[QUOTE=PyroCF;38840080]I've found this is a topic in which your opinion heavily relies on where you have grown up. I've grown up in the UK and looking at America I find it strange how gun control is so relaxed, air rifles are just looked at like toys over there (was told that by a gun shop owned when I went to buy mine). I've started to understand how pro-gun Americans, their reasons and it just seems to be an 'American thing' to bear arms.
I like how it works over here in the UK, you apply for a licence and you get a visit from an official and they do a background check and make sure you have all the storage facilities needed to safely store them, it doesn't stop everyone getting weapons it just stops the wrong people getting weapons. I'd like to say it's working well over here compared to America but it's not fair using number of gun crimes reported as we're just such a smaller population, I'd need to find out percentage of gun crime out of total crimes.
I personally think that America should do more in depth background checks when it comes to getting a licence so people can who legitimately want to own weapons for all the right reasons can get access to them or just keep it the same and control ammunition which would be harder and ammo would be easier to illegally get as opposed to trying to get a weapon.[/QUOTE]
Yes and no. I find it has to do with level of education: a friend of mine who is well educated (PhD student) in the US says in his neighborhood you'd be looked on as a total freak if you owned a gun. However, if you're a gunslinging Texan redneck you're not gonna have any problem with them at all. Personally, I want a gun when I'm older, so I can keep it at a range and fire at targets for fun much like I did with my bow when I was a kid.
And as an edit, I think that should be the way for all but hunting rifles - lock them in a box. A hunting rifle is fine if you want to go kill animals for food. You don't need a handgun or assault rifle.
[QUOTE=PyroCF;38840080]I personally think that America should do more in depth background checks when it comes to getting a licence so people can who legitimately want to own weapons for all the right reasons can get access to them or just keep it the same and control ammunition which would be harder and ammo would be easier to illegally get as opposed to trying to get a weapon.[/QUOTE]
Can't really make it any tougher, if you have a criminal record, you can't legally buy a gun, simple as that. Straw purchasing is also illegal and will be traced to the straw purchaser if the gun is used in a crime, so a criminal looking to commit a crime with a newly purchased gun is going to have to find a friend who is willing to be thrown under the bus.
You can't falsify information on the 4473 either because the dealer will be checking it over with your ID or driver's license before any money changes hands.
Really the current system for gun ownership is about as sensible and efficient as can be and it doesn't cost the buyer any extra money unless you take taxation into account for the ATF. If you want to deal with shooting sprees, find out WHY they do the things they do and look for a solution to that.
A good place to start would be the public in general boycotting all media outlets that report on these shootings. The only people who have any business being concerned with them are the people who live there.
[QUOTE=PyroCF;38840080]I've found this is a topic in which your opinion heavily relies on where you have grown up. I've grown up in the UK and looking at America I find it strange how gun control is so relaxed, air rifles are just looked at like toys over there (was told that by a gun shop owned when I went to buy mine). I've started to understand how pro-gun Americans, their reasons and it just seems to be an 'American thing' to bear arms.
I like how it works over here in the UK, you apply for a licence and you get a visit from an official and they do a background check and make sure you have all the storage facilities needed to safely store them, it doesn't stop everyone getting weapons it just stops the wrong people getting weapons. I'd like to say it's working well over here compared to America but it's not fair using number of gun crimes reported as we're just such a smaller population, I'd need to find out percentage of gun crime out of total crimes.
I personally think that America should do more in depth background checks when it comes to getting a licence so people can who legitimately want to own weapons for all the right reasons can get access to them or just keep it the same and control ammunition which would be harder and ammo would be easier to illegally get as opposed to trying to get a weapon.[/QUOTE]
I kind of agree with you on the aspect of where you grow up, but on the other hand it has a lot to do with how your family is as well.I personally feel that a background check is a good thing but in reality if a guy wants to get a gun to kill,rob,etc then they'll do it and so a background check can only go so far.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;38840269]Can't really make it any tougher, if you have a criminal record, you can't legally buy a gun, simple as that. Straw purchasing is also illegal and will be traced to the straw purchaser if the gun is used in a crime, so a criminal looking to commit a crime with a newly purchased gun is going to have to find a friend who is willing to be thrown under the bus.
You can't falsify information on the 4473 either because the dealer will be checking it over with your ID or driver's license before any money changes hands.
Really the current system for gun ownership is about as sensible and efficient as can be and it doesn't cost the buyer any extra money unless you take taxation into account for the ATF. If you want to deal with shooting sprees, find out WHY they do the things they do and look for a solution to that.
A good place to start would be the public in general boycotting all media outlets that report on these shootings. The only people who have any business being concerned with them are the people who live there.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anything can be done in America. There are so many guns, any bans would be useless
The US mental healthcare system needs serious reform, NICS needs to know if someone has some sort of mental disability to prevent them from getting a firearm, and there needs to be some sort of class where the user proves they know how to safely operate a firearm. Something similar to a hunter safety course.
And Registered User's list contains several inaccuracies.
The stigma on mental health doesn't help either, a lot of Americans will hear that and go "Well it's not me! I'm not sick in the head! Just stressed out!"
Proper mental health care doesn't have to be to weed out the mass murderers, but to help people work out problems in their lives. No different than going to the doctor for a physical, it's not just to find what's wrong with you but to fix things which bother you to make life easier.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;38840269]Can't really make it any tougher, if you have a criminal record, you can't legally buy a gun, simple as that. Straw purchasing is also illegal and will be traced to the straw purchaser if the gun is used in a crime, so a criminal looking to commit a crime with a newly purchased gun is going to have to find a friend who is willing to be thrown under the bus.
You can't falsify information on the 4473 either because the dealer will be checking it over with your ID or driver's license before any money changes hands.
Really the current system for gun ownership is about as sensible and efficient as can be and it doesn't cost the buyer any extra money unless you take taxation into account for the ATF. If you want to deal with shooting sprees, find out WHY they do the things they do and look for a solution to that.
A good place to start would be the public in general boycotting all media outlets that report on these shootings. The only people who have any business being concerned with them are the people who live there.[/QUOTE]
An estimated 40% of gun sales are conducted without a background check by private sellers who legally don't have to conduct one because that stipulation applies to businesses. It's a vague beaucratic interpretation called the private seller loophole. As for background checks themselves, most tend to disagree with your assertions of "sensible and efficient". 86% of polled Americans believe there should be background checks for every gun purchase, and 74% of polled NRA members agree. Coincidently, so does Al Qaeda
[video=youtube;EpRQzTP8H1o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRQzTP8H1o[/video]
Funny enough, the American people, the NRA, and Al Qaeda can all agree on one thing: you are wrong.
[url]http://smartgunlaws.org/background-checks-policy-summary/[/url]
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/gun-owners-frank-luntz_n_1699140.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Ridge;38840533]The US mental healthcare system needs serious reform, NICS needs to know if someone has some sort of mental disability to prevent them from getting a firearm, and there needs to be some sort of class where the user proves they know how to safely operate a firearm. Something similar to a hunter safety course.
And Registered User's list contains several inaccuracies.[/QUOTE]
All of this needs to happen in concert with a closing of the private seller loophole and more stringent background checks.
It should be clear at this point that outright banning weapons just doesn't work. Handguns have been banned in Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC yet they experience absurd levels of crimes involving handguns. Assault weapons bans are more about banning firearms for their appearances than effective gun regulation. This is also one of the few topics I'd defer to states to handle on their own, as it's clear a blanket policy wouldn't work. States that have next to no gun regulation (South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming) have a vastly lower gun homicide rate than states with intense regulation (California, Maryland, Illinois). Clearly there is something bigger here than just the guns.
nvm
What irritates the heck out of me is when people compare the UK or Germany to the US in gun control.
Yeah, it's a lot easier to secure a freaking island when you can intercept any random boat coming close to the shore. You can't really do that with the US with 2 land boarders, one of which is with that piece of crap country Mexico.
In my mind, there are countries where gun bans work. The US is and will never be one (At least no time soon) The best bet is to arm more people to defend the community when police officers can't be there.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38841315]What irritates the heck out of me is when people compare the UK or Germany to the US in gun control.
Yeah, it's a lot easier to secure a freaking island when you can intercept any random boat coming close to the shore. You can't really do that with the US with 2 land boarders, one of which is with that piece of crap country Mexico.
In my mind, there are countries where gun bans work. The US is and will never be one (At least no time soon) The best bet is to arm more people to defend the community when police officers can't be there.[/QUOTE]
erm germany isnt an island
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38841315]What irritates the heck out of me is when people compare the UK or Germany to the US in gun control.
Yeah, it's a lot easier to secure a freaking island when you can intercept any random boat coming close to the shore. You can't really do that with the US with 2 land boarders, one of which is with that piece of crap country Mexico.
In my mind, there are countries where gun bans work. The US is and will never be one (At least no time soon) The best bet is to arm more people to defend the community when police officers can't be there.[/QUOTE]
I can't agree with this conclusion. No conclusive evidence directly correlates a more armed populace to a safer one. I don't believe guns should be banned but I also don't believe giving everyone a gun will solve the problem of gun crime.
[QUOTE=Bobie;38841320]erm germany isnt an island[/QUOTE]
I was obviously referring to the UK. Oh, what, do I need to pick apart everything I say because people are capable of understanding what I mean? I'm sorry for your lack of critical thinking ability. I'll be sure to spell out everything I say so idiots aren't confused.
[editline]15th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38841324]I can't agree with this conclusion. No conclusive evidence directly correlates a more armed populace to a safer one. I don't believe guns should be banned but I also don't believe giving everyone a gun will solve the problem of gun crime.[/QUOTE]
Well what's you're reasoning. You say that but what's the other side. What other country similar to the US has ever pulled off a working gun ban that actually protects the population.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38841355]I was obviously referring to the UK. Oh, what, do I need to pick apart everything I say because people are capable of understanding what I mean? I'm sorry for your lack of critical thinking ability. I'll be sure to spell out everything I say so idiots aren't confused.
[editline]15th December 2012[/editline]
Well what's you're reasoning. You say that but what's the other side. What other country similar to the US has ever pulled off a working gun ban that actually protects the population.[/QUOTE]
it means your land borders point is pretty much worthless to this discussion.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38841355]I was obviously referring to the UK. Oh, what, do I need to pick apart everything I say because people are capable of understanding what I mean? I'm sorry for your lack of critical thinking ability. I'll be sure to spell out everything I say so idiots aren't confused.[/QUOTE]
But you explicitly said Germany. Next time try to be more accurate with your words.
[QUOTE] Well what's you're reasoning. You say that but what's the other side. What other country similar to the US has ever pulled off a working gun ban that actually protects the population.[/QUOTE]
First off I said I was against banning guns full stop, do you not read?
Secondly, I don't know what constitutes as similar to the US, but Japan has a pretty successful record with gun crime. Less than a fraction of a percent out of 100,000 people are killed by guns on average per year. Some times it's in the single digits
I'd like to note in this shooting the guns weren't even purchased legally, they were stolen from his Mother.
(At least the ones used in the shooting, apparently he tried to purchase some but was unable to because of the paperwork.)
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;38841430]I'd like to note in this shooting the guns weren't even purchased legally, they were stolen from his Mother.
(At least the ones used in the shooting, apparently he tried to purchase some but was unable to because of the paperwork.)[/QUOTE]
If someone has true intent, I think they'll find a weapon to do it with. You can home-rig a bomb to pretty devastating effect - just attend high school chemistry. The real problem here is trying to identify people with the nutcase spark in them and treat them before it blows up into a fire.
[QUOTE=Cooty;38844041]If someone has true intent, I think they'll find a weapon to do it with. You can home-rig a bomb to pretty devastating effect - just attend high school chemistry. The real problem here is trying to identify people with the nutcase spark in them and treat them before it blows up into a fire.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. You can always find another tool to do the job. What needs to be done is identifying and treating the people who want to do this.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38841315]What irritates the heck out of me is when people compare the UK or Germany to the US in gun control.
Yeah, it's a lot easier to secure a freaking island when you can intercept any random boat coming close to the shore. You can't really do that with the US with 2 land boarders, one of which is with that piece of crap country Mexico.
In my mind, there are countries where gun bans work. The US is and will never be one (At least no time soon) The best bet is to arm more people to defend the community when police officers can't be there.[/QUOTE]
Definitely this. Plus, the police are [i]not[/i] obligated to save your life. The Supreme Court ruled that the job of the police is to clean up after the crime, not necessarily prevent it. You are the only person responsible with your own life.
The other thing the US has going is the gun culture/abundance of enthusiasts. Nobody can deny there's a lot of people who shouldn't own guns, but at the first mention of a gun ban or even regulations, the enthusiasts will likely be up in arms (no pun intended) against it.
As far as I can figure, the only things that'll really help are better education programs on the matter and better mental health care. I don't know for certain and I don't have anything to back this idea up, but it seems to me there's such a stigma attached to spree violence that someone having thoughts of committing such an act would be hesitant to ask for help lest he be demonized for it.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38841397]But you explicitly said Germany. Next time try to be more accurate with your words.
First off I said I was against banning guns full stop, do you not read?
Secondly, I don't know what constitutes as similar to the US, but Japan has a pretty successful record with gun crime. Less than a fraction of a percent out of 100,000 people are killed by guns on average per year. Some times it's in the single digits[/QUOTE]
he also explicitly said UK nice reading skills man
guns aren't the problem and they never will be. society is the problem.
My opinion is this:
Firstly, people need to stop just calling for gun control whenever shit like the Connecticut shooting happens. And I don't mean that people can't call for gun control period, but they need to stop saying stuff like "If the US had proper gun control, this would have never happened." That's just as descriptive as saying science makes a helium balloon float. What kind of gun control are you aiming for? You can lobby for more gun control all you want, but you can't simply throw around the two words like somehow they'll fix all of the gun violence problems in the US. Gun control is a blanket term that describes a "what." But when it comes to legislation, you can't just tell people to implement a "what." You need the whole shabang: Who it affects, why you think it's worthwhile, when it goes into effect, what it does, where it's going to be implemented, and the most important of them all: how.
There's a significant difference between saying "gun control will prevent shooting sprees" and "if people didn't have unrestricted access to 'assault weapons' this would not have been nearly as tragic." So please do everyone a favor if you're going to talk about the subject of gun control - provide an actual solution. Don't be that guy who goes "lol americans and their dum 2nd amendment rights what a bunch of conservative circlejerks!"
Now, with that said, there are two types of gun control I see being most prevalent. The first, and the more popular with people who have no knowledge of guns whatsoever, is an assault weapons ban. Stop calling for this. Please stop. I can't comprehend how stupid it is that people want to get rid of certain weapons based on aesthetics. Should we ban sporty looking cars because people have tendencies to speed in them (myself included, unfortunately)? I don't want everyone driving around in an Element or God forbid, a Smart car. Similarly, banning AR-15s because they look like assault weapons is ridiculous. There is nothing more fatal about an assault rifle like an AR-15 versus something less intimidating like, say, an M1 Garand.
Furthermore, assault weapons bans do not work. Look at California, the forerunner of assault weapons restrictions, and its gun crime rates:
[IMG]http://puu.sh/1Boz1/2fa2bc19c793d496ffe21b30b616db32[/IMG]
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state[/url]
California is number 13/50 in gun homicide rates per 100,000 people. At it's population, that's not negligible. Not to mention California's gun laws are ridiculous. Sometime in the past year or so, they made barrel shrouds illegal.
[video=youtube;tSPrHl_6bO4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSPrHl_6bO4[/video]
That video should tell you everything you need to know about assault weapons bans and the people that try to enact them - they don't know a damn thing about firearms. And this is a big problem in the US. Now, the counterargument for this is that restricting the types of firearms available makes it harder to get your hands on drum mags and things that make it easier to kill massive amounts of people.
Fast forward through this a little bit:
[video=youtube;_IVeFmHNzVk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IVeFmHNzVk[/video]
Speed reloading is totally a thing and it's one of the easier things to master. I would honestly prefer drum mags to be allowed so idiots like James Holmes can jam their guns with one. A jammed gun is less lethal than one with 10 round magazines.
Now, with that said, the other type of gun control - the type I support, for that matter - is restricting the amount of people who can own firearms. There should be more hoops for people to jump through when they purchase a firearm. It's annoying for responsible gun owners, sure, but it would ward off a lot of people who shouldn't own a gun, and with more checks, we can hopefully catch the crazies who go on these shooting sprees.
Ultimately, though, the problem with gun violence isn't the gun. It's the violence. When we as a society can improve ourselves to reduce violence, gun violence similarly will go down. But then, so will more common crimes, like robberies. Gun control is just one of those terms people use as a kneejerk reaction to tragedies, and let's be honest, when we want to make a decision affecting a third of the population, we should take a step back and think out of the box.
I just want to re-iterate the connection between mental illness and mass shootings, and how gun control can help address the problem. Its been mentioned before in this thread, but I want to say a little bit more.
As we know mental illness has been a factor in the Aurora shooting, the Virgina Tech shooting, the Tuscon shooting, the shooting that happened recently in CT, and many others.
In fact in almost all mass shootings the shooter is mentally ill. Funding for mental health has been in decline for decades, but since 2009, states have cut $2 billion dollars from mental health funding. According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, about half of the Americans who should receive treatment for serious mental conditions, do not receive such treatment.
In addition, research shows that if people with serious mental conditions are left untreated, they become more likely to commit acts of violence. But with proper treatment, they are no more likely to commit acts of violence that anyone else.
There are federal and state laws that are supposed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, in fact the Virgina tech shooter was supposed to have been in FBI database of people who are ineligible to purchase guns. If his name made it into the database like it was supposed to, he could not have purchased the guns he used. The law was not followed, and we still don't know why.
Right now we need a better alarm system, to diagnose and treat people before their conditions lead them to kill themselves and others violently. And we need to establish a way to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, it has to be constitutional, but effective. Until those in charge recognize the role that mental health plays in these tragedies, we are going to see events like the one we saw a few days ago repeated over and over again.
I would like to hear some arguments for the private sale of guns. People claim this is a mental health issue instead of a gun control issue, but don't you think it's a bit problematic to have *no* background check of any kind before someone can purchase a gun privately? At the very least we need to restrict gun sales to federally-operated dealers that give meaningful and stringent background and psychological checks, and the requirement of recieving proper training. None of this gun show "not engaged in the business" and "occasional" bullshit.
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38847539]I would like to hear some arguments for the private sale of guns. People claim this is a mental health issue instead of a gun control issue, but don't you think it's a bit problematic to have *no* background check of any kind before someone can purchase a gun privately? At the very least we need to restrict gun sales to federally-operated dealers that give meaningful and stringent background and psychological checks, and the requirement of recieving proper training. None of this gun show "not engaged in the business" and "occasional" bullshit.[/QUOTE]
why shouldn't private sale be legal? what are you supposed to do with that old hunting rifle you never use anymore?
should private sale be illegal for knives too? those were designed for killing as well
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38847539]I would like to hear some arguments for the private sale of guns. People claim this is a mental health issue instead of a gun control issue, but don't you think it's a bit problematic to have *no* background check of any kind before someone can purchase a gun privately? At the very least we need to restrict gun sales to federally-operated dealers that give meaningful and stringent background and psychological checks, and the requirement of recieving proper training. None of this gun show "not engaged in the business" and "occasional" bullshit.[/QUOTE]
So you want to stop people from being able to sell their old guns for fair market value and/or add an additional fee on to gun ownership of having to pay a dealer to broker a sale every time you want to sell a gun you don't use/don't like, which is happens frequently for people who own more than 3 guns., which is most gun owners. Guns are also an investment, they go up in value over time, but suddenly cutting a person's biggest market for their gun off destroys its value, essentially robbing a person of potentially thousands of dollars worth of private equity.
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38847539]I would like to hear some arguments for the private sale of guns. People claim this is a mental health issue instead of a gun control issue, but don't you think it's a bit problematic to have *no* background check of any kind before someone can purchase a gun privately? At the very least we need to restrict gun sales to federally-operated dealers that give meaningful and stringent background and psychological checks, and the requirement of recieving proper training. None of this gun show "not engaged in the business" and "occasional" bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Selling to a dealer will net you only about half of what the gun is worth, because the shop needs to make a profit. So you're essentially screwed out of half the value of your property.
[QUOTE=Ridge;38848469]Selling to a dealer will net you only about half of what the gun is worth, because the shop needs to make a profit. So you're essentially screwed out of half the value of your property.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38847833]So you want to stop people from being able to sell their old guns for fair market value and/or add an additional fee on to gun ownership of having to pay a dealer to broker a sale every time you want to sell a gun you don't use/don't like, which is happens frequently for people who own more than 3 guns., which is most gun owners. Guns are also an investment, they go up in value over time, but suddenly cutting a person's biggest market for their gun off destroys its value, essentially robbing a person of potentially thousands of dollars worth of private equity.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38847642]why shouldn't private sale be legal? what are you supposed to do with that old hunting rifle you never use anymore?
should private sale be illegal for knives too? those were designed for killing as well[/QUOTE]
The problem with private gun sales is that it makes criminal background checks impossible to conduct.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38848566]The problem with private gun sales is that it makes criminal background checks impossible to conduct.[/QUOTE]
This has been remedied with what is Satan's incarnate to most American gun owners, needing to get a license to be able to buy a gun. Not to own, but to buy. Technically, such a requirement wouldn't be against the 2nd either, because it covers the right to own guns, and needing a license to buy them doesn't stop you from owning them. To get the license, you would just need to have had a safety course, a police background check, and a clean bill of substance abuse and mental health (IE not institutionalized or diagnosed with anything severe). Then you just make it a criminal offence to sell to anyone without a license. Chances are, licenses would also make it so that guns could be shipped right to your door in the US, I know they have in Canada.
As a shooter, I like licensing. I think getting a gun should be like getting a car. Both can be dangerous when used incorrectly, so when you first get either you need to know how to use them safely so you don't accidentally kill anyone. While there at it, run the name through the mental health system and the police database. Now, it seems the US lacks such a system, but here in Oz, we don't.
Once you have a licence, stop banning certain guns. The person has demonstrated they're competent.
Actually, you don't need a license to buy a car, just to use it on public roads. Comparing cars to guns is generally not a good comparison in many respects, though it seems to happen all the time.
[QUOTE=Registered User;38840042][b]December 14, 2012:[/b] At least 27 dead, approximately 18 of whom were children in a Connecticut elementary school.
[b]December 11, 2012:[/b] One injured, two killed at a mall by gunman in Clackamas, OR.
[b]December 8, 2012:[/b] Four killed and two injured on the Tule Indian Reservation including the shooter's three children, only one of whom survived the initial attack.
[b]September 28, 2012:[/b] Five killed by a recently fired employee in Minneapolis, MN.
[b]August 24, 2012:[/b] Two killed, 9 wounded in 'Empire State Building' shooting.
[b]August 5, 2012:[/b] Seven killed in Sikh temple shooting in Oak Creek, WI.
[b]July 20, 2012:[/b] Twenty killed and 58 wounded in Aurora, CO.
[b]May 30, 2012:[/b] Five killed, one wounded in mass shooting at Cafe Racer.
[b]April 3, 2012:[/b] Ten shot, seven killed in Oakland's Oikos University.
[b]March 31, 2012:[/b] Two killed and 12 injured in a shooting outside Miami funeral home.
[b]March 2, 2012:[/b] Fourteen injured in a mass shooting at concert in Tempe, AZ.
[b]February 27, 2012:[/b] Five shot, three dead in a Chardon, OH school.
[b]February 21, 2012:[/b] Four killed in a Korean Spa shooting in Atlanta, GA.
[b]December 25, 2011:[/b] Seven killed in Grapevine, TX on Christmas Day.
[b]December 1, 2011:[/b] Four killed in Bay City, TX mass shooting.
When will it ever STOP?[/QUOTE]
It won't
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
