It's a Shadowrun forum.

By instituting a hard lockdown on gun ownership, you make it significantly harder for criminals to get their hands on firearms, just like everyone else. In having to take greater risks to import or steal firearms, criminals who want guns & ammo are significantly more likely to get caught. Bam. Lower crime rate, higher arrest rate. And yes, I know this is only one possible outcome - there are a lot of variables - but saying 'criminals will just do it anyway, so I should be able to as well' is not a valid argument, especially considering that criminals won't be able to do it as easily as you say. And if they will be able to, than you have a serious problem with the effectiveness of your police force.

And the fact that owning firearms is a right is one of the things that (in my opinion only) is wrong with the USA. My argument is that people should not have a right to carry guns.

If you wish in one hand and shit into the other, which one will fill up first?

It's not wishful thinking. If your police are anyone other than the Keystone Kops, making something illegal means criminals have to take larger risks to get their hands on it.

So...umm...why has gun crime risen so much in the UK and Australia since the bans?

And, even discounting gun crime alone -- how's that overall violent crime rate workin' out for ya?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

Which is a good plan, if the guy actually wants your wallet. If he's a cyborg from the future sent to kill you before you can conceive the savior of humanity, on the other hand, you've got trouble right here in River City with a capital T that rhymes with P and that stands for pool.

Getting attacked by someone who wants your wallet is substantially less dangerous than getting attacked by someone who doesn't want your wallet.




Opening theme to Taz-Mania. I had considered using the entirety of Devil May Hare, but it seemed a bit long. The point is that Taz is a scary mo-fo, and I was being funny.






That's actually a bit of a myth. Most people won't ever kill anyone, not for lack of ability but for lack of trying. Most people get pissed off every now and then, sure, but few ever see murder as an acceptable solution to their frustrations.





Ligature strangulation is substantially more fun and more satisfying that a blitz stabbing is, if you do it right. It is also substantially less messy. If you're going to kill somebody and you don't want to do flashy anime samurai BS, then ligature strangulation is definitely the way to go.

Your argument is BS, however. It takes a great deal more time and planning to stealth up to someone and stab them than it does to shoot them, charging a resisting person with knife in hand is going to require a great deal of effort on your part compared to just shooting them.


I've read this whole gun control arguement too many times, and participated in it too many times. The truth is that the pro-gun arguements are stupid, not because they are untrue but because they miss the point. They're reactionary and defensive and the truth is that it boil down to one simple question, that of personal responsibility and how you want to be treated.

If you treat someone like a child, that person will likely act like a child. The ownership of a weapon was, at one point in time, a rite of passage for every boy (and some girls). It was a symbol of adult responsibility, the responsibility to help your neighbors when they are in need, to protect the weak from exploitation, and to do the right thing no matter how difficult it is. It is also a symbol of the responsibility to be patient, temperate, cautious, and wise. Having a weapon may not have made you a responsible member of the community, but it set you on the right path, it cultivated certain attitudes and ideals that make a good reasonable citizen who will do the right thing even at the risk of life and limb.
And its been this way since we learned how to bang flint into spearheads.

But at some point during the turmoil of the 60s and the 70s that changed. Youth rebelled against their parents values in mass, the authorities seriously feared revolution and a violent splintering of the country, the relationship between police and populace became more adversarial, and a very large portion of the current population rejected the very concept of war as well as its instruments. I don't know the exact moment it happened, perhaps when the Ohio National Guard opened fire on unarmed college students or when the Black Panthers marched into California State Assembly with their rifles,. In all likelyhood, it wasn't one event but the culmination of two decades worth of unrest, but we ended up with two juggernauts who feared guns for two very different reason. The government feared an armed citizenry because it feared armed revolution. The teens feared guns because the government was shooting them dead, although some were willing to use their own weapons to shoot back, they were a minority. But then the Baby Boomers grew up and got into politics and media academia themselves. Now being the guys in power, they couldn't fear the government. But they could still fear guns. So they expanded upon laws that were originally set out to present Negroes and Hippies from rising up and forming their own countries. They were so invested in this adversarial relationship between government and the people that they forgot what it means to be a good citizen, what it means to be responsible for yourself and to take responsibility for others. They started concerning themselves with protecting the populace from itself to the point of smothering. And individual responsibility gave way to statistical analysis.

Similar changes occurred in Europe around the same time, also driven by fears of revolution and terrorism and somehow transmogrifying into general fears of crime when the terrorists and revolutionaries reconciled and became productive members of society.

The question thus is not what you would do in a fight. That is a stupid question indeed. Do you want to be treated like a baby? That is the question. Do you want to be seen as an adult citizen who will put life and limb on the line to help your fellow man and who can be trusted with an instrument of great power that will help you do so in case of emergency or as a potential murder who cannot be trusted to refrain from killing the guy who cut you off in traffic?

Personally, I favor responsibility. If that's dangerous, then so be it. There are ideals that are transcend us, that are more important than any one person. Justice, responsibility, apple pie, these are things worth risking your life for. They aren't to be thrown away lightly. They shouldn't be thrown away at all.

When I was a kid, I was in Boy Scout for a very short time (Webelos, gayest name ever). On my uniform I wore a boy scout pocket knife. I even wore it in school when necessary for certain (incredibly boring) official functions. Today I would certainly be arrested for such a thing. I never learned anything useful (not even how to tie a knot), and the pageantry of the various pointless meetings was beyond tedious, but the weapon meant something to me (unlike the uniform). It meant that I had the right, and the duty, to help people who were in need. And I did use it to help people, though usually with nothing more serious than potato pealing. The fact that the weapon never tasted the blood of man (or even drove a screw, whittled wood or whatever an awl does) was far less important than the attitude that it produced. These days, I feel that something is missing and that something is the responsibility that can only come from trust.



And actually, now that I think about it, it would be really cool for a cinematic game if you had some way to create absurd degrees of knockback, say you shoot a guy twice with a heavy pistol and he lands on his back two meters away. There is something awesome about that.

My attitude can be summed up like this: If you do not let someone own a gun, why would you let him or her vote?

What?

Considering the stupidity of a majority of the planetary population I wouldn't allow them to vote OR owning a gun - even less owning a car since in the wrong hands that is a gun on wheels.

So why should we allow people to own cars OR guns, or vote for that matter? The right to bear arms does NOT mean that the person is an upstanding and wise member of society, just that he is a human owning a gun and can still make stupid decisions that get people killed. Just like a car driver.

As I'm from sweden we have rather strong gun laws. The only people owning guns are military, police or criminals and a few gun club members.

Since weapon possession is strongly regulated there are less weapons in circulation and therefore harder for the criminals to get them, it also makes tracking of said weapons easier.

I find US a bit extreme as people can own bloody arsenals and start private wars with them. Gun ownership is not a bad right to have but I find it a bit too easy in the US.

The 2nd Amendment can be interpreted in several different ways, and even then only applies in the US, so is not relevant to a global discussion about gun laws.

I basically feel that if someone wants a gun they should demonstrate competence with it mechanically, sound judgement in its use, and a thorough understanding of their responsibilities under the law. Does anyone feel that this is unreasonable?

In reference to SR4, I find the knockdown rules work nicely, regardless of their grounding in reality. I only tend to apply them at dramatic junctures anyway, since low professional rating security guards are more likely to play dead or get up and run away, if they haven't already been killed by runners. My players have made noises about utilising gel rounds more often, which will necessitate implementing the knock down rules more widely.

Well, I expect you are campaigning to return sweden into a true monarchy then, and get rid of that dangerous democracy, where every stupid human has a vote.

I rarely use the knockdown rules - I let mooks go down anyway, when hit, and prime runners tend to get hit with magical or heavy weapon overkill.

I think there is some difference between a vote and a gun. You can't kill anyone, except by the most roundabout manner, with a vote. Lots of votes in the hands of idiots might change something. Guns, meanwhile, are designed to inflict force at range, and are entirely capable of killing people even in the hands of a single idiot.

Sort of like making it impossible for illegal drugs or aliens to get into the country....yeah...I see that happening.

Despite popular myth, making weapons is not that hard. All you really need is a machine shop and the knowhow or blueprints. Ammo is more difficult, but then again all you'll need is a chemistry shop to make the propellent and primer.

In SR, with caseless ammo, it is probably a little easier to manufacture ammo on the black market as you drop one of the more expensive parts of the bullet (the case). Now getting quality, that is another issue.

Banning guns outright doesn't make it impossible for criminals to get them. Here in the UK we have proved that pretty well. But it does make it more difficult, requiring more time, effort and expense. That is also evident from the lower numbers of guns used in crime relative to the US.

We've got much more weapons here in Switzerland than in the UK, and yet our gun crime rate is not really high compared to the UK. Where's your evidence there?

(Not to mention that even in our country, knives are the most common weapon used in violent crimes. We should ban them! Oh, wait - we did! Now why don't those criminals follow the law?!)

@hyzmarca: I'm not sure it explains it all. There's a lot of cultural identity behind gun politics.
For example, the U.S.A were built by guns held by civilians (independence war, civil war, wild west...) or at least that's how it's told. Because of this there's also the idea that civilians need guns to fight the government if it goes wrong.
In France civilians did carry a few guns during the Revolution (and other uprisings) but that wasn't a major point as the Revolution wasn't a full blown civil war. Before or after that, weapons were mostly limited to armies and militia. So it's not just that we don't have any cultural or historical reasons to let people carry gun, we don't even have historical or cultural reasons to carry them.

Another difference is indvidualism vs collectivism. In France we are much more collectivist than in the U.S.A. So most of us believe that individual protection should be handled by the society and not by the individual himself.

Because of this nearly everyone over here, gun nuts included, is in favor of gun control.

Correct me if I'm wrong but It's my understanding that most of the guns in Switzerland are in the hands of trained local militias. One imagines that they have developed a healthy respect for firearms, and are thoroughly trained in their maintenance and use.

Knives are not against the law in the UK. Carrying them around outside without a good reason is. So really we're in the same position as the US with guns. They're freely available, and legal to own. I'm not sure how you could have it any other way, as knives are tools that most people need day to day (try slicing bread with a fork).

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3003

What?
I can't legaly posses or use weapons, should I not be able to vote for this?
Weapons are objects created for one porpouse: harming things (living or otherwise).
Society is the summ of people interactions, said interaction (if not regulated in any form) can bring individuals to impose their own will on other individuals, to prevent this laws are put in place (defining the limits personal liberties to ensure that nobody claimes right that harm other people liberties, at least it's what should be), law to be effective must be enforced, enforcing laws means an act of coercion (if the laws states that a thing must not be done an there's no penality in not abiding to it you can bet that the law won't have much effect), being required the use of force law-enforcement organizations are required to be armed to ademp their function, regular citizens not, if someone tries to harm them they have to call the police (the organization preposed to law enforcement) and they'll handle the thing. In order to defend from aggression there are ways that don't involve the use of weapon, and if someone drowes a firearm run for cover (ok I know that's not the best position in which someone might be), the police will run like a mad to catch someone who goes around shooting people. Letting people being armed means allow them to exert a certain level of coercion, which can (it's not an absolute) bring to a certain level of do-it-yourself justice which makes the point of having laws moot.
As long that there will be people in the world there will be people who chose to disregard law, but truely vicious crime usualy has root in social problems, if people have way to live without harming other people usualy will follow the least disruptive way of life (they still have to live in the society, most of people would prefer one that doesn't jump to the throat at the first opportunity); social problems produce frustrated people who resort to crime for living, having an armed society means to make things worse because the criminal knows that not being the first to pull the trigger can mean being dead, making probable resorting to violence.
In Italy civilians to posses weapons legaly you must have a permit from the state wich is given based on the NEED of the weapon that the citizen have (if you work as jeweler you might need it to defend from robbery), and this permits are very specific on where and for what you are autorized to use the weapon (a few years ago a jeweler that was robbed shot the robbers that were escaping, killing one and wounding another, he was arrested for murder because he wasn't defending himself and because the shooting tooke place out of his shop), yet you can live here without much problems.
I don't think that I've convinced you but at least I've said the mine.
As last note in my country an person can be stripped of the right to vote for few reasons: not being able to intend or as punishment for truely heinous crimes.

Well, maybe you aren't, but I'm worried that the Dumpshocker's friend will toss him a stripper clip for a SKS or something and then the Dumpshocker will sit there with a bewildered expression trying to ram some gigantic rifle cartridges off the stripper clip through the ejection port on his handgun.

Preach!

And as long as lots of people are playing SR to be like an action movie more so than some kind of tactical simulation, specific knockback rules would essentially allow for more strategic use of interactive environments in the context of the game. You'd basically think about where you could potentially move your opponent by shooting him from a certain direction.

Hyzmarca wins the thread. Again.

(Last summer I was just reading various books from a library about the social unrest of the 60s and the 70s, and realized that it was actually a great deal more serious than I had been lead to believe prior. Apparently it was such that people really and truly felt that the US was on the verge of splitting apart. Wow!)

Did I say 'impossible?' No! I said harder. hard-er. Oh hey, the criminals are going to get their hands on illicit drugs anyway, so let's legalize them! And hey, those pesky immigrants are just going to show up on our shores regardless, so let's just let them in! Making it legal worked for guns, right? In fact, since criminals are just going to disobey any laws we put in place, why have laws at all? Let's just disband the police forces, hand everyone a peacemaker and see what happens... jeez people, guns are weapons. The only purpose they serve is to facilitate the killing of people (or, occasionally, animals). If you want less murders, make it harder to kill people. A good first step is to crack down on weapon ownership.


Bingo.


More effective policing strategies? A heavier societal focus on communal responsibility? Any number of differences in society beyond the legality of gun ownership? I've never claimed that banning guns will magically stop all crime; there are a lot of other ways to make a society more stable. Personally, I think the US would be a safer place without all the firearms. I might be wrong, but the arguments presented here have yet to convince me.

Aulthough hyzmarca makes some good points, as usual.

From the wikipedia article:



Gun-related crime is down, but violent crime in general remains about the same. Still, it's entirely possible violent crime would have risen sharply without the gun ban. It's impossible to say for sure, of course and, like I said earlier, banning guns won't magically make your crime-rate drop, but it still helps. A criminal with a knife is easier to arrest than one with a gun.

Highly relevant:

Good speach Hyzmarca.

It's not GUN CONTROL that is a problem, it's just that there should be a harder gun OWNER control.

Too many people who by all accounts SHOULDN'T be allowed to own a gun owns it and use/show/handle them at the wrong time/situation/location.

Everyone can own a gun but too many irresponsible people collect and own them.

The main problem is that people are acting out of fear. Each individual high-profile incident involving a firearm is dragged out and blown up, to create fear among the population. In some countries, you can see the same mechanism at work with regards to foreigners, each time a foreigner committs a crime it's blown up by certain circles.

The other problem is that a large part of society is unable or unwilling to accept reality. They cling to the stupid and arrogant belief that somehow, one just has to ban the right stuff (music, tv, internet, games, clothes, etc.) and no human will committ a crime anymore. As if humans were machines, where Input A (f.e. violent computer game) results in Output B (shooting).

Until people accept that humans are individuals, and have to be held responsible for their acts, and stop blaming all the ills on other factors to avoid facing the fact that a humans are criminals for no other reason that that they want to, we'll see more and more freedom eroded.

careful with that "reality" argument...

"i reject your reality and substitute my own"...

I accept reality, i just don't accept gunlaws that basically allows anyone to own an arsenal for "collecting" purposes and where there is a slight formality in background checks for getting access to a firearm.

Hunting: No problem
Defense: No problem
Collecting: Yea sure, what? Automatic Weapons? Grenade launchers? Flamethrowers? Miniguns?

Is there a LIMIT to how many weapons a regular citisen is allowed to own in the US?

i suspect, like many other things, those laws vary from state to state.

The argument for gun control isn't necessarily that there would be less crime but rather that there would be less gun crime (what with being less guns to commit crimes with) and that a crime committed with a gun is more likely to involve a fatality than a crime committed without one. I'm not for gun control or anything, but it really seems to me like you guys are beating down a straw man and then patting yourselves on the back afterwards.

it also seems like many read "abolish" (or something to that effect) when the word "control" is used...

Hardly.



Yeah, I'm sure most criminal types that feel like lighting up a playground or restaurant with their fully-auto AK actually go through this whole process. Man...those CRAZY Americans! They let their population own anti-tank weapons with nothing more than a wink and a nod. Right.

I don't have time to do the research, but I would LOVE to know how many violent crimes in the US that involved firearms in the past 20 years also involved anyone who has a Tax Stamp of FFL? Anyone at all?

There have been two murders committed with legally owned automatic weapons in the past 30 years per multiple sources. One was by a police officer who moonlighted as an enforcer for a drug dealer with his police department issued submachine gun.

Like I said, those crazy, crime-committing Americans and their legally obtained automatic weapons.

Maybe if more people had a clue about what is REALLY going on, they wouldn't be so damned afraid of shit like legally owned automatic weapons.

The problem with gun-control laws is that they aren't solving anything in the US. Most crime here is gang/drug related which is more closely tied to economics. If we ended poverty the crime rate would probably go down. That is one of the reasons clouding the drop in US crime in the 90's.

Also. what are appropriate gun control measures? Outright banning of weapons of certain classes?
How are those defined? Do the people crafting those laws have any idea what they are talking about (ref:Assault rifle, saturday night specials etc, etc)? All or none? Too specific and you cover just a few weapons, too broad and it becomes a defacto ban. Consider one attempt to ban bullets that penetrate body armor, that would cover every high powered rifle.

Side note, in the U.S. the police are there to enforce the laws not protect its citizens (if they can they will do so). The police cannot protect everyone 24/7. Nor will the come within 5 minutes of a 911 call (and even if they did you're still dead). So therefore, in the recent US Supreme Court Ruling, it was found that US citizens had the right to defend themselves. It was also noted that completely banning handguns was violating this right. I'll admit this is very US specific, as in many countritries people don't even have the right to defend themselves.




Boy this thread has gone off topic...

Gun Control means using both hands...

I dunno, how many crimes were committed in america with automatic weapons full stop vs in australia? Its pretty much impossible to get fully automatic weapons here (without prying it out of the hands of an infantry soldier.. or just waiting for him to drop it in a swamp), which cuts down the pool of weapons that crims can get to.

The real question is 'What percentage of murders with guns were were committed with weapons that were legally or illegally procured within the united states rather than imported from another jurisdiction or stolen from the military supply chain."

As C'thuludreams mentions, it's not that the guns used to commit crimes were legally obtained, it's that they were likely stolen from someone who did legally obtain them. If practically everyone owns guns (legally) and there are stores in the local shopping strip that sell them over the counter (legally), how hard is it for someone to (illegally) aquire one if they want to? On the other hand, if your only recourse to illegally aquire guns is to import from overseas or to break into military installations, it's a lot harder to get your hands on one.

Hey presto: gun-related crime goes down. Crime in general may not - that's where effective policing strategies and encouraging communal responsibility comes in, but you'll likely end up with less deaths due to crime.

This just keeps going on and on and on...

I have a better idea. You guys run your country how you want to, and let us run ours the way we want to.

I don't see too many Americans here complaining about lack of gun control. It seems that most are more concerned with a lack of personal responsibility, and perhaps a longing for the way things once were...

The major voice of dissension seems to be coming from those countries that have already lost their freedom, and now seek to take away our freedom as well. For those of you who don't live in America, how does our crime rate effect you? What vested interest do you have in wanting to take away our personal freedom and our ability to be self-reliant? Why can't you be happy living in your peaceful gun-free utopia, and let us keep our Wild West?

Why is it I'm reminded more and more of Atlas Shrugged as the days go by? Why is it that everybody seems to want to tear down a once great and prosperous nation, and reduce everybody to the same Third-World status?

Oh, well... Who is John Gault, anyway?

** ETA: It's rather sad that we actually managed to get through 5 and a half pages before the topic degenerated into the current discussion. Is this some kind of new Dumpshock record? **

I resent the implication that everywhere that is not the USA is a 'third world' country.

Your crime rate doesn't affect me in the slightest, but I'm allowed to be concerned for the well-being of other people aren't I? It worries me that a lot of people in the US put such an emphasis on personal freedom that it borders on anarchy. I don't want to tear down your nation at all, I just happen to think that putting too strong an emphasis on personal freedoms endagers the livelihood and freedoms of those around you, and I think that's the US' biggest stumbling block when it comes to improving itself.

I've resided in a fair number of different countries in the world for varying amounts of time, and visited many, many more. In my opinion, most countries could use more of those 'personal freedoms' you reference ... including looser gun laws.

Oh, and I'm not American.

I gathered that from your various posts in this thread and others. =P

What exactly is it that led you to that opinion, if I may ask?

I don't really know how to answer that other than to say I came to upon that opinion through my own observations and experiences.

There's nothing wrong with a strong sense of personal freedom, so long as it is tempered by an equally strong sense of personal responsibility. Most of us who favor the one also favor the other -- and owning a firearm plays a big part in both. In the same way that concealed carry (for instance) allows me the freedom to protect myself, because I was raised to care about others and my community, it also brings me the responsibility (on a personal, if not legal, level) to use that same firearm to defend others.

Right now, there are plenty of people in America without a strong sense of either one. As long as they get to watch their tv and cash in their food stamps for some twinkies, they don't care about much else. So don't worry, I'm sure we're being "improved" by your standards all by our selves.

Mmmmm ... I really miss Twinkies!

I do realize that my statement was rather harsh, and this implication was not the desire of my post. It was more a matter of trying to express the frustration I feel towards the current political climate in general, and specifically towards watching my once proud nation get torn apart from within.

Atlas Shrugged happens to be one of my favorite novels, and I see some rather startling coincidences between the novel and the current political arena. I've seen a definite push towards legalized plunder and all-out socialism. I happen to be a firm believer in the ideals that this country was founded on, not what it currently represents. A large part of these original ideals was that all men should be responsible for their own actions, and provide for their own family's needs. There was also a responsibility to protect your family, your community, and your country. All I've seen lately is a push to take away the freedoms that give us the ability to provide for and protect ourselves, and instead force us to rely on the government to provide for us.

This is a personal issue between myself and my country, and I apologize for taking this out on you unnecessarily. However, I do not feel that it is your place to tell me that I should not have these freedoms that I hold so dear, just because you yourself do not possess them, and do not feel a need for them. If you are happy with your current system of government, I am happy for you. All that I ask is that you stop trying to change mine.

I do understand that this sentiment goes both ways, and am by no means a supporter of the US' current policy of being the World Police. Nor am I a fan of the United Nations trying to step in and fill that same role. I am what you could consider an Isolationist, and firmly believe that all nations should be allowed to do as they please, as long as they are not harming or infringing upon any other nation's freedom. I am a firm believer in sovereign territory, and wish that is still meant what it once used to.

Nowadays, rather than let countries govern themselves, and let people live their own lives, we all feel the need to meddle in other people's affairs. I understand the desire to help others, but it has long since devolved past the point of helping others, and is now fully in the realm of controlling others. This I do not agree with, and feel that it is the duty of everybody, not just US citizens, to fight against oppression.

But now we're back to the original argument regarding gun control, and the right to bear arms. How do you fight oppression if you have no weapons to fight with? Sure, you can form peaceable demonstrations, and trust in your democracy to return balance and order. You can also trust in the benevolence of your current government officials, and hope that they truly represent your interests. But what do you do when Democracy fails, and your government officials no longer represent the will of the people? How do you restore justice? What options do you have?

We are encroaching on a realm of possibility that most people are afraid to speak of, and many refuse to acknowledge. Yet the possibility is still there, and we must be prepared for it. Yet how can we be prepared if our very government takes away the only tools we have to protect and provide for our families and loved ones? How can we be prepared to fight against all enemies, foreign and domestic, if we no longer have the means or the will to wage war?

The Founding Fathers of the United States had already seen all of this, and did everything they could to help prevent us from becoming helpless. It seems to me that this country was founded on the idea that people should be self-reliant, not beholden to their government, and this is why I hold these original ideals so dearly. Your country might not share the same ideals as mine, but please understand that this is the reason we founded our own country in the first place.

Freedom, dear friends, is the most important thing in life. As long as your freedom does not hinder or harm anyone else, what is there to worry about?

And the real question an American should ask himself/herself is does he still believe that death is prefereable to oppression and tyranny as Patrick Henry espoused.

Oh good grief. The basic liberties WERE, very past tense, secured by arms. An armed electorate, in the day and time in which the founding fathers made provisions for it, was a free electorate. Sorry, but that is a thing of the past. There are no foreign invaders that will swamp the country if Joe Beergutt doesn't hold them off with his fully converted Armalite semi automatic rifle. The right to bear arms was designed to be a last line defense. Today, if it gets to an invasion by a foreign power strong enough to be a threat to more than, say, the Conch Republic (Key West Florida to you heathens) then the last thing that they will need to be worried about is Mr Beergutt and his fabulous abilities to defend his nation with the gun he is more liable to shoot himself or his neighbors with than anyone else.


Isshia