Various Stances on Gun Control Policy

Posts that are locked but open for perusal.

Moderator: phpBB2 - Administrators

How much control of privately owned firearms should we havein the USA?

None at all ( Bring on the Rocket Launcher!)
6
21%
Handgun licenses
1
3%
Licenses for ALL guns
13
45%
Nothing except hunting guns
6
21%
Spitball shooters make me nervous
3
10%
 
Total votes : 29

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:49 pm

Different studies have been done on defensive use of firearms, but there is a problem with the studies:

Many times, by admitting that you used a firearm outside of your home to defend yourself, you are admitting to a crime. So it leads to under reporting.

I will try to find some credible numbers, but I am not real hopeful.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Apache, OK

Postby Capellini on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:02 pm

This discussion is getting a little hard to keep track of. Moving backwards:

Darren,
I wouldn't mind seeing deaths per capita for guns and other weapons. Then how about comparing it to DUI manslaughter and maybe various accidents.


Me too.

Libra,

I for one never said that the degree of gun violence in the U.S. is attributable to the number of people owning guns. I also never said that fewer guns would result in less crime, or that crime is somehow caused by guns. And the contents of that link is nothing new to me.

Boghog,

I believe the numbers of people who lock there doors in Canada is also greatly reduced in comparison to the U.S. It isn't about how many guns are out there, its about who owns them, and why.

Back to Libra,

Case in point: Cap, do you hunt? Have you ever hunted? IF not, how can you claim what does and doesnt have hunting purposes?
Also, many things were invented with the military in mind.....does that mean they are only military in nature? What about cell phones, satellite tech, prosthetic medicine, blood transfusions, reconstructive surgery?


I don't hunt. I do know hand guns were not designed for hunting. Once again, I can use a baseball bat to hit a baseball, or hammer a nail, or dig post holes, but its only made to do one of those things. As for your military reference . . . either you truly don't understand my point, or you're intentionally trying to distract from it. GUNS ARE MADE TO SHOOT THINGS. THAT IS THERE JOB. No one decides to buy a gun to do there gardening. They buy a gun because they want the ability to SHOOT THINGS. This makes a gun a weapon, and it should therefore be more regulated for things that aren't MADE TO SHOOT THINGS.

Anon,

I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.


Except, where is the law that says if your child kills someone with your gun, YOU go to jail? I'd love to see it, but so far . . .

Libra,

I dont think it is really a corelation. After all, it is hot in the South all the time, and there are more guns. THere should be tons of shootings every summer.


Actually, it isn't something to be dismissed. Its hot in the South all the time, precisely. People are used to it. The ridiculous heat wave here in NY last summer ABSOLUTELY made people crazy, and subsequently had an effect on crime rates. Its happened before, and will probably happen again.

Calling people idiots is not any way to have a discussion.


But calling someone a hippy liberal is?

oK, I think I answered this farther down. A justified shooting is hard to prove in court. However, I think I would rather be in court than dead. And you are taking an extremist viewpoint here. Many thousands of people in this nation have concealed carry permits, and many hundreds of thousands of police officers carry guns everywhere, every day. Yet there are not mass killings over fender benders, are there?


What about the kid who just got shot for walking on his neighbor's lawn? Someone that nuts should never had owned a gun in the first place. Either A)the kid deserved to die B)he's collateral damage, and his life is not worth any kind of reevaluation of gun law, or C)gun laws aren't sufficient, because they should have been able to prevent this.

If the guy who'd shot that kid had been an elderly driver, his family, neighbors, etc could have called the DMV and had him brought in for mandatory road testing and possible loss of license. What recourse did his neighbors have for him being crazy and a gun owner? Who could they call to demand his sanity and gun skills be imediately evaluated?

You do not have a Constitutional right to a car, and the Government can control them any way they like. You do however have a Constitutional right to own a gun, and there are restrictions on government control.


This is a faulty comparison, as you're dealing with states rights vs federal rights. Anything NOT afforded in the Constitution falls on the rights of the states, and therefore cars are regulated by the state. Guns ARE in the Constitution, and therefore fall into the regulatory hands of the federal government. Therefore, the degree of control isn't comparable. State GOVERNMENTS control cars, federal GOVERNMENT controls guns. Both are under GOVERNMENT control. *

Ok, to address this. I agree that all citizens should be trained in the use of arms. However, in the first paragraph you put too many restrictions on that. Not everyone can take the subway down to the local militia training center.


They aren't my restrictions. The militia part is in the Constitution. And shouldn't something as potentially dangerous as a gun require a certain degree of responsibility? Should we hand them out at birth, or should someone be of a certain age before they can own one? Should we sell them with dirty water hot dogs, or should vendors be required to fit certain standards? Can a repeat felon own a gun as easily as a nun, or should there be rules for that?

Also, you have not taken into account that a "one size fits all" solution will not work for guns. How can a person on the Upper East Side of Manhatten tell a person who lives in the wilds of Montana that they cannot own a gun without a strict licensing process?


When the guns easily purchased in Montana end up illegally on the streets of NY, killing cops, they should have a much easier time restricting them. In fact, this seems a little discriminatory against people in Montana. Why are they somehow incapable of meeting the same standards as a NYer? Is intelligence and capacity for personal responsibility related to net income? Is it geographic?

The simple fact is that when I have tried to answer you, your only response is derision and accusations of paranoia.


Actually, that's not any kind of fact. The points you chose to ignore generally made no kind of implications about person whatsoever. Apparantly, you're using comments I made in other posts as an excuse to ignore separate content. Whatever.

*edit: actually, both federal and state gov'ts control guns. Personally, I think it should be entirely federal, but it isn't.
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:06 pm

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

HEre is a website that discusses DGU's
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Apache, OK

Postby Capellini on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:10 pm

LibraLabRat wrote:
darren996 wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing deaths per capita for guns and other weapons. Then how about comparing it to DUI manslaughter and maybe various accidents.


The Department of Justice is a good place to go, their website has LOTS of statistics.

But Cap doesnt want us comparing cars to guns. Evidently, it is not the same if a drunk driver kills someone as if someone shoots and kills a rapist.


Excuse me? This is just complete bullshit. I've never even MENTIONED drunk driving. Nor have I said anything about shooting a rapist. We're done. I'm no longer continuing this discussion with you. You've proven to me that you have no interest in any kind of honest debate. You may feel justified in claiming I've said things I haven't, believe things I don't, or support things I don't, but that's called LYING. And I don't discuss things with liars.
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby anon1mat0 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:11 pm

Still the problem of high number firearm related deaths in the US remains. IMHO something is wrong with guns in the US and unless the number goes down I don't see the people for regulation going away. To me that is the core of the issue, otherwise there wouldn't be ground for disagreement.

Capellini wrote:
anon1mat0 wrote:I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.
Except, where is the law that says if your child kills someone with your gun, YOU go to jail? I'd love to see it, but so far . . .

Which is one of the points I've been wanting to make.
Nicolás
_________________
Violence is the diplomacy of the incompetent.
Hari Seldon

From Isaac Asimov's Foundation series
User avatar
anon1mat0
Gramigna Grand Admiral
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:30 pm
Location: South FL

Postby boghog on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:12 pm

LibraLabRat wrote:http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

There you go.

Pretty telling, if you ask me.


I'm not sure I completely trust a web-site for a lawyer who's represented the NRA and is, apparently, a gun rights advocate to be an unbiased source of information, but using the data from the link you provided:

Switzerland (1997 figures - most recent in report)
Homicide rate: 1.2 / 100,000
Firearm-related homicide rate: 0.58/100,000 (calculated using ratio given in report)

Canada (2000 figures - closest to Swiss data available)
Homicide rate:1.78
Firearm-related homicide rate: 0.60/100,000 (calculated using data available here)

So, it looks like the two countries have, overall, similar firearm homicide rates.

However, the article doesn't mention the effects of other factors on Switzerland's crime rate, such as:
- level of policing: regardless of how well-armed the populace is, more cops generally mean less crime
- income factors: I believe that the proportion of needy in the population of Switzerland is very, very low in relation to the world in general, or the other countries used for comparison (i.e. Canada and the US).


Also, it should be noted that if you compare only Ontario, which is closer to Switzerland in overall size and urban/rural mix, the firearm-related homicide rate is 0.45, or 22% lower than Switzerland.

Libra, your article mentioned that Switzerland was going to implement stricter gun laws; do you have any stats on what effect that had on their crime rates? I think that the before/after would be the fairest comparison.
Now Hypercaffeinated! Share and Enjoy!

Keep Saturn in Saturnalia!

You catch more flies with BS than you do with honey.
User avatar
boghog
Lord of Linguini
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:04 am
Location: Off yonder

Postby darren996 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:19 pm

Hmm. Interesting.

Well anyway if you want to kill somebody in Florida you don't need a gun. Just put them on a bicycle and run them over with a car.

I seriously think we should ban cars. Who's with me?

:mrgreen:
Suspicion breeds confidence!
User avatar
darren996
The Pan
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Hell (okay it's America)

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:19 pm

Capellini wrote:This discussion is getting a little hard to keep track of. Moving backwards:

Darren,
I wouldn't mind seeing deaths per capita for guns and other weapons. Then how about comparing it to DUI manslaughter and maybe various accidents.


Me too.

Libra,

I for one never said that the degree of gun violence in the U.S. is attributable to the number of people owning guns. I also never said that fewer guns would result in less crime, or that crime is somehow caused by guns. And the contents of that link is nothing new to me.

Boghog,

I believe the numbers of people who lock there doors in Canada is also greatly reduced in comparison to the U.S. It isn't about how many guns are out there, its about who owns them, and why.

Back to Libra,

Case in point: Cap, do you hunt? Have you ever hunted? IF not, how can you claim what does and doesnt have hunting purposes?
Also, many things were invented with the military in mind.....does that mean they are only military in nature? What about cell phones, satellite tech, prosthetic medicine, blood transfusions, reconstructive surgery?


I don't hunt. I do know hand guns were not designed for hunting. Once again, I can use a baseball bat to hit a baseball, or hammer a nail, or dig post holes, but its only made to do one of those things. As for your military reference . . . either you truly don't understand my point, or you're intentionally trying to distract from it. GUNS ARE MADE TO SHOOT THINGS. THAT IS THERE JOB. No one decides to buy a gun to do there gardening. They buy a gun because they want the ability to SHOOT THINGS. This makes a gun a weapon, and it should therefore be more regulated for things that aren't MADE TO SHOOT THINGS.

Ok, here is my answer to that: Guns are made to shoot things. But there are many legal, legitimate uses for guns. And there are more killings committed with perfectly legal objects than with guns. Yet guns are "easy targets" because you can marginalize gun owners. After all, we are just drunk white trash with paranoia issues, or crazy old people, right? Wrong. Gun owners only have that in common. Gun ownership. And by hyper regulating guns, all you are doing is decreasing the ability for PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG TO PARTICIPATE IN A LEGAL ACTIVITY and increasing the safety for criminals. After all, 80% of guns used in crime are acquired illegally......Anon,

I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.


Except, where is the law that says if your child kills someone with your gun, YOU go to jail? I'd love to see it, but so far . . .

Libra,

I dont think it is really a corelation. After all, it is hot in the South all the time, and there are more guns. THere should be tons of shootings every summer.


Actually, it isn't something to be dismissed. Its hot in the South all the time, precisely. People are used to it. The ridiculous heat wave here in NY last summer ABSOLUTELY made people crazy, and subsequently had an effect on crime rates. Its happened before, and will probably happen again.

So this is an excuse? Because it got hot in New Yawk, the murderous rampage is ok? Sounds like apologetics to me.
Calling people idiots is not any way to have a discussion.


But calling someone a hippy liberal is?
Touche.

oK, I think I answered this farther down. A justified shooting is hard to prove in court. However, I think I would rather be in court than dead. And you are taking an extremist viewpoint here. Many thousands of people in this nation have concealed carry permits, and many hundreds of thousands of police officers carry guns everywhere, every day. Yet there are not mass killings over fender benders, are there?


What about the kid who just got shot for walking on his neighbor's lawn? Someone that nuts should never had owned a gun in the first place. Either A)the kid deserved to die B)he's collateral damage, and his life is not worth any kind of reevaluation of gun law, or C)gun laws aren't sufficient, because they should have been able to prevent this.

Or D, the gun laws are sufficient, and this is just a freak accident. Or E, any other number of scenarios. We can what if this to death, but it wont solve a damn thing. Yes, it is a tragedy, just as Columbine was. But getting rid of all legal guns will not save any lives.


If the guy who'd shot that kid had been an elderly driver, his family, neighbors, etc could have called the DMV and had him brought in for mandatory road testing and possible loss of license. What recourse did his neighbors have for him being crazy and a gun owner? Who could they call to demand his sanity and gun skills be imediately evaluated?

You do not have a Constitutional right to a car, and the Government can control them any way they like. You do however have a Constitutional right to own a gun, and there are restrictions on government control.


This is a faulty comparison, as you're dealing with states rights vs federal rights. Anything NOT afforded in the Constitution falls on the rights of the states, and therefore cars are regulated by the state. Guns ARE in the Constitution, and therefore fall into the regulatory hands of the federal government. Therefore, the degree of control isn't comparable. State GOVERNMENTS control cars, federal GOVERNMENT controls guns. Both are under GOVERNMENT control. *

Ok, to address this. I agree that all citizens should be trained in the use of arms. However, in the first paragraph you put too many restrictions on that. Not everyone can take the subway down to the local militia training center.


They aren't my restrictions. The militia part is in the Constitution. And shouldn't something as potentially dangerous as a gun require a certain degree of responsibility? Should we hand them out at birth, or should someone be of a certain age before they can own one? Should we sell them with dirty water hot dogs, or should vendors be required to fit certain standards? Can a repeat felon own a gun as easily as a nun, or should there be rules for that?

Also, you have not taken into account that a "one size fits all" solution will not work for guns. How can a person on the Upper East Side of Manhatten tell a person who lives in the wilds of Montana that they cannot own a gun without a strict licensing process?


When the guns easily purchased in Montana end up illegally on the streets of NY, killing cops, they should have a much easier time restricting them. In fact, this seems a little discriminatory against people in Montana. Why are they somehow incapable of meeting the same standards as a NYer? Is intelligence and capacity for personal responsibility related to net income? Is it geographic?

Yes, it is geographic. And as far as someone DELIBERATELY BREAKING A LAW TO IMPORT GUNS TO NEW YORK, WHAT GOOD ARE MORE LAWS? In short, mind your own lane, if you dont mind. And since NYers evidently go on killing sprees when it gets a bit hot, I think it would be easy to say they shouldnt be trusted with guns.

The simple fact is that when I have tried to answer you, your only response is derision and accusations of paranoia.


Actually, that's not any kind of fact. The points you chose to ignore generally made no kind of implications about person whatsoever. Apparantly, you're using comments I made in other posts as an excuse to ignore separate content. Whatever.

*edit: actually, both federal and state gov'ts control guns. Personally, I think it should be entirely federal, but it isn't.



[b]I will continue to try to answer you point for point. But I have a feeling that unless I say Why yes, I agree with you totally, you simply are unable of seeing my point of view.
[/b]
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Apache, OK

Postby DeadPoet on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:27 pm

Ahem. May I suggest that some people here calm down a bit? Please.

:roll:
User avatar
DeadPoet
The Resident Resident
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:20 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Postby Capellini on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:28 pm

anon1mat0 wrote:Still the problem of high number firearm related deaths in the US remains. IMHO something is wrong with guns in the US and unless the number goes down I don't see the people for regulation going away. To me that is the core of the issue, otherwise there wouldn't be ground for disagreement.

Capellini wrote:
anon1mat0 wrote:I have moved to a more libertarian aproach to the matter: Hey! you want to have one, good if it works for you, and if you are so irresponsible to have one of your kids kill himself or someone else with it, I hope you remain the rest of your sorry days in jail.
Except, where is the law that says if your child kills someone with your gun, YOU go to jail? I'd love to see it, but so far . . .

Which is one of the points I've been wanting to make.


What's been stopping you? :wink:
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby LibraLabRat on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:29 pm

I am trying to remain calm, evidently I am not playing fair by quoting a certain persons own comments.

I am also getting tired of the insinuation that I am somehow a paranoid redneck who wants to kill people for fun.

Why not just spit on me and call me a jack booted thug baby killer while we are at it.

Sorry, but for people who espouse being open minded and intelligent, some people around here dont like it much when you disagree with them and resort to name calling.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Apache, OK

Postby Dr. Otis Lansa on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:31 pm

darren996 wrote:And I'll bet more people are killed every year because of people driving their cars drunk than are killed by guns!

We should ban Cars!

I'm printing bumper stickers right now! Oooo! Wait, those go on cars! Dammit! :mrgreen:


Put it on your gun. :mrgreen:


boghog wrote:
anon1mat0 wrote:Why having a high density of guns compared to the total pupulation, they have far less firearm deaths (I believe that statement applies to Canada as well, may be the canadians can confirm that)?


IIRC, the national homicide rate in Canada is around 1.0-1.5 per 100,000 population, and most of those are with guns (for discussion purposes, it's probably fair to assume that the proportion of gun-related murders to non-gun related murders is constant with Switzerland).


If it's not casually obvious, in North America gun deaths per 10,000 people is proportional to people per square mile, not guns per 10,000 people. I'm going out on a limb and guessing that the average number of guns per household is MUCH lower in cities, but the per capita homicides are much higher.

Also, have a look at the type of homicides... we've been mostly discussing 'criminal stranger' type violence, when the vast majority of the homicides up here are either domestic or gang/drug-sale related between mutually identifiable parties (drug-fix motivated robberies, at least in little ol' Alberta, tend to be liquor store or bank teller robberies, often at knifepoint, and fatalities are rare).

40% of our fatalities in Alberta this year have been domestic.
AFAIK, one of the fatalities this year (in Calgary) was an innocent bystander in a gang shooting.

Some more accurate Canadian stats on homicides by methods, for 2004:

All methods 622
Shooting 172
Stabbing 205
Beating 136
Strangulation 63
Fire (burns/suffocation) 13
Other methods 20
Not known 13

Compare that to 1997's number of suicides (most recent data I could find): 3681

In other words, we should ban sticks and knives, and make it illegal for a person to be alone by themselves.


Also, I grew up in a small, SAFE community in Canada, with guns in our house, including a (small) handgun in my parent's bedroom. We locked the doors every night, and so did all of our neighbors AFAIK. And took off our shoes indoors...

(seriously.... what is up with wearing shoes in the house?)
Image
User avatar
Dr. Otis Lansa
Mystic of Meatball
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby Capellini on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:38 pm

LibraLabRat wrote:I am trying to remain calm, evidently I am not playing fair by quoting a certain persons own comments.

I am also getting tired of the insinuation that I am somehow a paranoid redneck who wants to kill people for fun.

Why not just spit on me and call me a jack booted thug baby killer while we are at it.

Sorry, but for people who espouse being open minded and intelligent, some people around here dont like it much when you disagree with them and resort to name calling.


No, I don't like it when people lie about what I've said, or attribute beliefs or opinions to me that I don't actually hold. But I bet a lot of people don't like that.

Incidentally, I don't hold a very high opinion of people who have to resort to lying as a debate tactic.

No one has called you a paranoide redneck. You are assuming that's what people mean, and repeatedly refuting it, which has a bit of a Queen Gertrude ring to it.

You keep saying 'Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I'm a paranoid redneck'. Meanwhile, no one said 'gun owners are paranoid rednecks.' Something in YOU is forcing you to feel that way.

As for what makes you lie, that's another story, I'm sure.
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby darren996 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:39 pm

Dr. Otis Lansa wrote:
darren996 wrote:And I'll bet more people are killed every year because of people driving their cars drunk than are killed by guns!

We should ban Cars!

I'm printing bumper stickers right now! Oooo! Wait, those go on cars! Dammit! :mrgreen:


Put it on your gun. :mrgreen:



I don't have one? I have a nukular bomb though. Should I put it there?

Dr. Otis Lansa wrote:Compare that to 1997's number of suicides (most recent data I could find): 3681



Seems like we should ban Canada as it is too depressing! :mrgreen:
Suspicion breeds confidence!
User avatar
darren996
The Pan
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Hell (okay it's America)

Postby Dr. Otis Lansa on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:43 pm

Cripes, you should have seen how bad it spiked in November 2004!

:wink:
Image
User avatar
Dr. Otis Lansa
Mystic of Meatball
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Canuckistan

PreviousNext

Return to Locked Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron