Gun Control

[Sarita]

A kid getting hurt from their parent's gun is the fault of the parents. I've been around guns pretty much my whole life, and the first things I learned (before I'd even touched a gun) were basic gun safety, such as always assuming the gun is loaded, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you're ready to shoot (even when the gun is down range, if I'm not ready to fire it, my finger is outside the trigger guard). Then I learned how to check and clear guns, and put em on safe. And if we get a new gun, that's the first thing we learn, followed by how to disassemble it for cleaning.

People can be stupid, the Darwin awards are a testament to that (still love the idiots that tried to play Russian roulette with an automatic), but with a little foresight and knowledge, you can avoid mishaps. Parents teach their kids not to run with sharp objects, they can teach them the do's and dont's of guns.

I was mainly referring to mass-damage weapons like grenade launchers. Of course this is only speculation, but what if those idiots that have their gun accidents had had one of those instead of a hand gun? Ouch. Much more damage, and instead of just hurting themselves, they take out their neighbor.

I was raised around guns, too. I live in Alabama, remember? I know all proper gun safety procedures, and will pass them on to my kids.

[DZComposer]

"More guns, less Crime"

I really have a problem with this statement as it ignores the real reason for crime. The reason for crime is more often than not economic. Poverty causes a lot of stress. This leads to crime on its own, but stress also leads to drug use, which empowers gangs. Stress destabilizes families, which makes youth feel a need to 'belong,' when leads to gang membership, which leads to more crime, which causes more instability. It's a socioeconomic cycle.

Policies aimed at reducing poverty are much more effective at combating crime than arming everyone.

Also, guns don't eliminate crime either, they just change the nature of it. You may see fewer muggings, but there will be increases elsewhere. People steal for money, they'll just find a less-risky way to do it.

["User"]

^ Agreed

[DZComposer]

People cling to "more guns, less crime" because it is easier and less expensive then really fixing the problem. If we brought back LBJ's war on poverty, we wouldn't need everyone to have guns to be safe.

[CrypticQuery]

I think that ALL semi-auto and revolver pistols, ALL semi-auto and bolt action rifles, and all semi-auto, pump action, and hinge action rifles should go unregulated, but ALL machine guns, machine gun conversion parts kits, silencers, grenade launchers, automatic shotguns, and sawed off/carbine shotguns and rifles with barrels under 18" in length and under 26" overall length, should be registered with the Dept. of the Treasury, with a $200 tax stamp, and should generally not be owned by anyone under 21, and/or not safety certified in firearm use/education for the 3rd time in their life.

Couldn't have said it better myself .  *Hi-fives Julius*

Even if they do eventually win and outlaw all guns, It'll just turn out like prohibition, or trying to ban cigarettes, there will still be a demand, and they will still be made secretly and illegally.  It'll actually put more money in crime lord's pockets.

[Guest DRL]

Policies aimed at reducing poverty are much more effective at combating crime than arming everyone.

This is so far 'part' what I think, too, however

I am more of a combined police/economic effort.

1] Turn the police under military control

    (which in turn, will be under my control)

2] Provide aid to those in need of, and also

    implement reforms to help these people

    helping themselves.

3] Track down and prosecute drug lords.

    They should be executed afterwards,

    to set the example among their own kin.

4] Increase state efforts to reduce poverty,

    preferably by trying to increase the income

    of those in need of.

5] Gun controls should forbid anyone from owning

    military grade (grenade launchers, bazookas,

    tanks, ect.) weapons, reserving those solely for

    military/police usage. Non-military weapons

    are still available to the public under a license

    condition. People with criminal history should not

    be allowed to own firearms as a preventive measure.

6] Encourage Private~State cooperative efforts. (Eg.:

    small bussiness grants).

[Guest Julius Quasar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Denmark is ranked near the bottom of the list when it comes to homicides AND among other European countries - directly as a result of passing such legislation.  I have no idea what you are talking about...the facts clearly prove otherwise.  >_>

Anyone can edit wikipedia.  Your reasoning is flawed.

Their homicide/crime rate has remained very low at the latest since 2000.....please show me a DIRECT tie to crime and guns as a result of said repeal of legislation...like exactly what year it happened.

That's when they repealed the gun laws, in 2000

Um no....on the contrary homicide rates for both Germany and England remain pretty damn low.  As for England's case this legislation caused a DECREASE in gun related crime from 1997 levels from 2005 onwards...I already brought that up with their 1997 Gun control act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#1997_Firearms_Act

Again, wiki is weak.  Since 1997, their crime went from bad to worse.

Switzerland is actually almost the same as Denmark, at least with homicides.  Austria is significantly lower then Switzerland, but again, show me direct links/proof etc that prove without a shadow of a doubt.  Really, every country in Europe is different I know, but in general, at least from the links and stats that I have been looking up it's been proven mostly in Europe that tighter regulation = less gun related crime.

Your wiki stats are easily manipulated, since anyone can edit wikipedia.    I use REAL stats.

Again, you're interpreting the 2nd amendment as meaning "individual rights", which is subjective in itself.  I interpret "the people" as meaning a "collective", and the correct interpretation has been up for debate for quite some time now.  >_>  And yes, even though they are both in the Bill of Rights, they aren't EXACTLY the same because if that were the case then why do we have no such massive debate on freedom of speech as opposed to the right to bear arms?

Ever hear of THE NINTH and  TENTH AMENDMENT of the Bill of Rights?

I just poked a hole in your "logic" there.

Yes I know that but that wasn't my point.  If ALL guns are registered then if an illegal gun IS discovered then it's an open and shut case as to whether or not the gun is legal.

That's impossible to do, and it ties up police resources. 

I'm sorry for actually laughing at this.  But that, AGAIN is completely untrue - especially of Canada.  I'd suggest do your research by actually looking at stats before making such untrue assumptions.

They are FACTS.  YOU need to do some actual research, and not use untrue assumptions and weak or false stats.

First off the U.S. has a 5.4 per 100,000 homicide rate in 2009 compared with 1.3 for Canada.  This is coming from the United Nations themselves.  But don't take my word for it, view their site and see for yourself, unfortunately all the data is in Excel spreadsheet file but America has FAR higher crime rates in general then Canada.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/crimedata.html

All those are countries with high degrees of corruptibility as measured by the Corruption Perceptions Index.  We all know in developed countries this shit rarely, if ever, happens on a large scale. >_>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Load of biased BS.

This is fun debating but PLEASE back up some of the stuff you are saying with reliable facts, it makes the debate that much more...interesting.

YOU need to back up what you say with more reliable facts than wikipedia.  You have no solid ground to back up what you say.

[CrypticQuery]

Another good reason for the private ownership of firearms is that the police can't always help.  Sure, they do their job sometimes, but if we take the L.A. Riots for an example, the police retreated, and many civilians were left on their own.  Gun purchases shot up after the riots. 

["User"]

Even if they do eventually win and outlaw all guns, It'll just turn out like prohibition, or trying to ban cigarettes, there will still be a demand, and they will still be made secretly and illegally.  It'll actually put more money in crime lord's pockets.

Only history has proven that it wouldn't be nearly to the extent as it was with alcohol and cigarettes (See Canada, the U.K., etc).

If I may add on to what DZ is saying Canada is pretty much going down that path, we allocate more of our budget towards social programs and funding towards poverty., and it's has an excellent positive effect.

Wikipedia is crap.  I don't take ANY of their stuff seriously because anyone can edit it.

YOU need to back up what you say with more reliable facts than wikipedia.  You have no solid ground to back up what you say.

I have been with the United Nations links for one (which disproves half of your arguments), and second even though anyone from Wikipedia can edit anything there is a thing called:  "References" at the bottom of the page which link to reliable sources that back up all the claims in the articles . YOU on the other hand have made ZERO attempt to provide links of ANY sort.  Please man, at least provide some source for your arguments (whether we agree on the validity or not)

[CrypticQuery]

Only history has proven that it wouldn't be nearly to the extent as it was with alcohol and cigarettes (See Canada, the U.K., etc).

I was referring more to the U.S. on this one, many people wouldn't take it to kindly if you told them you were there to take their guns, including myself :lol:

[Vy'drach]

Yes, self defense does reduce some instances of murder or injury, but these are negated by a higher rate of gun related deaths by other means, suicide for example.

There was a girl who commit suicide at the school I went to last, know how she did it? Sat on the train tracks. You're not going to stop suicide by taking away guns, someone will just do it by another means. Using suicide as a way to try and advocate gun control is a bullshit tactic, since the gun is a tool, not a cause. A gun is just a hunk of metal and wood/polymer, it won't suddenly decide to fire, or decide what it shoots, no. It's the person behind the gun that does that.

Still, it would be more difficult for them to do so.  I mean...for example if all guns were REQUIRED to be registered in the U.S. that would make tracking illegal guns THAT much easier.

Last I heard, legal guns in the US are registered, unless they are grandfathered down. When you purchase a gun from the gunstore, they take it off of display, take down all of your information and the gun's serial number, and run a thorough background check on you, checking for felonies or other priors, do you have a restraining order on you, are you a former mental health patient, etc etc. If anything shows up within the... I believe it's ten days, search, guess what? No gun for you. And I don't see how registered guns will make illegal guns easier to track, if it's off the grid it's off the grid. It is not hard to get illegal weapons. Just go to Mexico and for a couple hundred bucks you get a fully automatic AK-47, or in the US, get an AK receiver, take it to a machine shop, and have someone bend a certain part of it (or bend it yourself), and guess what? You're not spitting out 7.62x39mm rounds out at 775 rounds a minute.

So you're saying that trying to control firearms would make absolutely no difference in the end eh?  You know, if you look at other countries and their policies like the United Kingdom when they passed the 1997 Firearms Acts after the Dunblane massacre they currently have only a fraction of gun related crime that they did before the law was passed....I'm still holding with the belief that ALL guns regardless of country NEED to be registered....the vast majority of U.S. states have no such requirement and it would make fighting gun related crime and tracking illegal firearms that much easier.

If I remember correctly, though, the knife/bludgeoning related crimes and deaths in the UK skyrocketed after the gun laws were passed, and the crime rate itself rose because now the people that could of defended themselves, should not legally be able to do so. The crime won't go down, just the tools may change. When measuring gun related deaths, how many of the people died were the aggressors? Also, keep in mind it is a lot easier to track a gun than it is a blade. A gun leaves so many damned tell-tale signs, such as caliber, groove markings, primer indentation, and let's not forget how many people inadvertently leave their thumbprints on the shell casing as they load it. Ever loaded a magazine? If you don't wear gloves, you leave some of the best finger prints that a forensic investigator could ever hope to find in their wildest wetdream. Also, guns make noise and draw attention, so if they are used, chances are higher the perpetrator will be noticed by someone. Again, the crime is not going to go away, it will probably rise actually, you're just going to make it harder for the criminal to be tracked. There have been cases where the only reason the caught a criminal was because he used a gun.

Why revolt when you can just replace elected officials?  Self-defense should be an extreme last resort and the odds that the United States of America would try and "seize control" of every aspect of citizens lives would just be the dumbest idea ever.  The economy would go to shit and you'd end up with a country like North Korea....

In theory you can vote out someone, if they follow the rules, but why would you feel the need to revolt against someone following the rules? It would be more of a Boston Tea Party revolution. They try to pass something BS, you say no, they push it, and you push back.

Guns don't kill people, and guns don't cause crime. The gun is just a tool, it has no malicious intent. The operator of the gun is the one that does or does not, and if it's not a gun, it'll be a knife, or a bat, or a damned table leg. If a criminal wants a gun, he'll get a gun. If a citizen wanted a gun so the criminals won't shoot them, they'd be screwed.

[DZComposer]

This is so far 'part' what I think, too, however

I am more of a combined police/economic effort.

1] Turn the police under military control

I don't like this idea at all. Police and military have separate purposes. Police enforce laws, militaries provide common defense. These missions are separate and do not need to be combined.

2] Provide aid to those in need of, and also

    implement reforms to help these people

    helping themselves.

Can't argue with that.

3] Track down and prosecute drug lords.

    They should be executed afterwards,

    to set the example among their own kin.

WOAH! That's a little harsh.

Gangs exist due to high demand for something that is illegal. The best way to combat the problem is either through eliminating the demand or eliminating the prohibition.

4] Increase state efforts to reduce poverty,

    preferably by trying to increase the income

    of those in need of.

5] Gun controls should forbid anyone from owning

    military grade (grenade launchers, bazookas,

    tanks, ect.) weapons, reserving those solely for

    military/police usage. Non-military weapons

    are still available to the public under a license

    condition. People with criminal history should not

    be allowed to own firearms as a preventive measure.

Sounds reasonable.

6] Encourage Private~State cooperative efforts. (Eg.:

    small bussiness grants).

Whether I support that would really depend on what the grants are going to be used for.

[Sabre]

Don't bring the UK into this. The UK gun scene is complex. You know that scene in hot fuzz where he has a shotgun licence, but has an entire armoury downstairs? That's the British gun scene in a nutshell. Trying to get evidence is like trying to get the numbers on dust.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Don't bring the UK into this. The UK gun scene is complex. You know that scene in hot fuzz where he has a shotgun licence, but has an entire armoury downstairs? That's the British gun scene in a nutshell. Trying to get evidence is like trying to get the numbers on dust.

Exactly!

TSA, if you don't agree with me, then fine, but don't use ad hominem arguments like this:

This is fun debating but PLEASE back up some of the stuff you are saying with reliable facts, it makes the debate that much more...interesting.

It seems to me that it's YOU who can't back up what you say, not me...

(sorry)

I'm sorry for actually laughing at this.  But that, AGAIN is completely untrue - especially of Canada.  I'd suggest do your research by actually looking at stats before making such untrue assumptions.

...try doing YOUR research, instead of belittling and ridiculing others without backing it up with Wikipedia

www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

HERE, I'm sick of connecting the dots for you, TSA~User:

http://www.nraila.org/

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78

[Robert Monroe]

I am in favor of:

°Banning hunting.

Wat.

Wat wat.

You are in favor of banning a practice that ANIMALS THEMSELVES DO.

And before you say "animals don't use guns" I'd like to remind you that humans can't run like cheetahs and snap necks with our JAWS.

ANYWAY.

My view on gun control is surmmised nicely in the Second Amendment. Finer details I can basically sum up as GET A LICENSE. You need a license to drive a 2000 pound hunk of metal on heels, you need one to fly a plane, you need one to drive a boat, why don't we have these things for WEAPONS. If you'd just regulate guns so only people who are NOT notorious for getting piss drunk and/or out of their right minds got guns, alot less accidents would happen. You'd still have big name crimes for sure, but I bet the police would be grateful not to have to deal with Farmer John and his shotgun after he's had too much damn whiskey.

Also, tests. Educational courses. Again you need all this shit for cars and boats, why not guns? Common sense, people!

Also this is purely a USA point of view. Given I don't live in other countries, I don't really care about how they handle things.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Also, tests. Educational courses. Again you need all this shit for cars and boats, why not guns? Common sense, people!

Exactly.  I was at Bass Pro Shop in S. B. County, and I saw that 1/4 of the customers at the gun counter didn't look/mind where they pointed the [unloaded] guns from the store case. :facepalm:

[CrypticQuery]

My view on gun control is surmised nicely in the Second Amendment. Finer details I can basically sum up as GET A LICENSE. You need a license to drive a 2000 pound hunk of metal on heels, you need one to fly a plane, you need one to drive a boat, why don't we have these things for WEAPONS. If you'd just regulate guns so only people who are NOT notorious for getting piss drunk and/or out of their right minds got guns, alot less accidents would happen. You'd still have big name crimes for sure, but I bet the police would be grateful not to have to deal with Farmer John and his shotgun after he's had too much damn whiskey.

Also, tests. Educational courses. Again you need all this shit for cars and boats, why not guns? Common sense, people!

Also this is purely a USA point of view. Given I don't live in other countries, I don't really care about how they handle things.

Now if only anyone would listen to people who had sense. I salute you Robert Monroe 

Exactly.  I was at Bass Pro Shop in S. B. County, and I saw that 1/4 of the customers at the gun counter didn't look/mind where they pointed the [unloaded] guns from the store case.

It's people like them who screw up everything for everyone else :facepalm:

["User"]

I was referring more to the U.S. on this one, many people wouldn't take it to kindly if you told them you were there to take their guns, including myself

In the U.S. of course not. 

There was a girl who commit suicide at the school I went to last, know how she did it? Sat on the train tracks. You're not going to stop suicide by taking away guns, someone will just do it by another means. Using suicide as a way to try and advocate gun control is a bullshit tactic, since the gun is a tool, not a cause. A gun is just a hunk of metal and wood/polymer, it won't suddenly decide to fire, or decide what it shoots, no. It's the person behind the gun that does that.

True, but guns however are a more convenient way of doing it though if there's a firearm in the house during troubles at home for example. instead of trying to find a bridge to jump off of or a train to get hit by

Last I heard, legal guns in the US are registered, unless they are grandfathered down. When you purchase a gun from the gunstore, they take it off of display, take down all of your information and the gun's serial number, and run a thorough background check on you, checking for felonies or other priors, do you have a restraining order on you, are you a former mental health patient, etc etc. If anything shows up within the... I believe it's ten days, search, guess what? No gun for you. And I don't see how registered guns will make illegal guns easier to track, if it's off the grid it's off the grid. It is not hard to get illegal weapons. Just go to Mexico and for a couple hundred bucks you get a fully automatic AK-47, or in the US, get an AK receiver, take it to a machine shop, and have someone bend a certain part of it (or bend it yourself), and guess what? You're not spitting out 7.62x39mm rounds out at 775 rounds a minute.

I guess I'm having trouble trying to get my point across.  I'm thinking more about how things work in Canada as opposed to the U.S., my bad.

If I remember correctly, though, the knife/bludgeoning related crimes and deaths in the UK skyrocketed after the gun laws were passed, and the crime rate itself rose because now the people that could of defended themselves, should not legally be able to do so. The crime won't go down, just the tools may change. When measuring gun related deaths, how many of the people died were the aggressors? Also, keep in mind it is a lot easier to track a gun than it is a blade. A gun leaves so many damned tell-tale signs, such as caliber, groove markings, primer indentation, and let's not forget how many people inadvertently leave their thumbprints on the shell casing as they load it. Ever loaded a magazine? If you don't wear gloves, you leave some of the best finger prints that a forensic investigator could ever hope to find in their wildest wetdream. Also, guns make noise and draw attention, so if they are used, chances are higher the perpetrator will be noticed by someone. Again, the crime is not going to go away, it will probably rise actually, you're just going to make it harder for the criminal to be tracked. There have been cases where the only reason the caught a criminal was because he used a gun.

I've already proven (twice now) that the homicide rate which is NOT death ONLY by guns) in the U.K. is LOWER today then it has been since before 1997.  >_>

In theory you can vote out someone, if they follow the rules, but why would you feel the need to revolt against someone following the rules? It would be more of a Boston Tea Party revolution. They try to pass something BS, you say no, they push it, and you push back.

In the case of the Boston tea party that was due to an abrasive monarchy in England that had absolutely no regard for citizens. You couldn't "vote them out" in this case.

TSA, if you don't agree with me, then fine, but don't use ad hominem arguments like this:

It's YOU who can't back up what you say, not me...

I'm not using an ad hominem argument...I AM backing up what I am saying with reliable sources.  How is the United Nations website NOT a reliable sort for crime statistics for different countries?  Using that logic then almost NOTHING on the Internet is considered reliable and "any" sort of backing up statements is pointless...according to you.  And Wikipedia is easily a valid source if the material being used to referenced by more reliable sources which is exactly what I am doing if you read the Wikipeida articles.  I am following the rules of debate nicely thank you.

...try stepping outside your province, into other parts of Canada and you'll see I'm right.

I have thank you, and I fail to see how this is relevant to this debate.  Right about what?

HERE, I'm sick of connecting the dots for you, TSA~User:

http://www.nraila.org/

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78

And why didn't you link to credible facts in the first place instead of just having me take your word for it? I fail to understand that at all.  You should have just did that in the first place.

As far as your links go, all I have to say is that the information about Canada (as well as other countries) is outdated by 10-20+ years. A WHOLE lot can change with a countries crime stats within just a few.

And I agree with Robert and I should have brought this up earlier but I'm not against banning all guns, I just think they should be regulated a bit more then they already are.   If I've upset anyone inadvertently then maybe I'll adjust my tone.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I'm not using an ad hominem argument...I AM backing up what I am saying with reliable sources.  How is the United Nations website NOT a reliable sort for crime statistics for different countries?  Using that logic then almost NOTHING on the Internet is considered reliable and "any" sort of backing up statements is pointless...according to you.  And Wikipedia is easily a valid source if the material being used to referenced by more reliable sources which is exactly what I am doing if you read the Wikipeida articles.  I am following the rules of debate nicely thank you.

okay, sorry, I misunderstood.  but I refuse to acknowledge the UN.  they have so many sneaky, underhanded liars from 3rd world backwater nations in their roster.

I have thank you, and I fail to see how this is relevant to this debate.  Right about what?

(I edited that last post)

And why didn't you link to credible facts in the first place instead of just having me take your word for it? I fail to understand that at all.  You should have just did that in the first place.

I was looking for which ones that would best back up what I had to say, and I'm trying to do 6 things at once here.

As far as your links go, all I have to say is that the information about Canada (as well as other countries) is outdated by 10-20+ years. A WHOLE lot can change with a countries crime stats within just a few.

That doesn't mean it's irrelevant, just 'cause it's dated.

And I agree with Robert and I should have brought this up earlier but I'm not against banning all guns, I just think they should be regulated a bit more then they already are.   If I've upset anyone inadvertently then maybe I'll adjust my tone.

Oh, okay,  And I'm sorry for being a jerk to you and everyone else here.  I'm most likely gonna step out of this thread so I don't get into trouble/banned.

[Robert Monroe]

Now if only anyone would listen to people who had sense. I salute you Robert Monroe 

One day I'm gonna be a politician, I swear. And I'll kick ass!

Or end up like all the others. Boooo!

[CrypticQuery]

True, but guns however are a more convenient way of doing it though if there's a firearm in the house during troubles at home for example. instead of trying to find a bridge to jump off of or a train to get hit by

Well, if ya wanna get creative, there are always kitchen knives, poisons (antifreeze, cleaning chemicals), screwdrivers/other tools, gasoline/matches/lighters, rope, water hoses, hell, even the garbage disposal could work . 

["User"]

Well, if ya wanna get creative, there are always kitchen knives, poisons (antifreeze, cleaning chemicals), screwdrivers/other tools, gasoline/matches/lighters, rope, water hoses, hell, even the garbage disposal could work .

Creatively is a plus in my books

And no I don't condone creative ways to actually die for real

[Guest DRL]

Wat.

Wat wat.

You are in favor of banning a practice that ANIMALS THEMSELVES DO.

And before you say "animals don't use guns" I'd like to remind you that humans can't run like cheetahs and snap necks with our JAWS.

Who forced you to get close to a cheetah, in the

middle of the Sahara, in the first place?

And as I explained later: Hunting for food is fine

as long as the species hunted is not endangered.

Additionally, you should not go to a place were dangerous

animals live. Foresters should police the area regulary

to make sure people are not either hunting illegaly OR being

the hunted themselves.

I don't like this idea at all. Police and military have separate purposes. Police enforce laws, militaries provide common defense. These missions are separate and do not need to be combined.

Well, maybe the best would be to improve

the training of the police. To date, in my country

policemen do not recive adequate physical training,

thus they are on the side of losers on a foot chase.

A elite police unit, say, swat-style should be created

to.

In riot controls, a special control unit would be deployed.

Of course it will have non-lethal equipment; these have

been made in mind with the situation 'it began fine, but

it turned violent...'.

WOAH! That's a little harsh.

Gangs exist due to high demand for something that is illegal. The best way to combat the problem is either through eliminating the demand or eliminating the prohibition.

An alternative would be to increase

addiction-reduction efforts, and still

tracking down drug lords (thought not

executing them), and additionally attempt

to destroy their supply system. This would

slowly reduce not only demand, but supply

as well as dealers.

Whether I support that would really depend on what the grants are going to be used for.

Let's say you have a small bussiness of

cotton production. The state could provide

health-safe pesticides for free, or for example,

if you have a factory, the state could provide

the machinery needed, or the funs needed to

buy it.

Success however is not 100% guaranteed, but

something like "funds are given as long as they

are invested" could work, perhaps.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I'm sorry for being a jerk to you TSA~ USER and everyone else here.  I'm most likely gonna step out of this thread so I don't get into trouble/banned.

I edited my past posts, sorry they sounded so inflammatory.

[Guest DRL]

I'm sorry for being a jerk to you TSA~ USER and everyone else here.  I'm most likely gonna step out of this thread so I don't get into trouble/banned.

I edited my past posts, sorry they sounded so inflammatory.

Do not worry, about that, I never

took any offense, even if you meant it

(which I am sure, you did not ).

And feel free to stay; the more, the merrier,

I think.