescue every single day.

This is beyond guns, it's beyond some mystery fight that you think you're fighting against the corporate machine. It's about people, it's about their rights as a human. We have the right to be safe in our home. We have the right to live away from violence, and we have a right to protect ourselves when violence comes into our lives.

You don’t need guns to ensure your own safety, unless you are afraid of the dark.



A gun in the hand is getter than a cop on the phone. Give me a break! Where is the paranoia coming from? Most gun violence is caused by accidents in the home, by people who ironically believe the myths that a gun will help them protect them from the villains that go bump in the night.





Mate, you are the one who is fighting government and corporate machines. It’s the guns that bring violence into your lives. The right to be a human being does not mean the right to carry arms. In fact I’d say the opposite. People stop being animals (sheep/dogs) when they put down their weapons, put aside ignorance and start to take responsibility for their actions.

I’ve been reading about the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act. Which, finally seems like a step in the right direction.

“The bill calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee.

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America. Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" - defined as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device without one of the proposed licenses.

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of a "qualifying firearm" to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions), and would require "qualifying firearm" owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a multiple-year jail sentence” (NRA-ILA.)

Lurch, I can see your line of argumentation and in the present situation of the US - with millions of illegal firearms in circulation and the vastness of the American soil - I can see the desire for the possession of a gun (for civilians).

Maybe you find it surprising that areas with poor response times exist in Europe (and Australia) as well - not even that far away from cities. We don't have a "Polizeistaat" (police state) anywhere... sadly I can't find many statistics about response times here in Europe. We do have crimes too - only they don't involve firearms remotely to the degree as in the States.

In understand that one problem of the government is that "law abiding citizens" are just that - law abiding - as long as they don't get caught committing a crime and even after there still is the principle "in dubio pro reo" (meaning ~ in case of doubt, rule for the defendant). Thus any person without a criminal record can successfully obtain a gun - and resell it on the "black market"...

As to ppl relying on law enforcement, I can't follow on your argument. You take a job, you get paid (usually not very good, given that) - you should either fullfill your duty or get out. That applies to law enforcement, military (where it is a professional army), firefighting and medics... this is how society works and nobody forces you to take these jobs.

I understand your argument... If I'd be a medic, I'd want (and even proclaim) that every civilian needs a first aid kit and medical education.

But that's not the case.

Not every gun is an assault weapon, true. Yet I feel that you're arguing here with tongue-in-cheek. It's obvious that AK47s and M16s don't belong in civilians hands. This is not about sport and not about hunting and in your case: would you (as leo) rather n/ever have to face them at any stage? They are not frequently used in crimes - as many of them are... well, "bulky". But when used they do cause a lot of casualties, agreed?

Wouldn't you further agree that the States are in need of a basic, federal legislation which is applicable throughout the country? In one state, second hand and gun show sales are regulated, but not in another... this promotes cross-border (second hand) sales.

Wouldn't you agree that IF all firearms are registered and identifiable, ppl would take more care as in how to handle and store them and who they sell them to? That they would notify loss and sales to officials AND check the ID of buyers?

The NRA gets funding from the gun lobby, I'm absolutely certain in that one - and it's outrageous that European companies are involved in gun trades inside the US.

There is a lot that can be done on all areas of the problem - but the first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem to start with.

[ed]and yea - don't want to hold back that school (mass) shootings DO happen in Germany too. Guess it's the second in 6 years...

15 casualties

how could it happen when Germany has such a tough gun legislation? Well his dad was doing "sport shooting" and kept ~ 15 guns... well in this case ONE had been enough. This guy was about with a simple Beretta (and fired about 112 shots altogether).

The amount of casualties leads to believe that he had extensive training... (how else would he seriously injure two cops in an oncoming car)? He was a nutcase and I guess little could have been done to prevent his rampage (other than a fingerprint locked gun safe).

you want me to watch 33 minutes of a guy talking bollocks? to only prove that the US is living in a "fear culture"? which needs guns to quench its thirst for "safety"?

Yes, we're driving 150mph (+++) on the German autobahn and yes we do have high speed tracks where you can drive as fast as you like. Yet when on a public road I do remember that I'm NOT playing Gran Tourismo

It's never been about "blaming" - it's about not having enough self-confidence.

You could say: don't blame the poppies And how far would you take it? Don't blame the people offering smack on campus? Blame their parents?

I'm all for education, trust me. And in the meantime I agree: a gun is an inanimate object and can be used for good or for worse...

So far what we see is that they are used for worse.

And is this now about protecting yourself and your family and those people who never (would) ask for it, or is it about sports and your love for guns?

You know at some stage you could take a decision, because in the meantime there are people out there dying because "good men fail to act" and do something about (illegal) guns on the streets and morons giving their (uneducated) kids access to them... [/rant]

Why does it have to be about one or the other? why can't it be about both?

OMG YOU HAVE ROADS WITH NO SPEED LIMIT!? THERE SHOULD BE A LAW AGAINST THAT IN CASE PEOPLE GET HURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CLOSE THE AUTOBAHN!

PEOPLE WITH FAST CARS ONLY BUY THEM TO CRASH INTO INNOCENT PEOPLE! PEOPLE WITH FAST CARS WILL GET THEM STOLEN AND DRIVE INTO A SCHOOL!

And yes genius, you are supposed to watch it, that's why I posted it. Saying his speech is bullocks speaks volumes about you.

Lurch, I said "you could take a decision..." not "you have to" - and only now I realize: you're in love with an inanimate object...

dG: bit childish, not quite my level of argumentation.

I had a funny feeling this thread would still be alive if I popped in for a moment..

I just couldn't resist sharing this that I just came accross..

http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/articles/My+Lucky+Day