- NEW!
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on September 11th, 2007
Help answer this question below.
by allikatzpop on September 12th, 2007
1.i've had a gun for 42yrs.
2.my gun has never moved under its own power.
3.my gun has never shot anyone.
4.my gun has no hands to load itself.
5.my gun has no eyes to aim itself
6.my gun has no fingers to pull its trigger
personal responsibility=no gun deaths.how hard is THAT to understand????????
by Ender is back.. And slightly confused. on September 11th, 2007
It would be impossible to eliminate every gun from the face of the planet. The reason that bad people and criminals are called such is because they don't obey the law. What gun-toting criminal that you know is going to willingly hand over a firearm? I would rather hold on to my right to bear arms and defend myself than relinquish that and be subject to the criminals being the only ones with them.
by BrokeDog on September 12th, 2007
And no knives = no knife deaths, and no pillows = no smothering deaths, and no sledgehammers = no sledgehammer deaths, and no pills = no poisoning deaths or o.d.'s, etc.! If someone is of a mind to kill someone, they WILL find a way. While the availability of guns makes this the favorite and easiest way to kill, it is STILL the perpetrator who does the crime, not the instrument.
And, as said previously, if you outlaw guns, then only criminals will be left with them. There has to be a better way.
by Jewel on September 11th, 2007
That's like saying,
No autos=no auto accident deaths.
Yes, we could do without them. But the machine is not the problem. It's mostly the operator of the mechanism that is at fault, and most gun owners are responsible and law abiding.
Have you heard the saying that you can't put the genie back in the bottle? We could try and go back to clubs and pointy sticks, but it wouldn't work. We could also try to go back to horses and hiking. In today's world this would never be accepted.
by El Soupy spanish for the soupy on September 12th, 2007
thats some bad math right there... I am of the mind if you outlaw guns, only out laws will have guns. I believe in Gun Control.
by SPARE TIRE on October 2nd, 2007
NO FINGERS=NO TYPING STUPID POSTS
by JohnOBonno on September 12th, 2007
What you display is a total lack of logic. First, the guns you speak of (38 of them are mine) are the personal property of someone who is NOT YOU. What would your response be if I said that YOU are not allowed to own a book of any kind and that an armed government should come to your abode and remove your books?
I think you'd take the heaviest book you have and whack that jackbooted thug in the mug! And then you'd probably try to find ME and hit me with your copy of the Communist manifesto by Karl Marx for coming up with the idea and lobbying my congressman to enact the law in the first place. Think about the retribution that comes your way after you piss off 80 million men with guns and endanger the peace of everyone else who were minding their own business.
by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on September 12th, 2007
well we in Australia had our guns taken off us ...and guess what ..knife attacks have gone through the roof so where is your logic now ....
by killdrphil - reasonable for a madman on September 11th, 2007
But what you're saying is impossible to accomplish. There are a lot of bad people in the world and there will always be bad people in the world and they want guns and they'll get them one way or the other.
by atreadia on September 11th, 2007
no guns does not = no deaths no matter how you try to calculate the equation.
by Anonymous on September 15th, 2007
Handguns are pretty much banned in the UK but from what I've gathered on this board, kids are still getting shot in South London. That alone answers your question.
The problem lies not with an inanimate object but with the attitudes of people and the total lack of personal responsibility they've been brought up with.
Remember, the genocide in Rwanda was carried out pretty much with machetes. Shall we outlaw those as well?
by thekingcobra63 on September 12th, 2007
THen we return to the days of swords or bow and arrow. Knives, clubs, baseball bats, axes, rope, wire, fire, and poison would not kill a soul I suppose if we got rid of all the guns. It is a ridiculous statement that the guns are the problem.
by prettybird on September 11th, 2007
I am so tired of people that think no guns no death listen the guns don't tell you to shoot someone and it don't pull its own trigger it is not the guns it is the person behind the gun you have these bleeding heat liberals that say get rid of all guns they kill I would love for someone to come and try to take mine what is going to be next knives kill we have to get rid of those to? it will never stop until stupid people quite blaming the object and blame the person behind the object. We need to teach our children the value of life and hold the people accountable that do these crimes instead of saying it was the guns fault there bad get rid of them and no one else will die because the gun made them do it it wasn't their fault at all please people put the blame where it belongs
by allikatzpop on October 3rd, 2007
i thought this might be intresting to read:
Wow!! Over 12 percent!! Thank you all very much!!
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets
tysk news ^ | 1997 | Baldwin
Posted on 04/17/2007 12:29:03 PM PDT by doug from upland
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets
by Chuck Baldwin
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
by Roger Kovaciny on September 21st, 2007
First Lenin took their guns, then he and Stalin murdered millions of their own people.
First Hitler took their guns, then he murdered millions of his own people.
First Mao took their guns, then he murdered millions of his own people.
No guns=millions of murders by your own government, especially if it's controlled by the likes of MoveOn.org, which is effectively both (1) the leadership of the Democratic Party and (2) the Communist Party USA. Compare the websites of MoveOn.Org and CPUSA.org and you won't find a dime's worth of difference.
by DreAnna on September 11th, 2007
It's a false statement...people die everyday from other means..
by The Account Formerly Known As Peyton on September 11th, 2007
People can, and always will, make guns. Think about it, if we took away guns from the average, everyday people, then we would have nothing to defend ourselves from God knows what band of Nazis that have found out how to make their own guns.
No guns = a society overturned by terrorists/revolutionaries/blah blah blah
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on September 11th, 2007
I understand. In Canada guns are illegal and we have a very low gun violence/death rate. Compare our statistics to the US where guns are legal...it's astounding!!
by Anonymous on October 3rd, 2007
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but guns do help. ;)
How about, more guns, and less innocent deaths. Less guns, leaves illigal guns in the hands of bad people.
So more guns, mean more bad guy deaths.
A premeture theory of mine.
by KevinW42 on September 21st, 2007
Anti gun laws ≠ no guns
no gun deaths ≠ no murder
How hard is THAT to understand?
by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2007
Theoretically, yes.
But it's impossible to eliminate all guns from the world, or even from a limited area, the technology exists, and that can't be changed.
All anyone can do is outlaw it's use.
And consider the probabilities involved with a "Zero-Tolerance" gun policy:
If no one is allowed to carry a weapon, then all it takes is one psycho breaking that law to cause the deaths of dozens or even hundreds of people. If someone is putting serious thought and effort into killing people, they aren't exactly going to be above breaking a simple law, now are they?
And there's no foolproof way to enforce anti-gun laws to insure that they can't.
While I don't support as loose of gun regulation as some, I think being too firm and absolute at either end of the spectrum is a recipe for disaster.
by Nelson L. Squeeko on September 15th, 2007
If someone really wants to kill someone else, they can use other methods. Baseball bat, machete, bow and arrow, bomb, their fists, rope, poison, hit with a car.
Even if guns are outlawed, that doesn't mean they won't be used or manufactured. Armies will always have guns, they aren't going to just come to an agreement and say they won't use guns anymore. And if theres armies that need guns, there are gun manufacturers. And if there are guns being made, they will find their way into the hands of someone who wants to use it for evil purposes.
Now, thats not to say that laws concerning guns are good. They should still be tightened to make it more difficult to get a gun. But that will never be perfect, and guns will always be around.
by LadyLuck on September 12th, 2007
It's pretty simple, and actually true. No guns mean that no one will die in a fatal gun related injury.
Using that logic, no one should be able to carry any kind of weapon at all, which would eliminate weapon related deaths. So, it makes sense.
BUT!
People find ways to kill others using more effective and violent means than guns - take the case of the young woman who was tortured for a week and forced to eat animal feces and drink from a toilet, electrically shocked, raped, and beaten. Unless I missed something in that story, there was nothing about gun play - just a bunch of sick, twisted individuals who were full of hate.
I say a better solution is eliminate hate and twisted people from society, and eliminate senseless deaths, period.
by KiloWattKid on September 12th, 2007
That doesn't even make sense because if someone is mental enough (or sick enough) to commit a murder they will find other means of doing it instead of using a gun. They won't just go "OOPS, I got my gun taken away, oh well, I guess I'll just invite her over for ice cream instead".....
And by the way, if guns were TOTALLY banned from people INCLUDING policemen, what would the cops be armed with? Their toes? And even if you give the case of only letting cops have guns then what? There is such thing as twisted ex-cops....or simply just people stealing them from cops.
by JohnOBonno on September 12th, 2007
The fatal flaw in your plan to confiscate guns is that (at least in MY case) when you try to take my gun away, there will definitely be a death involved in that transaction. I am not alone as a defender of freedom and liberty, you must leave this fantasy of yours alone, it will lead to massive destruction.
If for example there were a semi successful push to unilaterally disarm, there are so many with imagination to plan a successful counter to such a move, experience to train and command others, and the balls to get er dun.
If during a neighborhood to neighborhood running gun battle do you think you will not be caught in the crossfire? Think Stalingrad during WW2 and you can imagine how horrible your plan is.
by Snooch on October 2nd, 2007
You take away the guns from all the husslers, street prowling thieves and criminals.. and I will have no problem with your logic.
by thekingcobra63 on October 1st, 2007
that may be true, but then we can say, no cars, no car deaths, no steak knifes, no steak knife deaths, no baseball bats, no baseball bat deaths, and no drugs, no drug deaths. It isn't hard to understand the statement, just hard to rationalize it with any seriousness.
by Anonymous on September 21st, 2007
Here is the major problem with the US gun control movement, the people writing the legislation don't even understand what they are trying to ban.
A barrel shroud is a piece of SAFETY EQUIPMENT! She thinks it goes on your shoulder. As a result of people like this, gun owners rightly have no respect for the opposing side. At least in the US, I cannot speak about gun control advocates in other countries as I do not know their experiance and it would not be fair for me to do so.
Kudos to the reporter that exposed her ignorance! She finally admits that she doesn't know what one is at the end.
Notice all the scary language she uses before that.
Remember kids, she WROTE the legislation to ban barrel shrouds and she DOESN'T even KNOW what one is! Oh BTW, modern pistols and rifles use MAGAZINES not CLIPS!
I'll give her that one though because even gun owners get mixed up on it.
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on September 16th, 2007
Easy. But now enforce No Guns. Including amongst hardened criminals who have already probably killed dozens with drugs they sold them, or with iron bars.
Guns are a symptom, not the disease. America believes that violence can solve problems. Whether it is John Wayne or Spiderman, a single man (or Wonderwoman) can solve problems by bopping enough people. Until this belief goes away, America will suffer when people take it literally.
by MrWitch on September 15th, 2007
Your question holds a truth, but achieving it is, I think, unachieveble, and there are many reasons for this.
Weapons manufacturers are not in a morally led business. They know people die, and accept that they make a profit out of it. Capitalism in it's purest form perhaps?
Culture also plays a part. To remove guns from (for example) the USA would require not just a change in the law, but a change in culture, which is far beyond all western governments, at least in the short term.
I have no doubt that easy availability of guns contributes to an increased number of people being killed. That's a no-brainer really. But how can this knowledge simply be removed? The answer is that it can't.
If one accepts that it can't, then there are really only two options. First, for governments to hold all the guns, and to have all pervasive access to people's private lives/homes etc. to make sure they aren't hiding anything. If the first doesn't appeal (and it doesn't to me at least) then the only thing that can be done is to restrict access, and make obtaining such weapons far more difficult.
In most of the western world, including America, it isn't guns that are a problem, just some of the people who have access to them. It is often pointed out by the American pro-gun ownership lobby that there are millions of responsible owners in the US who are law abiding and careful with their arsenal. This is undoubtedly true, but the ease with which the irresponsible can obtain weapons is where the real issue (at least in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK), lies.
by AnonymousD on September 11th, 2007
I absolutely completely agree with you. Yes, there would still be violence by other means, its part of nature but other than hunting I do not see any use in guns at all... and to kill an animal I do not see the need for machine guns, etc... The only other point that I agree with is that it would be very difficult to eliminate all guns and if a country eliminated guns completely then they may just become targets for terrorism b/c how are you goint to defend yourself.
Anyway, I dont see much good in guns and I think if more people think llike you, our world would be such a better place. Good post!
by siva000 on September 11th, 2007
the world is filled with terrorism and jealousy,so no one can seperate arms from people and using them...if neighther arms they use other sources......
by Anonymous on August 4th, 2008
you see, there are these people called criminals, they dont listen to laws, so basically what they do is use there guns on citizens who dont have them because of gun laws, if thats too hard for you to understand ive included a picture.
by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
The problem I have with the right to bear arms is that the very real risk these weapons pose seems to outweigh the value they offer. The value seems to be "I enjoy shooting them". While that's nice, it's the kind of value that's very much a "me first" thing. When "me first" conflicts with "what's best for the whole", the standard of value needs to rise to justify it. I don't hear this in the usual pro-gun arguments. There's a lot of abstract ethical argument, but that sort of thing gets very convoluted very fast on both sides and leads to no real clarity.
However, as a practical matter here in the U.S., the pro-gun lobby is very powerful and well organized, and is not going away. Those of us who favor tight restrictions on firearms need to take a pragmatic approach to that -- gun owners as a whole are decent, law-abiding people who believe their view sincerely, and are entitled to be engaged in respectful discussion.
The problem with your question is that it's basically sarcastic and suggests that the pro-gun faction is lacking in intelligence. That adds provocation to the discussion without adding real value.
So while you and I are on the same side of the overall debate, I think this tactic is counter-productive and can only play into the existing hostility and mistrust between the opposing parties.
by allikatzpop on October 3rd, 2007
FTA:
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban.
by Eltinwe has a life Swan - DYOH on October 3rd, 2007
So how do you propose to eliminate every gun in the world, along with people's ability to make one? Sure, if there were no guns, people wouldn't kill people with them. However, just about as many people would die... probably more, because it would be harder for the law-abiding and police/military to defend themselves.
by SABOTEUR on September 16th, 2007
Not hard at all.
So...what's your point?
by devil is back on September 12th, 2007
i'm from Italy and we don't have the problems that the US has. It's not that guns are completely illegal but they are registered and you need to have a liscense. You can't carry them around without a specific permission which will not be given without reason. It makes sense to me.
What would happen if people drove cars without a license?
I used guns in the army and they don't scare me, but sometimes people don't use the brain and hold a gun in their hands...
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on September 11th, 2007
So we shouldn't even try!!! That's crazy logic
by Brian I on February 5th, 2009
You will get all the usual answers, cars kill, fireworks kill, home accidents kill, etc. Unfortunately none of the gun supporters will offer the information that guns are designed for one thing alone - to kill.
by Armed and Dangerous on August 30th, 2008
OK lets say that today the gov took everyones guns away.Do you think that criminals would turn there guns in also?The criminals would love it,I think that gun crimes would go up,because they would know that most people turned in there guns so what would they be afraid of?
We will just say this time that the gov did manage to get every gun off the street(do you know how long that would take)?and there were no guns.People would find a new way to hurt and kill people with.For example there are no guns in prison or weapons,but they still find ways to kill each other in record numbers.What you need to do is think about what you are saying,before you say it.
by andthenitsgone on August 29th, 2008
Accountability to the individual. Most gun owners are responsible, and most likely could teach you a few things on the subject. Willing to listen?
by Tallyman on August 3rd, 2008
Go ahead and eliminate all the guns from the planet.
Start with the criminals first and then every government. Make certian that they are all re-educated to "play nice" and promise never to hurt any one ever again.
Make the governments do a pinky swear not to oppress the people.
After you do, get back to me.
This may prove to be a more difficult task that it appears at first.
Is that hard for you to understand?
by Moosemose on August 3rd, 2008
No Cars = No Car Deaths. Now go take a Hike to Work & the Store!!! OBTW, Doctors kill more people than GUNS!!! John
by owttwo on July 31st, 2008
no guns, only the criminals will have guns, I will keep mine and use it if needed.
by patman on July 29th, 2008
OMG!!!think about what you just said real hard for 30 seconds,now you cant believe that making every potential victim give up his best self defence is going to help,sounds like murder to me.
by Armed and Dangerous on July 19th, 2008
That is the dumbest thing I ever herd.If the government said tomorrow everyone has to turn in there guns,Who would have them?Criminals I don't think they would turn theirs in,they would love it,they would have no fear of running up in a house raping and taking what they want.If this would happen all hell would break loose.How hard is that to understand?
by itsbomba on October 10th, 2007
Wow, you are stupid. If we called guns a different name, like kackers there wouldn't be any gun deaths either, there would be kacker deaths.
by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on October 3rd, 2007
Your equation is so over-simplified and impractical that it is worthless.
by allikatzpop on October 3rd, 2007
please read this and i will rest my case:
http://digg.com/politics/Mandatory_Gun_Ownership_Town_Sees_Crime_Decline_despite_5x_pop_inc
do you think I should own a gun?
by Erin on January 5th, 2012
| 8 people like this
does the Uzi gun is the same bullet that used in smith and wison 9mm ?
by KIMO on December 29th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is "the one with the gun, the one at most risk"?*
*from an ad in a magazine
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on December 21st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
If the new Somalian kid in your town wants to take an AK-47 to school, aren't you being culturally insensitive to ask that he not?
by Piano Player on January 2nd, 2012
| 6 people like this
Anti-gun people: Do you also oppose bows used for hunting(archery)? Do you oppose powder actuated tools?
by MrX on December 16th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading No guns = no gun deaths. How hard is that to understand?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
The same holds true for ALL of the guns I've owned for the last 10 years.
by Anonymous on September 15th, 2007
thx,stewie
by allikatzpop on September 15th, 2007
No problem. Thanks for putting it so simply. You may want to edit those last 2 though! ;-)
by Anonymous on September 16th, 2007
got it
by allikatzpop on September 16th, 2007
Well done!
by Anonymous on September 16th, 2007
or should you've said "bullseye"?
by allikatzpop on September 16th, 2007
BRAVO Allikatzpop!!!
by Pointeman1 on September 25th, 2007
thank you,sir.
by allikatzpop on September 25th, 2007
EXCELLENT answer. I may not agree with the general public having guns but I definitly agree with your answer.
by Namaste formerly future_health_educator on October 2nd, 2007
That's the stupidest answer I've ever heard. If you never use it, why do you have it? What if someone steals it? When if you get severely depressed one day and in a moment of weakness commit suicide (99% of gun suicide attempts are successful compared to about 20% by other means. Why do you need a gun?
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on October 3rd, 2007
I have it.yes i do use it to hunt,to target shoot.what will you do if someone breaks into your home? will you call the ACLU to come protect you? it appears to me you have not read or you are unable to compehend my last statement
"PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY = NO GUN DEATHS"
by allikatzpop on October 3rd, 2007
Typical gun control nut. When people disagree with you, insult them and start throwing out "what if's".
by Anonymous on October 3rd, 2007
thx,stewie.why dont we get together saturday and go shoot something???LMAO :-)
by allikatzpop on October 3rd, 2007
thanks steve. Everyone has personal responsibility, and yet the US has tens of thousands of gun deaths a year. I doubt anyone would break into my home, if they did, I can be fairly sure they are not armed as guns are illegal here. Also, as I don't keep a gun in my home i can be 100% sure that they won't find a gun in my home and use it against myself or anyone else. You can't say the same.
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on October 3rd, 2007
I am just as sure. My guns are stored in a safe when not under my direct control.
Any other assumptions I can clarify for you?
I can be 100% sure that after I place my 911 call, the Police won't be arriving to tag MY dead body.
by Anonymous on October 3rd, 2007
the other one. If someone brreaks into your house, they are probably armed, here, I can pretty much guarantee they are not. I am safer living here in a place which bans guns than in a lunatic country which allows nearly anyone (including the criminally insane) to own them.
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on October 3rd, 2007
if someone is breaking into your home ,which is illegal,do you think they would obey the law by NOT having a firearm?
by allikatzpop on October 3rd, 2007
if someone breaks into my home ,i will notify 911 and tell them there is a burgler here dying of "lead poison"
by allikatzpop on October 3rd, 2007
Knives are illegal there too? What about fists? Nobody ever gets beaten to death in your Country. There are NO murders using a gun? If you're in the UK, I understand kids in South London are dropping like flies. Can't be though, guns are illegal there! Must be those damn Americans flying over, shooting kids and flying home!
Listen, if you're happy where you are, I'm happy for you. I hope you live a good long time. I plan on doing the same. My guns are legally registered and licensed.
by Anonymous on October 3rd, 2007
ooh Allikkatzpop-you're a real man! 'lead poisoning"? lol-I think you've been watchin too many Clint Eastwood films! But, if a gun makes you feel good, you probably don't need a girlfriend.
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on October 3rd, 2007
please read this and i will rest my case:
http://digg.com/politics/Mandatory_Gun_Ownership_Town_Sees_Crime_Decline_despite_5x_pop_inc
and as for your comment concerning my girlfriend..
She is a qualified and registered firearms instructor.
She can outshoot most men.
by allikatzpop on October 3rd, 2007
Most Women shooters can!
by Anonymous on October 3rd, 2007
I'll agree with you there-most of our snipers were women back in the late 60's as you maybe learned in school. But when we didn't need our guns anymore, we handed them back to the government.
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on October 3rd, 2007
You think they'll give them back if you ever "need" them again?
by Anonymous on October 3rd, 2007
well, if the US is ever foolish enough to invade again, yes they will, and when we win again, we'll give them back. Your country should adopt a similar attitude.
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on October 3rd, 2007
Good luck getting weapons back from the government!
Which country do you live in anyway? I don't see it in your profile.
by Anonymous on October 3rd, 2007
Technically I don't actually live in a country.
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on October 3rd, 2007
Ok... well it's been fun. Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you!
by Anonymous on October 3rd, 2007
for example?
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on October 3rd, 2007
citizenship in the 3rd world county of your choice,perhaps?...:-)
by allikatzpop on October 4th, 2007
I already have that thank you. And a passport from a 1st world country too!
by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on October 4th, 2007
When thousands of people are getting shot every year in US then you have to think of more effective solutions other than relying on personal responsibility.
by Sokoot on May 4th, 2010