In Britain, the general population has never had, or wanted, casual access to firearms, they were never commonly available and then restricted. (particlularly handguns, shotguns and rifles for farmers and hunters maybe a bit more common).

The restriction on owning firearms only ever affected a very small fraction on the population, changes in overall violent crime rates would be due to toher factors. IMHO

Yeah, but I'm one of the milder examples.

I think this is enough .....
I do agree with you. Those are the most effective way

Any of y'awl Southerner types wanna unload y'awl's shotgun on this here spammin varmint?

I live in the south and by way of coincidence the lady who lives next door asked me just this morning about whether southerners are more violent than northerners. So, I shot her.

It doesn't prove anything though.

Because she needed killin'.

Oh, the gunshot didn't kill her. I wanted to see if the irony would.

If it was a 5 irony or a 7 irony, it would probably do the trick.

Wood it?


(groan)

putz.

[[[GROAN x 100]]]

Wouldn't that be, [[[GROWED x 100]]], down there? :haha:

He's too close to the Mason/Dixon to actually peak the language, Bruce.

My Kentucky grandmother would have said "Lawd ah mercy." "Growed" was what her granbabies did. As in, "I swan chile, you'r gettin biggah ever day."

She never showed much inclination to violence except when it was time for a chicken dinner. I still remember being amazed at the chickens running with their heads cut off. My grand dad just worked the farm. By the end of the day, he was too tired to indulge in any possible violent proclivities.

I think the study was apocryphal. Just some Northerners who still haven't gotten over the War between the States. :eyebrow:

North Carolina is a fer piece from the Mason-Dixon, that's only 10 miles from me.