Gun control

These guys have gone so far as to create the "Dickey Amendment" (apt name) which bans any federal funding of research of gun violence. These feckers are serious. I guess there is a group of physicians, along with some members of congress, trying to overturn this "public health challenge" that may soon surpass automobile accidents as the leading cause of death in the country. Everyday, 89 people die from gun related violence.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/12/02/3727406/doctors-gun-violence-research/
 
Trying to move the gun conversation into here.

@Rado_N and @Dwazza von Moosesteiger
Those annual number do look off. I thought it was >30,000. Perhaps those numbers exclude suicide.

@Skizzo you stated gang related numbers are misleading. I somewhat agree but at the same time take a look at this. I honestly picked a mass shooting at random and these are the stats. Take a look at the ages. How can we turn a blond eye as they had it coming being in a gang. I'd love to know where you got the stats from as well. Not saying they are fake but I'm surprised by the number of non-gang events being so low.



Participants
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 14
  • Age Group: Teen 12-17
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 16
  • Age Group: Teen 12-17
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 17
  • Age Group: Teen 12-17
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 19
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 21
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 21
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 21
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 22
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 22
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 29
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Female
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 10
  • Age Group: Child 0-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 20
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 21
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 22
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 22
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 29
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Victim
  • Age: 37
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Injured
  • Type: Perpetrator
  • Name: Joseph "Moe" Allen
  • Age: 32
  • Age Group: Adult 18+
  • Gender: Male
  • Status: Unharmed, Arrested
 
@senorgregster i never meant to imply those deaths were irrelevant or meaningless, just that in terms of the conversation being had, you can't group everything together to try and solve the problem. Understanding the cause of the shooting is beneficial to trying to figure out a solution. Just blindly grouping them all into one category doesn't do that. I agree that any loss of life is tragic, especially for some that are so young and born into that cycle of gangs and drugs.

Also to your other point, there have been over 40,000 incidents, but the numbers @Rado_N quoted were just the deaths I believe.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
It's like they actually want their future to be exactly like the movie Robocop.
Click to expand...

The US confuses me. How can such a large proportion of the country see that the availiblity of guns is a major factor in why there are so many homicides by gunshot and mass shootings. I know they like their guns and "It's their right to have their gun". I can live with that. Want a gun? Go nuts. Best of luck when your four year old accidentally shoots your wife. But to honestly believe that guns aren't a problem and to believe that more guns are a solution is actually mental.

Where is this good guy with a gun that's going to take down the shooter? That's what they're saying isn't it? If more people had guns, then they could stop these types of mass shootings. Well of the 350 odd mass shootings in the US this year, how many ended in the perpatrator being shot by a "good guy with a gun"? You'll see them argue that these people target areas with strict gun control, so that's why no one has a gun to defend themselves. Well half the fecking country has a gun. Surely some of those 350 mass shootings were ended by the "good guy with a gun"?

Then you have the "responsible gun owner" who locks his away and he needs three keys to get into his safe to get his gun. Well, great. Well Done. But your gun isn't for protection then. So either they're lying or their gun is good for nothing except killing a deer from time to time. Which is fine, but just nothing something I agree with.

I'm genuinely curious as to how the likes of Columbine, Sandy Hook and all of these mass shootings could have been helped by the "more guns" argument. Should kids and teachers be carrying? What about the Cinema Shooting in Aurora or the church shooting in Charleston, should everyone be packing when they go to watch a movie or say a few prayers. There were even some saying "Oh this wouldn't have happened if the public were aremed" after the Paris attacks. I know I definitely wouldn't want half the crowd carrying guns at any concert I was attending.

And what confuses me even more is that so many of the same people who are so pro-gun are also "pro-life", anti-science, creationist, Climate change deniers.
 
Skizzo said:
@senorgregster i never meant to imply those deaths were irrelevant or meaningless, just that in terms of the conversation being had, you can't group everything together to try and solve the problem. Understanding the cause of the shooting is beneficial to trying to figure out a solution. Just blindly grouping them all into one category doesn't do that. I agree that any loss of life is tragic, especially for some that are so young and born into that cycle of gangs and drugs.

Also to your other point, there have been over 40,000 incidents, but the numbers @Rado_N quoted were just the deaths I believe.
Click to expand...

I looked again. Suicides are by far the largest number. So it is 32000 deaths per year total. His number was just homicides and excluded the suicides and likely accidental deaths. As you point out, these numbers should not be ignored as well.
 
I've moved these 2 posts over from the San Bernardino thread:

Skizzo said:
Do other countries have the same mentality and culture of the U.S.? You can't just compare broadly across the World and say this works here, so it will work here.

I'm pretty sure plenty of gangs like MS-13 use machetes and other weapons, and there's plenty of drug cartels here that I don't think function in the Australian Outback.

How many of these people that were arrested on mass shootings had explosives at home?theres no reason to think that if they're as hell bent on causing injury and death that they wouldn't use those instead. They wouldnt even need that trusty fork you seem to have armed them with instead.

Are guns part of the problem? Sure. But like I said above, the distinct lack of respect for human life is the bigger factor IMO. With the media in this country pushing their own agenda for views and ratings, they perpetuate the cycle of violence.
Click to expand...

Mentality and culture of the US or not Skizzo, there's a vast difference between the cold, almost detached action of pulling a trigger and the up close and personal brutality of stabbing or bludgeoning a person. Not to mention the sheer physical exertion needed to commit a mass murder with a simpler weapon.

Knives, clubs and axes are also far less likely to result in accidental or crossfire injuries when used. In the gangland situations like you've mentioned, you remove the issue of stray bullets hitting kids who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when you take away firearms.
 
Rado_N said:
These things can't be half-arsed, banning certain accessories and types of firearms isn't going to cut it.

Make them entirely illegal, hold an amnesty for them to be voluntarily handed in, after that if you're caught with one you're in the shit.

I'm not for one moment saying it will be easy, there will be uproar and it will take time, but you have to start somewhere and in a few generations people will look back on this like the Old West.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this in a perfect world. But the dream of actually enforcing it is an impossible one.

Who would enforce it? Half the police officers charged with delivering on it would be against it. You'd have 50-60 million homes, spread across the US, many in remote rural areas who would be adamantly against it. A portion of them violently so.

Short of engaging the military to go house to house and risking a civil war, I can't see a way it would work. The people who would honour the amnesty are the people who could probably be trusted with guns anyway while those you want the guns taken from would ignore it.
 
diarm said:
I've moved these 2 posts over from the San Bernardino thread:



Mentality and culture of the US or not Skizzo, there's a vast difference between the cold, almost detached action of pulling a trigger and the up close and personal brutality of stabbing or bludgeoning a person. Not to mention the sheer physical exertion needed to commit a mass murder with a simpler weapon.

Knives, clubs and axes are also far less likely to result in accidental or crossfire injuries when used. In the gangland situations like you've mentioned, you remove the issue of stray bullets hitting kids who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when you take away firearms.
Click to expand...

I don't think we're disagreeing here, really. I said the removal of guns would probably see a downturn in deaths, but the incidents would still occur. Gangs would still kill each other, mentally deranged/terrorists would still find ways to hurt and kill people.

Not to mention, there's absolutely no way the U.S. Can compare to Australia in how the gun removal could happen. For one there's a ridiculous number of more guns, the government doesn't have the power here that Australia's had, and the NRA didn't involve themselves in Australian dealings. It would likely set off something close to a civil war trying to disarm the people with these hundreds of millions of guns.

I've never said guns ARENT the problem, just not the only problem, or biggest problem IMO.
 
Nobby style said:
These guys have gone so far as to create the "Dickey Amendment" (apt name) which bans any federal funding of research of gun violence. These feckers are serious. I guess there is a group of physicians, along with some members of congress, trying to overturn this "public health challenge" that may soon surpass automobile accidents as the leading cause of death in the country. Everyday, 89 people die from gun related violence.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/12/02/3727406/doctors-gun-violence-research/
Click to expand...

http://www.indyweek.com/news/archiv...ion-of-federally-funded-gun-violence-research
About a month ago. Note the hostility in the comments on this super-liberal newspaper in a super-liberal area.
 
Skizzo said:
I don't think we're disagreeing here, really. I said the removal of guns would probably see a downturn in deaths, but the incidents would still occur. Gangs would still kill each other, mentally deranged/terrorists would still find ways to hurt and kill people.

Not to mention, there's absolutely no way the U.S. Can compare to Australia in how the gun removal could happen. For one there's a ridiculous number of more guns, the government doesn't have the power here that Australia's had, and the NRA didn't involve themselves in Australian dealings. It would likely set off something close to a civil war trying to disarm the people with these hundreds of millions of guns.

I've never said guns ARENT the problem, just not the only problem, or biggest problem IMO.
Click to expand...

Why aren't the police unified in wanting more guns banned and better regulated? Surely it will lessen their chances of getting shot on the job.
 
senorgregster said:
I looked again. Suicides are by far the largest number. So it is 32000 deaths per year total. His number was just homicides and excluded the suicides and likely accidental deaths. As you point out, these numbers should not be ignored as well.
Click to expand...

The numbers I posted included accidents but not suicides I think.

diarm said:
I completely agree with this in a perfect world. But the dream of actually enforcing it is an impossible one.

Who would enforce it? Half the police officers charged with delivering on it would be against it. You'd have 50-60 million homes, spread across the US, many in remote rural areas who would be adamantly against it. A portion of them violently so.

Short of engaging the military to go house to house and risking a civil war, I can't see a way it would work. The people who would honour the amnesty are the people who could probably be trusted with guns anyway while those you want the guns taken from would ignore it.
Click to expand...

Sorry but "it'll be too difficult" isn't good enough.
 
We´ll spend trillions of dollars, five thousand Americans lives, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and all those fecked up wounded and amputated, but it would be too much work enforcing super strict gun laws at home. And I´m not even mentioning Afghanistan. All to keep us "safe" from "those" guys.


In other guns news, is this really the point to where we´ve reached . . .

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/ohi...man-stalks-black-neighborhoods-with-impunity/

Ohio Community Lives in Fear as Rifle-Toting White Man Stalks Black Neighborhoods with Impunity

A 25-year-old white man got into an altercation with the black owner of a barbershop on Thursday who objected to him stalking predominantly black neighborhoods carrying a rifle slung across his back, reports Cleveland.com.

Saying he has a right under Ohio’s open carry laws to parade about town carrying his gun, Daniel Kovacevic, 25, has been stopped by police multiple times — including near the University of Akron — but police say the state’s gun laws have tied their hands despite citizen complaints.

Kovacevic’s actions have roiled the black community in a state where Tamir Rice and John Crawford were recently shot by police while holding toy weapons.

On Thursday, police were called to break up a confrontation between Kovacevic and local barbershop owner Deone Slater who did not want the man with his rifle hanging out in front of his shop.

“He was a threat to my community,” Slater said. “If I can prevent him from shooting up the city, I would. I won’t condone it. Somebody’s got to stand up.”

Slater said he was yelling profanities at Kovacevic when police arrived, and that Kovacevic said little during the confrontation other than to ask him if he was a Christian.

“I told him to take his guns off. I told him let me have five or 10 minutes with him without his weapons,” Slater said before adding that the police seemed more concerned with him than the man carrying the gun, and that he believes race plays a part in it.

“They (police) were more concerned about me than him, as if I were the threat,” Slater explained. “If it were me with a gun, they would have shut the whole block down.”

“He’s a threat to me and my people. He’s a threat to me.”

Police have been monitoring Kovacevic for days after receiving calls from security at University of Akron that he was seen near the school carrying his rifle.

Social media has been up in arms over Kovacevic after his picture was posted to Twitter (see below) when he was seen near one of Akron’s predominately black high schools.

According to police there is nothing they can do, saying they can ask the open carrier who they are, what they are doing and why they are there — however gun carriers are not required by law to respond.

“You have to be careful because you get into search and seizure issues,” Akron police spokesperson Rick Edwards explained. “You can’t detain them. Ohio isn’t the only state to allow open carry. If you don’t like it, you can talk to your legislators.”
 
Rado_N said:
Sorry but "it'll be too difficult" isn't good enough.
Click to expand...

I am in complete agreement with you that the idea of regular citizens needing firearms on their person or in their house is absurd. But I think the idea that their government can simply take away those weapons now is naive. It's not an issue of too difficult, but whether it is in fact possible and at what cost (in lives not money).

The mentality of so many over there towards their right to bear arms is such that an attempt to ban and retrieve guns, could well instigate the very same "rising up against a tyrannical government" that they use to justify their weapons.

You want to ban and retrieve guns in order to save lives, but can you justify it if the actions taken to do so risk even more lives than the status quo?
 
diarm said:
I am in complete agreement with you that the idea of regular citizens needing firearms on their person or in their house is absurd. But I think the idea that their government can simply take away those weapons now is naive. It's not an issue of too difficult, but whether it is in fact possible and at what cost (in lives not money).

The mentality of so many over there towards their right to bear arms is such that an attempt to ban and retrieve guns, could well instigate the very same "rising up against a tyrannical government" that they use to justify their weapons.

You want to ban and retrieve guns in order to save lives, but can you justify it if the actions taken to do so risk even more lives than the status quo?
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, it'd be complicated and very difficult but it's a situation that can't (or at least shouldn't) be allowed to continue.

There are no doubt people out there who'd take the moronic motto of 'from my cold dead hands' too literally, but in the grand scheme of things they'd probably be relatively few and far between.

There needs to be a line drawn, a time where the government say enough is enough.

It's also perfectly feasible that the actual number of people who'd lose their lives by rising up against the government would be less than the number of innocent people who'd die from gun violence over a few years anyway.
 
I wonder if these GOPs who voted no on these last measures would allow guns to be carried in the senate where they work. Wait, it is a gun free zone. I wonder why?
 
Editorial from the NY Times:

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0
 
Skizzo said:
I imagine because the majority of them across the country own them privately too.
Click to expand...

Yes but you all get to execute suspects whenever you feel like it so it's like not you'll miss out if they are restricted. :D

You also presumably go on the ranges a lot and get to take your service weapons home with you. So what effectively would change if guns were severely restricted for ordinary citizens?
 
The rightwing's response in the debate:

 
So people on no fly lists can legally still buy guns
What a crazy messed up system
I imagine it's going to become even more polarised and partizan through the election cycle but I doubt any progress will be made on gun control until both sides work together... I just dread to think what it will take to make that happen?
 
sun_tzu said:
So people on no fly lists can legally still buy guns
What a crazy messed up system
I imagine it's going to become even more polarised and partizan through the election cycle but I doubt any progress will be made on gun control until both sides work together... I just dread to think what it will take to make that happen?
Click to expand...
Massacre of children didn't, so I struggle to imagine.
 
Ubik said:
Massacre of children didn't, so I struggle to imagine.
Click to expand...
Yeah... Probably only a massacre on a scale so far unimaginable... 10 man shooting spree in disneyland with 1000+ kids dead for example
But yeah in the UK we have one mass school shooting and we ban handguns - nobody really grumbles and we don't have any more mass school shootings... Its unfathomable to me why they don't do something similar over there - you get the impression Obama would like to but he knows he can't get the legislation passed
 
Ho ho ho . . . Christmas card from Republican Nevada state assemblywoman Michele Fiore.

. . . and a happy new year!!!

12313868_10207129128203381_2398248198858372528_n.jpg
 
sun_tzu said:
Yeah... Probably only a massacre on a scale so far unimaginable... 10 man shooting spree in disneyland with 1000+ kids dead for example
But yeah in the UK we have one mass school shooting and we ban handguns - nobody really grumbles and we don't have any more mass school shootings... Its unfathomable to me why they don't do something similar over there - you get the impression Obama would like to but he knows he can't get the legislation passed
Click to expand...

nah...you will get lots of 'taughts and prayers' though.
 
Red Dreams said:
nah...you will get lots of 'taughts and prayers' though.
Click to expand...
And of course the obligatory yeah but if everybody in disneyland had A gun argument...
Scarily it's probably more likely the republicans / nra would propose compulsory carry legislation in public attractions before they would vote for meaningful control / prohibition
 
Nobby style said:
Ho ho ho . . . Christmas card from Republican Nevada state assemblywoman Michele Fiore.

. . . and a happy new year!!!

12313868_10207129128203381_2398248198858372528_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Saw that earlier. It's absolutely mental.

I spent a lot of time in the US over the years. I have loads of friends and family there and love them dearly. But I think their country is fecked. I don't know what is going to happen, but I think as a nation they're in serious trouble over the next 100 years. It's too divided and half the country is borderline retarded in their thinking. People don't read or research for themselves anymore. They believe every word on whatever biased news channel they subscribe to. That's incredibly dangerous because you have rich powerful people controlling certain media and if that's all a person subscribes to, they are getting a very narrow view of the world and this narrow view can get narrow and stronger with each generation. Especially so at times like this when there is such a huge issue being made out of gun control or the refugee crisis. People are paranoid and taking an extreme point of view and passing it onto their children.
 
RexHamilton said:
The US confuses me. How can such a large proportion of the country see that the availiblity of guns is a major factor in why there are so many homicides by gunshot and mass shootings. I know they like their guns and "It's their right to have their gun". I can live with that. Want a gun? Go nuts. Best of luck when your four year old accidentally shoots your wife. But to honestly believe that guns aren't a problem and to believe that more guns are a solution is actually mental.

Where is this good guy with a gun that's going to take down the shooter? That's what they're saying isn't it? If more people had guns, then they could stop these types of mass shootings. Well of the 350 odd mass shootings in the US this year, how many ended in the perpatrator being shot by a "good guy with a gun"? You'll see them argue that these people target areas with strict gun control, so that's why no one has a gun to defend themselves. Well half the fecking country has a gun. Surely some of those 350 mass shootings were ended by the "good guy with a gun"?

Then you have the "responsible gun owner" who locks his away and he needs three keys to get into his safe to get his gun. Well, great. Well Done. But your gun isn't for protection then. So either they're lying or their gun is good for nothing except killing a deer from time to time. Which is fine, but just nothing something I agree with.

I'm genuinely curious as to how the likes of Columbine, Sandy Hook and all of these mass shootings could have been helped by the "more guns" argument. Should kids and teachers be carrying? What about the Cinema Shooting in Aurora or the church shooting in Charleston, should everyone be packing when they go to watch a movie or say a few prayers. There were even some saying "Oh this wouldn't have happened if the public were aremed" after the Paris attacks. I know I definitely wouldn't want half the crowd carrying guns at any concert I was attending.

And what confuses me even more is that so many of the same people who are so pro-gun are also "pro-life", anti-science, creationist, Climate change deniers.
Click to expand...

Not that I fully agree with it, but the idea of the public being armed acting as a deterrent, at least in the US view is a result of the majority of mass shootings taking place in so called gun free zones. So, relaxing the hyperbole for a moment, it can be argued that the presence of one or two armed security guards could deter lone gunmen from attacking certain places like elementary schools or theatres, etc. We had some nutbar attack our parliament in Ottawa and one of the RCMP officers who handle security there took the shooter down quite efficiently.

I say it all the time, if you want a gun for protection wear it in your home, lock it up when you can't supervise it. This would save between 500 and 1000 American lives every year.
 
The ususal defence you hear about the recent shootings in San Bernadino is the guns were purchased legally. The point is the gun laws are far from adequate. Assault weapons should Not be in civilian hands. Registration of all guns must be enforced. And above all strict background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases.
 
When will Americans demand their rights to not have to be around these armed asssholes. When will gun manufacturers or who gives out these licenses have to be held personally accountable for their products and permissions? Conservative love "personal accountability." This guy was legally armed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/12/04/concealed-carrier-kills-7-year-old-girl.html

Concealed Carrier Kills 7 Year Old

A seven-year-old girl was shot and killed in Michigan on Thursday night at a soccer practice facility. Timothy Nelson Obeshaw, 57, allegedly fired rounds into a vehicle holding Emma Watson Nowling and her mother, Sharon Elizabeth Watson. He then turned the handgun on himself. Emma passed away at a nearby hospital; the mother is listed as in serious but stable condition. Police officials said the 9 mm pistol used in the crime was legally registered to Obeshaw, who had a concealed carry permit. He reportedly once lived with the child and her family and was seen by witnesses as happily interacting with the girl at soccer practice shortly before the shooting. No motive has been established outside of family claims that the assailant had been experiencing paranoid episodes as of late.
 
sun_tzu said:
So people on no fly lists can legally still buy guns
What a crazy messed up system
I imagine it's going to become even more polarised and partizan through the election cycle but I doubt any progress will be made on gun control until both sides work together... I just dread to think what it will take to make that happen?
Click to expand...

One of the problems is that the bigger the thing that happens, the more scared they get and the more certain people will want to defend their right to be armed. The more armed the higher the chance of something happening.
They're fecked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.