End the Gun Epidemic in America

by confuzzled dude Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:16 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0

When the killings of 5, 6 year old kids did nothing to change this, nothing, IMO, nothing will help change their attitude. Guns & gun rights are their religion, sacred than kids and fellow human lives.

by confuzzled dude Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:31 pm

A day after the California carnage, the Senate decided to do nothing, again, voting down a measure that would have made it more difficult for people on the terror watch list, felons and the mentally ill to buy guns.

By next week, with the professional football playoff picture starting to take shape, and the holiday festivities in full swing, we’ll have this San Bernardino thing figured out. And we’ll hope that it doesn’t happen again tomorrow. But it will happen tomorrow — on average, one multiple-victim shooting a day. Every day. It will make sense in the only country where mass killings make sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/no-more-thoughts-and-prayers.html?ref=opinion

by truthbetold Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:51 pm

CD

Gun control is not a smart thing to talk about after San Bernadino killings. It is no new town incident. Obama was little too over zealous too. These killers are motivated and their actions were premeditated.

by confuzzled dude Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:29 pm

truthbetold wrote:CD

Gun control is not a smart thing to talk about after San Bernadino killings. It is no new town incident. Obama was little too over zealous too. These killers are motivated and their actions were premeditated.

So, living in denial is a smart thing? Columbine shooters actions were not premeditated? Wisconsin Sikh Gurudwara shooting was not premeditated? Oakland & Oregon community college shootings were not premeditated? What's not so smart thing is the thought process that we can keep them terrorists away from America by taking wars to & raining bombs on ME. What's not so smart is thinking that America, with its gun laws or lack thereof, is shielded from 26/11 style attacks.

And it is why one of President Obama’s finest hours and best speeches was at the National Defense University in 2013, when he laboriously and intricately and responsibly laid out the rationale for drone attacks but also recognized the potentially insidious nature of the reasoning, saying that “America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion.* To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power—or risk abusing it.”

The collective responsibility that all Americans share is the responsibility of allowing too many people to have too many guns; guns of a kind that no civilian ever needs can be bought in this country by almost anyone who wants one. We have been running an experiment of a kind that no sane ethicist would allow: what happens when, in a country large enough to contain every imaginable kind of crazy, from the inward-turning, maniac sort to the outward-turning, politicized kind, you make sure that almost anyone can readily buy any kind of gun? And now we know the answer: you get more gun massacres than there are days in the year.

No sane person thinks that Carly Fiorina is “guilty” of the shooting at Planned Parenthood, or that Wayne LaPierre is guilty of the one in San Bernardino—but those who put weapons into the hands of anyone who wants them are complicit in what happens when they do. (And those who encourage hate speech directed at health clinics share responsibility for what happens when people take them seriously.) They are responsible in the same way that we are all responsible for the bad consequences of our beliefs, in exactly the same way that Wahhabi imams who preach intolerance are responsible for the consequences of their words. Sometimes you can avoid such horrible consequences with a minimal effort at thinking and acting responsibly. And when you can, you should.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/our-shared-blame-for-the-shooting-in-san-bernardino?intcid=mod-yml

by truthbetold Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:39 pm

CD,

San bernadino is not the time one can rally people to gun control. Attempts to use it for gun control would only backfire. If you wish to be dense, that is your prerogative.

by confuzzled dude Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:42 pm

truthbetold wrote:CD,

San bernadino is not the time one can rally people to gun control. Attempts to use it for gun control would only backfire. If you wish to be dense, that is your prerogative.

How so? You are not suggesting that all the news outlets are dense, are you?

by truthbetold Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:14 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/politics/california-attack-has-us-rethinking-strategy-on-homegrown-terror.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

CD,

Read the above. The most important lesson from San Bernadino is that the killers have guns and ammunition. It is not that they are muslims. Those facts were somewhat expected based on recent history. But the most disturbing part is that these killers were US residents, one of them is US born, middle class, educated, and married. Above all they had a child. No criminal record.
Least suspect. Whether they are self radicalized or ISIS directed, this incident makes americans upset and afraid.

So whatever papers say or obama says, you should use your judgement to arrive at your conclusions. Gun control is not an important issue in this incident.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:24 pm

truthbetold wrote:CD

Gun control is not a smart thing to talk about after San Bernadino killings. It is no new town incident. Obama was little too over zealous too. These killers are motivated and their actions were premeditated.

it is absolutely one of the smart things to talk about after san bernardino. the idea of terrorists getting free access to guns and ammo making use of america's lax gun laws is not a theoretical anymore. it's in our face. in fact it's quite dumb to not talk about gun control right now.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:26 pm

truthbetold wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/politics/california-attack-has-us-rethinking-strategy-on-homegrown-terror.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

CD,

Read the above. The most important lesson from San Bernadino is that the killers have guns and ammunition. It is not that they are muslims. Those facts were somewhat expected based on recent history. But the most disturbing part is that these killers were US residents, one of them is US born, middle class, educated, and married. Above all they had a child. No criminal record.
Least suspect. Whether they are self radicalized or ISIS directed, this incident makes americans upset and afraid.

So whatever papers say or obama says, you should use your judgement to arrive at your conclusions. Gun control is not an important issue in this incident.

the rethuglicans scuttled legislation to prevent people on terrorist watch list from buying guns. it's not an important issue?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:35 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote:CD

Gun control is not a smart thing to talk about after San Bernadino killings. It is no new town incident. Obama was little too over zealous too. These killers are motivated and their actions were premeditated.

it is absolutely one of the smart things to talk about after san bernardino. the idea of terrorists getting free access to guns and ammo making use of america's lax gun laws is not a theoretical anymore. it's in our face. in fact it's quite dumb to not talk about gun control right now.

corrected post below:
'
it is absolutely one of the smart things to talk about after san bernardino. the idea of terrorists getting free access to guns and ammo making use of america's lax gun laws is not a theoretical anymore. it's in our face. in fact it's quite dumb to not talk about gun control right now.

by truthbetold Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:48 pm

Max,

These would be terrorists (before the incident) bought these guns legitimately. They had no criminal record or mental issue record. CA has among the strictest guns laws in the country. You could not stop them from buying those weapons unless you are proposing that a muslim ( thus an automatic terror suspect) cannot buy a gun.

Motivated killers get guns and whatever else they need. Examples of France and Norway mass shootings. Both countries have strict gun controls.

One can make perfunctory statement to please self or meet the obligatory political requirements.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:27 pm

truthbetold wrote:Max,

These would be terrorists (before the incident) bought these guns legitimately. They had no criminal record or mental issue record. CA has among the strictest guns laws in the country. You could not stop them from buying those weapons unless you are proposing that a muslim ( thus an automatic terror suspect) cannot buy a gun.

no i am proposing that an individual on the FBI's terrorism watch list should not be able to buy a gun. they are able to now. the dems introduced legislation that would prevent anyone on the watchlist to be not able to buy a gun and the rethuglicans killed it. did you not watch the news? here you go:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/262030-senate-blocks-tying-gun-fight-to-obamacare-repeal

'truthbetold wrote:Motivated killers get guns and whatever else they need. Examples of France and Norway mass shootings. Both countries have strict gun controls.

One can make perfunctory statement to please self or meet the obligatory political requirements.

i am surprised you buy the NRA BS so easily without critical thinking. criminals will always find a way. someone is always likely to break in to your house. does that mean you think it is futile to lock your door when you go away on vacation? what kind of logic is that? sure norway has had mass shootings. but nowhere close to the frequency that the US has. why do you think that is? let me ask you a simple question. when you put your kids on that school bus every morning, wouldn't you like to have better odds of seeing them back home in the evening?

by confuzzled dude Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:11 am

truthbetold wrote:Max,

These would be terrorists (before the incident) bought these guns legitimately. They had no criminal record or mental issue record. CA has among the strictest guns laws in the country. You could not stop them from buying those weapons unless you are proposing that a muslim ( thus an automatic terror suspect) cannot buy a gun.

Motivated killers get guns and whatever else they need. Examples of France and Norway mass shootings. Both countries have strict gun controls.

One can make perfunctory statement to please self or meet the obligatory political requirements.

Would carpet bombing Syria & Iraq, while conveniently ignoring Pakistan & Saudi connections of perpetrators, as wannabe Prez Cruz suggested is the smart thing to do? Would that fix these non-stop mass killings on American soil? It's a shame that this country has not learned a thing from Irag war debacle. Preaching mass killings of civilians living in faraway countries not much different from Imams preaching death to America. BTW, blindly kowtowing to bigoted and prejudiced minds and calling people dense for not agreeing with bigotry is definitely not a smart thing. Remember, that's how Hillary and scores of others voted for Iraq war. America, if wants to be a true leader, certainly does not need leaders like her & Cruz.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:33 am

try out a few arguments like this:

1) people are always going to be careless, so there is no point having traffic laws.
2) people are always going to murder, so there is no point having laws against homicide.
3) people are always going to cheat on their tax returns, so there is no point in having tax laws.
etc.

it's absurd to suggest that just because something is not 100% enforceable, that there is no point regulating or having laws regarding its acquisition and use. the NRA has been making that kind of specious argument for many decades now, and the public who buy into this clever sounding but ultimately idiotic reasoning have so much blood on their hands. and the empty platitudes about praying for victims after every such incident is really beyond the pale. why don't you fucking pray in your churches and synagogues and do your jobs as legislators instead during the workweek assholes?

by truthbetold Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:36 am

Max,

it is a stupid discussion. Republicans are wrong to oppose the idea that blocks people on terrorist list to arm themselves. Republicans are beholden to NRA. Dems rightly shame them for that stand.

But to use that kind of political polemics in a discussion between such posters is not very original.

None of the serious gun control legislation suggested before the San bernadino killings could have prevented these killers from obtaining the guns and ammunition. CA has the strictest gun controls laws in USA. CA legislature is controlled by Democrats. None of Obama's own proposal go beyond what is already on CA gun control measures.

Not even the stupidest dovish politician has suggested that gun control stop terrorism. I am not opposed to gun control in USA but gun control would not be on top of my priority task list to fight terrorism. It could be one of the 10 things i may do but not my one or two.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:37 am

truthbetold wrote:

One can make perfunctory statement to please self or meet the obligatory political requirements.

you mean like the empty platitudes about praying for victims of gun violence that rethuglican politicians regularly mouth off after every gun massacre? i totally agree.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:39 am

truthbetold wrote:Max,

it is a stupid discussion. Republicans are wrong to oppose the idea that blocks people on terrorist list to arm themselves. Republicans are beholden to NRA. Dems rightly shame them for that stand.

But to use that kind of political polemics in a discussion between such posters is not very original.

None of the serious gun control legislation suggested before the San bernadino killings could have prevented these killers from obtaining the guns and ammunition. CA has the strictest gun controls laws in USA. CA legislature is controlled by Democrats. None of Obama's own proposal go beyond what is already on CA gun control measures.

Not even the stupidest dovish politician has suggested that gun control stop terrorism. I am not opposed to gun control in USA but gun control would not be on top of my priority task list to fight terrorism. It could be one of the 10 things i may do but not my one or two.

i'd like to know more details about the san bernardino shootings. the FBI is still investigating. alright, let's talk about terrorism. why wouldn't you as a citizen support legislation that would prevent people on terrorism watch lists from buying guns? there was such a measure that the rethuglicans voted down just two days ago.

by confuzzled dude Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:41 am

End the Gun Epidemic in America IMG_3841

http://www.erickontheradio.com/2015/12/i-shot-holes-in-the-new-york-times-editorial/

I would be really really worried for my life If I were working in the same office or building as this guy.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:43 am

confuzzled dude wrote:

http://www.erickontheradio.com/2015/12/i-shot-holes-in-the-new-york-times-editorial/

I would be really really worried for my life If I were working in the same office or building as this guy.

mental!

by truthbetold Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:45 am

max,

you work yourself into a frenzy with your imaginary enemy arguments. I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

You are simply addressing the wrong problem.

I would support you on your demand for action against saudis and pakistan. But what action are you suggesting? Destroy saudis with really sharp word bombs by Obama? or are you suggesting squeeze the pakistan by denying them next presidential visit when Obama visits India?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:47 am

truthbetold wrote:max,

you work yourself into a frenzy with your imaginary enemy arguments. I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

You are simply addressing the wrong problem.

I would support you on your demand for action against saudis and pakistan. But what action are you suggesting? Destroy saudis with really sharp word bombs by Obama? or are you suggesting squeeze the pakistan by denying them next presidential visit when Obama visits India?

that is another thread. why are you changing the subject? let's talk about guns and terrorism which is what this thread is about.

by confuzzled dude Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:48 am

truthbetold wrote:max,

you work yourself into a frenzy with your imaginary enemy arguments. I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

You are simply addressing the wrong problem.

I would support you on your demand for action against saudis and pakistan. But what action are you suggesting? Destroy saudis with really sharp word bombs by Obama? or are you suggesting squeeze the pakistan by denying them next presidential visit when Obama visits India?

How about severing diplomatic, trade ties or imposing sanctions?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:48 am

truthbetold wrote: I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:49 am

max,

settled down and read what i wrote about republican opposition to terror watch lister's right to buy guns.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:52 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote: I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

Why are they non sequiturs? Just because decided so? or is it because you cannot put forward logical arguments?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:56 am

truthbetold wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote: I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

Why are they non sequiturs? Just because decided so? or is it because you cannot put forward logical arguments?

talking about putting pressure on the saudis is a non-sequitur on a thread about ending the gun epidemic. if you want to talk about that, post it in the appropriate thread.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 06, 2015 11:58 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:max,

you work yourself into a frenzy with your imaginary enemy arguments. I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

You are simply addressing the wrong problem.

I would support you on your demand for action against saudis and pakistan. But what action are you suggesting? Destroy saudis with really sharp word bombs by Obama? or are you suggesting squeeze the pakistan by denying them next presidential visit when Obama visits India?
How about severing diplomatic, trade ties or imposing sanctions?

How come none of the consequential democratic leaders suggesting that? Why are none of the major newspapers including NY times or wash post or even the left wing slate calling for that?

India called for US to sever ties with Pakistan as early as 2001 after parliament attack. However, it failed to register on your radar.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:03 pm

one thing that is unclear is how the assault rifles which were purchased perfectly legally found their way into the san bernardino terrorists' hands.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:04 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote: I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

Why are they non sequiturs? Just because decided so? or is it because you cannot put forward logical arguments?

talking about putting pressure on the saudis is a non-sequitur on a thread about ending the gun epidemic. if you want to talk about that, post it in the appropriate thread.

Max,

Read carefully ( I made the same mistake). CD is suggesting. now that you told CD to buzz off, post your response to my post on your non sequitur claim?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:07 pm

this is all i could find:
http://abc7.com/news/police-suspect-neighbor-bought-weapons-used-in-san-bernardino-attack/1111175/

by confuzzled dude Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:09 pm

truthbetold wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:max,

you work yourself into a frenzy with your imaginary enemy arguments. I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

You are simply addressing the wrong problem.

I would support you on your demand for action against saudis and pakistan. But what action are you suggesting? Destroy saudis with really sharp word bombs by Obama? or are you suggesting squeeze the pakistan by denying them next presidential visit when Obama visits India?
How about severing diplomatic, trade ties or imposing sanctions?

How come none of the consequential democratic leaders suggesting that? Why are none of the major newspapers including NY times or wash post or even the left wing slate calling for that?

India called for US to sever ties with Pakistan as early as 2001 after parliament attack. However, it failed to register on your radar.

LOL, did you forget that I'm comrade and resident american hater per our telugu brother, for criticizing American foreign policy.

by confuzzled dude Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:32 pm

truthbetold wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote: I have answered your questions even before reading your post.

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

Why are they non sequiturs? Just because decided so? or is it because you cannot put forward logical arguments?

talking about putting pressure on the saudis is a non-sequitur on a thread about ending the gun epidemic. if you want to talk about that, post it in the appropriate thread.

Max,

Read carefully ( I made the same mistake). CD is suggesting. now that you told CD to buzz off, post your response to my post on your non sequitur claim?

I see where Max is coming from, conservatives are trying to paint the picture as terrorism and gun control are mutually exclusive (the theory, you seem to have bought into) but given what happened last week, are they? Honestly, didn't you see this coming? we knew this, since 26/11 incident, it was a matter of when not if. And the irony is there are far more restrictions on buying fertilizers than assault weapons.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:02 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

Why are they non sequiturs? Just because decided so? or is it because you cannot put forward logical arguments?

talking about putting pressure on the saudis is a non-sequitur on a thread about ending the gun epidemic. if you want to talk about that, post it in the appropriate thread.

Max,

Read carefully ( I made the same mistake). CD is suggesting. now that you told CD to buzz off, post your response to my post on your non sequitur claim?
I see where Max is coming from, conservatives are trying to paint the picture as terrorism and gun control are mutually exclusive (the theory, you seem to have bought into) but given what happened last week, are they? Honestly, didn't you see this coming? we knew this, since 26/11 incident, it was a matter of when not if. And the irony is there are far more restrictions on buying fertilizers than assault weapons.

CD,

you know what you , max and merlot sipping jehadi apologist do. Instead of making your arguments based on opponents argument, you first create a mad dog argument for which you have a stock answer and shoot the dog and then self congratulate your self that you have responded.

If you can live with your dishonesty, that is your problem.

You attributed the idea terorrism and gun control are mutually exclusive. What I said was Gun control was not top one or two action item for fighting terrorism in USA. You and max have not provided any useful arguments to counter that other than lame excuses like gun control for people on terror list.

If you feel that gun control is the top action on fighting terrorism on USA soil, come out and say so.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:35 pm

terrorism committed in the homeland going forward is not going to come from foreigners who come here under the pretext of going to university and operate in hidden cells of the kind that we saw on 9/11. increasingly, they are going to come from people who self-radicalized inspired by the jihadi agenda on the internet. ISIS is doing precisely that, asking individuals who are the citizens of western countries to commit acts of terror right where they live. there is no need to travel to the middle east or pakistan to get trained. given this scenario, the US has the most liberal gun laws in the entire western world and provides the easiest access to weapons of mass murder which i am afraid the terrorists are going to take advantage of repeatedly. my contention is that san bernardino is only the beginning and is likely to repeat itself over and over. unless the rethuglicans remove their mouths from the NRA's dick.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:07 pm

max,

you can condemn republicans to your heart's content. Facts do indicate a rise in local islamic radicals who are willing to engage in terrorism.

Gun control , on the other hand, is not a tool that came about to only stop rare acts of terrorists. Gun control is primarily intended to fight gun related violence in every day life in all major cities in recent decades. If those tools help fight terrorism, all the more power to those laws.

Again gun control is not a primary or even secondary tool to fight local terrorism.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:15 pm

truthbetold wrote:max,

you can condemn republicans to your heart's content. Facts do indicate a rise in local islamic radicals who are willing to engage in terrorism.

Gun control , on the other hand, is not a tool that came about to only stop rare acts of terrorists. Gun control is primarily intended to fight gun related violence in every day life in all major cities in recent decades. If those tools help fight terrorism, all the more power to those laws.

Again gun control is not a primary or even secondary tool to fight local terrorism.

you have it backwards. gun control is not "a tool used to fight terrorism". terrorists have just begun and will continue to use the easy availability of guns in the US, and the laws that enable them, as tools in their war against the west, and the US in particular. whether or not we as a country will wake up to this is entirely dependent on how long rethuglican legislators are willing to be the cum receptacle of the NRA.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:24 pm

unfortunately for the rethuglicans, this whole situation forces them to rethink a position that they are very reluctant to revisit. it has already become a loud campaign issue. maybe this is the wake up call they so badly needed. very expensive and bloody wake up call unfortunately. let's see for much longer the NRA continues to obfuscate and prevaricate and sway public opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/politics/california-attack-has-us-rethinking-strategy-on-homegrown-terror.html

by confuzzled dude Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:40 pm

With the mass shooting in California last week focusing attention on terrorism and guns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut announced on Thursday that he intended to sign an executive order barring people on federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms in the state.

“Like all Americans, I have been horrified by the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris,” Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, told reporters. “This should be a wake-up call to all of us. This is a moment to seize in America, and today I’m here to say that we in Connecticut are seizing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/nyregion/connecticut-to-ban-gun-sales-to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

by Sponsored content

End the Gun Epidemic in America

End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America