An Apology for Trying to Start a Discussion

[Atomic Playboy]

It always ends up here doesn't it? Just like the Health issue. Always back to wanting one thing to be fixed, not knowing how to do that, but just as long as the status quo isn't disturbed. I kinda doubt you even care if anyone ever figures out that "troubling issue", just as long as you can have your Gun.

Other Nations have faced these same issues. They responded with Control, not waffling. Their experience is one of increased safety. The US continues to drag its' feet, people continue to be gunned down so regularly that most shootings don't even get discussed, even on the local level.

The solution is obvious, but until you and a large segment of Americans decide to seriously address the issue, the carnage will continue. At some point, some of the blame has to lie with those who refuse to move on the issue. Those who drag their feet because of their own selfishness.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but it appears to me that there's a huge part of the American population who are simply not getting the point. Guns, regardless whether they are at fault, cause massive needless suffering. So far the 2nd Amendment advocates can not provide a good reason for why this should continue other than that someone 2 centuries ago thought it was a good idea at the time.

You seem to be under the assumption that I oppose gun restrictions for selfish reasons, so let me start by addressing that. First, I do not own, nor do I plan on owning, a gun. Second, I do not oppose gun restrictions. I do oppose a blanket ban on firearms, as I think that's overreaching and unenforceable, but I'm in favor of reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership, requiring safety courses/training before issuing concealed carry permits, restricting certain types of firearms, a national firearm registry, etc. I'm fairly middle of the road on the gun issue; I don't believe everything should be legal and come completely without licensing or restrictions, nor do I believe that we should ban all firearms, limit people to 7 round magazines, ban guns that are "scary-looking" (ie the AR-15 and variants), etc.

My biggest concern with most recent gun legislation is that it is entirely motivated by emotion; events like Aurora and Sandy Hook are shocking and we want to ensure that never happens again. But legislating from a place of emotion tends to shove logic aside, and that's how we end up with bad legislation like the Patriot Act; broad, overreaching legislation that is passed in a moment of national rage and terror with no thought given to the far-reaching ramifications. I'm all for reasonable solutions to the problem of gun violence, but they need to be logical solutions, and that's not what's been proposed. I want statistical analysis, not emotional pleas. And the statistics don't show that recently proposed bills will be effective in any way. Jamaica has one tenth as many guns per capita as the United States and ten times our homicide rate. Finland has half as many guns per capita and less than one tenth our homicide rate. Why? Because they have very different cultures. How do you legislate that?

The guns aren't the problem; millions of people in this country own guns who never shoot anyone. Banning guns to get rid of gun violence is ridiculous (and, given how many guns already exist in our country, literally impossible to implement). Whenever I hear someone argue that we should ban guns for safety reasons, I wonder how they feel about banning alcohol; alcohol kills three times as many people a year as guns do. Are you willing to ban alcohol to promote safety? Smoking kills ten times as many people as guns; should we ban smoking? Personally, I'm in favor of letting people do what they want, including owning firearms; I don't imagine I'll get shot, but if I do, I hope I'll still be willing to say that it's a price I'm willing to pay to live in freedom.

 

[sandorski]

You seem to be under the assumption that I oppose gun restrictions for selfish reasons, so let me start by addressing that. First, I do not own, nor do I plan on owning, a gun. Second, I do not oppose gun restrictions. I do oppose a blanket ban on firearms, as I think that's overreaching and unenforceable, but I'm in favor of reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership, requiring safety courses/training before issuing concealed carry permits, restricting certain types of firearms, a national firearm registry, etc. I'm fairly middle of the road on the gun issue; I don't believe everything should be legal and come completely without licensing or restrictions, nor do I believe that we should ban all firearms, limit people to 7 round magazines, ban guns that are "scary-looking" (ie the AR-15 and variants), etc.

My biggest concern with most recent gun legislation is that it is entirely motivated by emotion; events like Aurora and Sandy Hook are shocking and we want to ensure that never happens again. But legislating from a place of emotion tends to shove logic aside, and that's how we end up with bad legislation like the Patriot Act; broad, overreaching legislation that is passed in a moment of national rage and terror with no thought given to the far-reaching ramifications. I'm all for reasonable solutions to the problem of gun violence, but they need to be logical solutions, and that's not what's been proposed. I want statistical analysis, not emotional pleas. And the statistics don't show that recently proposed bills will be effective in any way. Jamaica has one tenth as many guns per capita as the United States and ten times our homicide rate. Finland has half as many guns per capita and less than one tenth our homicide rate. Why? Because they have very different cultures. How do you legislate that?

The guns aren't the problem; millions of people in this country own guns who never shoot anyone. Banning guns to get rid of gun violence is ridiculous (and, given how many guns already exist in our country, literally impossible to implement). Whenever I hear someone argue that we should ban guns for safety reasons, I wonder how they feel about banning alcohol; alcohol kills three times as many people a year as guns do. Are you willing to ban alcohol to promote safety? Smoking kills ten times as many people as guns; should we ban smoking? Personally, I'm in favor of letting people do what they want, including owning firearms; I don't imagine I'll get shot, but if I do, I hope I'll still be willing to say that it's a price I'm willing to pay to live in freedom.

The problem with the emotion argument is that these events evoke emotion. They also keep happening so regularly that there is never a moment when emotion won't come into play.

There comes a time when you say "Enough" and just do something to address this issue. You again are just trying to kick the can down the road like so many others have done every time a bunch of people get senselessly mowed down. If you are not getting Angry that these things keep happening, there is something wrong with you.

The Freedom argument is just silly. What about Innocent peoples Freedom from being senselessly shot down while going about normal daily activities? What else, besides "Freedom", would a Person gain from having a Gun anyway?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The problem with the emotion argument is that these events evoke emotion. They also keep happening so regularly that there is never a moment when emotion won't come into play.

There comes a time when you say "Enough" and just do something to address this issue. You again are just trying to kick the can down the road like so many others have done every time a bunch of people get senselessly mowed down. If you are not getting Angry that these things keep happening, there is something wrong with you.

The Freedom argument is just silly. What about Innocent peoples Freedom from being senselessly shot down while going about normal daily activities? What else, besides "Freedom", would a Person gain from having a Gun anyway?

Well, let's start with the argument that the only thing a person gains from having a gun is "freedom." That, to me, sounds like you're arguing that there is no legitimate reason for owning a gun, and I don't agree with that. I would argue that farmers protecting their livestock from predators is a legitimate reason to own a gun, as is hunting, as is target shooting, as is self-defense, as is simply collecting as a hobby. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to own guns. Just because you or I don't personally own guns doesn't mean we can tell someone that their reason for owning a gun is wrong. I may not share the same hobbies as you, but that doesn't make yours wrong, and as long as you aren't hurting anybody while engaging in your hobby, who am I to say you're doing something bad?

But I agree that guns are dangerous, and we definitely need some legislation to help limit them getting into the wrong hands while simultaneously supporting the rights of law-abiding citizens to continue owning guns that aren't being used to violent ends. I like the proposal for a national registry of firearms so that if a gun is used in a violent altercation, we can trace it back and find out where it originated and how it came into the hands of a criminal. I think that requiring training for concealed carry is appropriate; we require training for obtaining a driver's license, requiring training for a gun license is a logical step. We need stiffer penalties for improper handling of guns to encourage responsible storage and use. These are all solutions that can be implemented without bringing emotion into it.

To your point about emotion, I am very strongly opposed to legislating from a place of emotion, especially a place of fear. Fear has led us to some of the worst legislation in our country's history. Fear was behind the Patriot Act and the shoring up of the TSA in the wake of 9/11. Fear was behind McCarthyism and the Red Scare, the war in Vietnam and our prolonged standoff with the Soviet Union. Fear was behind prohibition and our failed "war on drugs." Fear is why gays were kept out of the military and still don't enjoy equal rights to marry. No, I will not agree with you that legislation that comes from an emotional place, even on such an emotionally charged issue like this, is ever a good thing. We can address gun ownership without resorting to bringing up images of dead children and mass shootings. If you can't make your case without an emotional plea then you've failed to convince me; I will never be in favor of legislation that is supported only by hysteria and a need for vengeance. I think there is a common sense solution to these problems, but it's never going to be resolved when one side is afraid of losing their rights and the other side is afraid of losing their lives. Our rhetoric has to move away from fear for progress to happen.

 

[sandorski]

Well, let's start with the argument that the only thing a person gains from having a gun is "freedom." That, to me, sounds like you're arguing that there is no legitimate reason for owning a gun, and I don't agree with that. I would argue that farmers protecting their livestock from predators is a legitimate reason to own a gun, as is hunting, as is target shooting, as is self-defense, as is simply collecting as a hobby. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to own guns. Just because you or I don't personally own guns doesn't mean we can tell someone that their reason for owning a gun is wrong. I may not share the same hobbies as you, but that doesn't make yours wrong, and as long as you aren't hurting anybody while engaging in your hobby, who am I to say you're doing something bad?

But I agree that guns are dangerous, and we definitely need some legislation to help limit them getting into the wrong hands while simultaneously supporting the rights of law-abiding citizens to continue owning guns that aren't being used to violent ends. I like the proposal for a national registry of firearms so that if a gun is used in a violent altercation, we can trace it back and find out where it originated and how it came into the hands of a criminal. I think that requiring training for concealed carry is appropriate; we require training for obtaining a driver's license, requiring training for a gun license is a logical step. We need stiffer penalties for improper handling of guns to encourage responsible storage and use. These are all solutions that can be implemented without bringing emotion into it.

To your point about emotion, I am very strongly opposed to legislating from a place of emotion, especially a place of fear. Fear has led us to some of the worst legislation in our country's history. Fear was behind the Patriot Act and the shoring up of the TSA in the wake of 9/11. Fear was behind McCarthyism and the Red Scare, the war in Vietnam and our prolonged standoff with the Soviet Union. Fear was behind prohibition and our failed "war on drugs." Fear is why gays were kept out of the military and still don't enjoy equal rights to marry. No, I will not agree with you that legislation that comes from an emotional place, even on such an emotionally charged issue like this, is ever a good thing. We can address gun ownership without resorting to bringing up images of dead children and mass shootings. If you can't make your case without an emotional plea then you've failed to convince me; I will never be in favor of legislation that is supported only by hysteria and a need for vengeance. I think there is a common sense solution to these problems, but it's never going to be resolved when one side is afraid of losing their rights and the other side is afraid of losing their lives. Our rhetoric has to move away from fear for progress to happen.

I will agree that Emotion based law can be crappy, but as I said before, it's next to impossible for Emotion not to be involved with this issue.

There's a huge need for Regulation on this issue. Nothing gets done because these nonsense arguments against doing anything keep stopping action. You continue to say you support action, but then you completely negate your support by insisting on other impossible conditions being met first.

At some point you have to get off the fence and just choose Action or Inaction.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I will agree that Emotion based law can be crappy, but as I said before, it's next to impossible for Emotion not to be involved with this issue.

There's a huge need for Regulation on this issue. Nothing gets done because these nonsense arguments against doing anything keep stopping action. You continue to say you support action, but then you completely negate your support by insisting on other impossible conditions being met first.

At some point you have to get off the fence and just choose Action or Inaction.

There's certainly a need for regulation on the issue, and obviously that requires action, but it requires the right kind of action. If I have to choose between inaction and bad legislation, I'll choose inaction. I've already mentioned some legislative steps I'd be in favor of. The problem right now is that both sides of the debate are arguing from a perspective of fear, whether it's a fear of losing a right they hold dear or a fear for their safety. And you're never going to reach any sort of compromise when your rhetoric is entirely fear-driven. The fact that even suggesting a reasonable course of action results in two editors being fired from Guns & Ammo shows that the rhetoric surrounding this debate is almost entirely emotional, and that's not going to get us anywhere. Substantive action is never going to happen if we keep focusing on the extremists when the reasonable positions are invariably in the middle.

We can agree to disagree on what the best course of action is when it comes to guns; I'm guessing you're in favor of more strict regulations than I am. But I think we can both agree that extremism, whether it's from second amendment absolutists or gun-grabbers, has no hope of leading us to an effective solution because it encourages divisiveness rather than compromise.

 

[Doppel]

The problem with the emotion argument is that these events evoke emotion. They also keep happening so regularly that there is never a moment when emotion won't come into play.

There comes a time when you say "Enough" and just do something to address this issue. You again are just trying to kick the can down the road like so many others have done every time a bunch of people get senselessly mowed down. If you are not getting Angry that these things keep happening, there is something wrong with you.

The Freedom argument is just silly. What about Innocent peoples Freedom from being senselessly shot down while going about normal daily activities? What else, besides "Freedom", would a Person gain from having a Gun anyway?

This sounds like you are sympathetic to the idea of "just doing something" and using emotion as a guide for legislation. Surely this can't be so.

Every single issue legislated is emotional for somebody. Every single one. Emotion must take a back seat to practical and measured legislation. I will keep using the 7 round mag loading limit in NY as an example because it is the best one I have seen. Most of the new gun laws make little sense with little evidence but this one in particular is unassailably stupid. It makes purely no sense whatsoever and yet it is on the books because gun control people apparently don't care what they do as long as they do something.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The solution is obvious,

But it isn't. What is the solution?

Restrict access to guns? Well we already have more guns than people in America so any restriction will restrict non-criminals as criminals will turn to the large black and grey market.

Limit use of guns? Just like restrictions it prevents lawful citizens from protecting themselves from armed-to-the-teeth criminals that will ignore limits.

Get rid of guns we have so restrictions and limits work? The nutters in this country will go full civil war before they give up their guns. Heck for many that is the day they are stockpiling for.

Scary as it is, it seems the policy with to the path of least violence in America is everyone armed to the teeth. We are past the point of no return, and only with Cold War-style MAD are lawful citizens safe.

I would happy give up my guns to live in a country where I feel safe without guns. But that is not gonna happen so I refuse to martyr myself or my family for a lost cause.

 

[sandorski]

But it isn't. What is the solution?

Restrict access to guns? .

Yes.

 

[irishScott]

There's certainly a need for regulation on the issue, and obviously that requires action, but it requires the right kind of action. If I have to choose between inaction and bad legislation, I'll choose inaction. I've already mentioned some legislative steps I'd be in favor of. The problem right now is that both sides of the debate are arguing from a perspective of fear, whether it's a fear of losing a right they hold dear or a fear for their safety. And you're never going to reach any sort of compromise when your rhetoric is entirely fear-driven. The fact that even suggesting a reasonable course of action results in two editors being fired from Guns & Ammo shows that the rhetoric surrounding this debate is almost entirely emotional, and that's not going to get us anywhere. Substantive action is never going to happen if we keep focusing on the extremists when the reasonable positions are invariably in the middle.

We can agree to disagree on what the best course of action is when it comes to guns; I'm guessing you're in favor of more strict regulations than I am. But I think we can both agree that extremism, whether it's from second amendment absolutists or gun-grabbers, has no hope of leading us to an effective solution because it encourages divisiveness rather than compromise.

This. I'm an NRA member out of necessity. Were I dictator of the US for a day, among other things I'd completely change the wording of the 2nd amendment to more specifically protect firearms owners' rights, while instituting government-funded firearms training, multiple weeks of which would be required to own and carry a certain class of firearm. With those protections and programs in place, I'd then institute a national registry.

That would be a system designed to solve the problem, and note it takes ingredients from both sides of the argument. However I can not trust my government to do anything remotely similar to this. In fact I can only trust them to make the problem worse. So I will fight for the status quo, in this case by giving money to the NRA and writing my representatives when appropriate.

And I'll admit if I have to choose a side in a fight among fanatics, I'll take the core values of the NRA fanatics over the gun control fanatics any day. I might despise their implementation of those values, but at least they have a little something right IMO.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

But it isn't. What is the solution?

Restrict access to guns?

Yes.

That's not a solution. If you're going to jump all over me for refusing to "take action," then I'm going to call you out. What sort of legislation are you in favor of when it comes to "restricting access to guns"? Are we talking about a blanket ban on guns? Are you in support of any specific restrictions? Just saying "yeah, we need restrictions on guns" is literally the exact thing you said I needed to be more specific about. So come on, how about it? What restrictions are you proposing?

 

[Doppel]

Yes.

Access already is restricted.

 

[AViking]

It's fascinating to see people try to say that "it's too late to do anything" or "need guns in case the government comes after us". Something along those lines.

Isn't that just fear mongering?

Guns aren't the problem so why deal with the guns right? There are millions of people who have guns and don't shoot people. So as long as it's just ten thousand gun homicides a year it's ok right? A massacre here and there has nothing to do with the gun right?

Are these laws unreasonable?

National firearm registry
Mental health check
Mandatory training and safety workshops
Waiting periods

I don't think so. This seems like something that could be done tomorrow and any reasonable American would agree with.

You could take it a step further. If you look at who is perpetrating gun crime it's almost exclusively the 17-24 year old demographic. How about focusing on this demographic? Would an age limit be that unreasonable? If they want to go hunting they can go with someone who legally owns a gun and is responsible but they can't go alone and can't own a gun until 25. Kinda like a minor. Would this be going too far?

 

[irishScott]

It's fascinating to see people try to say that "it's too late to do anything" or "need guns in case the government comes after us". Something along those lines.

Isn't that just fear mongering?

Guns aren't the problem so why deal with the guns right? There are millions of people who have guns and don't shoot people. So as long as it's just ten thousand gun homicides a year it's ok right? A massacre here and there has nothing to do with the gun right?

Are these laws unreasonable?

National firearm registry
Mental health check
Mandatory training and safety workshops
Waiting periods

I don't think so. This seems like something that could be done tomorrow and any reasonable American would agree with.

You could take it a step further. If you look at who is perpetrating gun crime it's almost exclusively the 17-24 year old demographic. How about focusing on this demographic? Would an age limit be that unreasonable? If they want to go hunting they can go with someone who legally owns a gun and is responsible but they can't go alone and can't own a gun until 25. Kinda like a minor. Would this be going too far?

Reasonable? Sure, on the surface. The question is will they stop there. I don't see our current gun control advocates stopping at a registry. Their goal is not to eliminate gun crime, it's to eliminate guns from society. I don't see any calls for "assault weapon registration". They've unilaterally decided what people should and shouldn't own based on nothing but sheer emotion, and are attempting to force their will on said people.

Until that changes, the further away they are from reaching that goal the better IMO; and they don't need up-front "ban all guns" legislation to do it. It would be a simple thing politically to insert ridiculous standards or expense for the training, abuse the registry like the New York Journalists did (they made a publicly available map of every gun owner in New York's registry, because they felt like it), or make anyone who so much as has a history of mild depression fail the mental health check.

There's too much that could go wrong and too many who would abuse such a system were it in place. It would be to the 2nd amendment what the NSA mass-spying is to the 4th amendment IMO.

 

[sandorski]

That's not a solution. If you're going to jump all over me for refusing to "take action," then I'm going to call you out. What sort of legislation are you in favor of when it comes to "restricting access to guns"? Are we talking about a blanket ban on guns? Are you in support of any specific restrictions? Just saying "yeah, we need restrictions on guns" is literally the exact thing you said I needed to be more specific about. So come on, how about it? What restrictions are you proposing?

It is a workable solution. Perhaps not a Ban on Guns, but whole categories can be removed from Stores for eg. It won't outright solve the issues, but in time and with other programs, like Buy Backs, the Guns in circulation will decline.

Laws like Stand Your Ground and the like need to be repealed. They just make people more belligerent and willing to escalate things to violence. It certainly takes away many peoples sense of Responsibility in altercations.

Stricter Licensing and more Restricted Resale is also required to keep the guns in the General Public from getting into the hands of those forbidden to possess guns.

Restrict the Sale of certain Ammo types. Have a complete Registry of All guns sold, whether in a Store or from Person to Person. Increase Criminal Sentences if a Gun is used, all confiscated guns from Criminal Activities are to be destroyed, not resold.

I wasn't saying you were just not being specific. I was also saying you wanted a change in peoples perception rather than any action taken on Gun Ownership. Separating Guns from those prone to violence also helps address the issue, it is the most direct and immediate way of addressing the issue as Social Change often takes generations.

 

[sandorski]

Reasonable? Sure, on the surface. The question is will they stop there. I don't see our current gun control advocates stopping at a registry. Their goal is not to eliminate gun crime, it's to eliminate guns from society. I don't see any calls for "assault weapon registration". They've unilaterally decided what people should and shouldn't own based on nothing but sheer emotion, and are attempting to force their will on said people.

Until that changes, the further away they are from reaching that goal the better IMO; and they don't need up-front "ban all guns" legislation to do it. It would be a simple thing politically to insert ridiculous standards or expense for the training, abuse the registry like the New York Journalists did (they made a publicly available map of every gun owner in New York's registry, because they felt like it), or make anyone who so much as has a history of mild depression fail the mental health check.

There's too much that could go wrong and too many who would abuse such a system were it in place. It would be to the 2nd amendment what the NSA mass-spying is to the 4th amendment IMO.

That would not be a bad thing.

 

[Fenixgoon]

That would not be a bad thing.

you're right, it'd be actually be an awful, miserable, terrible thing to be at the mercy of our 'elected' leaders who clearly have no interest in preserving the rights of the citizenry.

It is a workable solution. Perhaps not a Ban on Guns, but whole categories can be removed from Stores for eg. It won't outright solve the issues, but in time and with other programs, like Buy Backs, the Guns in circulation will decline.

Laws like Stand Your Ground and the like need to be repealed. They just make people more belligerent and willing to escalate things to violence. It certainly takes away many peoples sense of Responsibility in altercations.

Stricter Licensing and more Restricted Resale is also required to keep the guns in the General Public from getting into the hands of those forbidden to possess guns.

Restrict the Sale of certain Ammo types. Have a complete Registry of All guns sold, whether in a Store or from Person to Person. Increase Criminal Sentences if a Gun is used, all confiscated guns from Criminal Activities are to be destroyed, not resold.

I wasn't saying you were just not being specific. I was also saying you wanted a change in peoples perception rather than any action taken on Gun Ownership. Separating Guns from those prone to violence also helps address the issue, it is the most direct and immediate way of addressing the issue as Social Change often takes generations.

the question is, WHY go through all this, and it is truly addressing the root cause of the problem? violent crimes and homicides have been dropping for the past 20 years, 1994 AWB or not.

most crime is in inner cities, and much of that is gang crime. why do gangs exist? why does gang crime occur? how much of this is drug-related crime?

you're far better off addressing actual root-cause issues than restricting the rights of 300 million people "even if it can save one life" because that argument is absolute bullshit. 1 life is NOT worth the RIGHTS of 300 million people.

 

[jackstar7]

Lesson learned. Guns are too polarizing and the nature of insular cultures cannot be discussed if the discussion starts with gun culture.

 

[irishScott]

That would not be a bad thing.

Setting aside the fact that it's impossible to do, I'm curious how you expect to preserve the right of self defense if guns were artificially removed from society. If I'm an innocent victim and someone attacks me with a knife and you have the choice of giving me a gun, equivalent weapon, or hand to hand, you'd deny me a gun? You'd put innocent victims at the mercy of criminals?

 

[schneiderguy]

Restrict the Sale of certain Ammo types.

What kinds of ammo?

 

[sandorski]

Setting aside the fact that it's impossible to do, I'm curious how you expect to preserve the right of self defense if guns were artificially removed from society. If I'm an innocent victim and someone attacks me with a knife and you have the choice of giving me a gun, equivalent weapon, or hand to hand, you'd deny me a gun? You'd put innocent victims at the mercy of criminals?

Yes.

 

[sandorski]

you're right, it'd be actually be an awful, miserable, terrible thing to be at the mercy of our 'elected' leaders who clearly have no interest in preserving the rights of the citizenry.



the question is, WHY go through all this, and it is truly addressing the root cause of the problem? violent crimes and homicides have been dropping for the past 20 years, 1994 AWB or not.

most crime is in inner cities, and much of that is gang crime. why do gangs exist? why does gang crime occur? how much of this is drug-related crime?

you're far better off addressing actual root-cause issues than restricting the rights of 300 million people "even if it can save one life" because that argument is absolute bullshit. 1 life is NOT worth the RIGHTS of 300 million people.

You wouldn't be saving just 1 life, you would be saving thousands per year.

You are not at the mercy of Elected Leaders. By definition of "Elected", they are at the mercy of You.

 

[irishScott]

Yes.

Why?

 

[sandorski]

Why?

Guns cause too much Harm.

 

[irishScott]

Guns cause too much Harm.

And harm to criminals attempting murder is a bad thing? Or it's better that a victim get stabbed than the stabber get shot?

I'm just trying to understand your mentality here.

 

[irishScott]

Here's a good, very recent example where the good guys had guns and the bad guy had a knife.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...apped-woman-ex-lover-report-article-1.1511351

Yeah, I'm happy for every last bit of damage those guns caused.