You know, I used to agree with this assessment, but then Rudy Giuliani pointed out how 9/11 has shed light on the importance of the 2nd Amendment.
Excellent. Thanks for posting it.
Don't tempt you?
Geeze, I thought it was us gunnies that were supposed to be the violent, ill tempered one.
My guns have killed fewer people than than OJ's knife collection. Why aren't you blathering about banning sharp objects?
Wow! "30,242 preventable deaths a year"!
According to the CDC, there were 29,565 fatalities by firearm in 2004. 11,935 were homicides or "legal interventions." 16,750 were suicides. 649 were accidental. 235 were "undetermined intent." (Apparently there's a bit of overlap in the individual statistic groups.)
But it's your contention that if we could simply make all the guns go away, that all of these deaths would thereby be "preventable."
Even though for the same year there were 5,794 non-firearm homicides and 15,689 non-firearm suicides? No weapon substitutions will occur? No one will figure out another way to commit suicide?
How do you plan to go about "preventing" all these deaths? Door to door confiscation?
Or flying airplanes into NRA conventions?
What color is the sky in your world?
By the way, two pro-gun blogs have already linked to this...hence the visitors.
Well, in that light, let me be 100% clear that I was being dry.
Sebastian, meanwhile, is making the mistake of thinking the plural of anecdote is data. And KB is making the mistake of a) thinking a theoretically unprevented thing is therefore unpreventable, or b) thinking a less than 100% success rate is ... not a success rate. It's actually not clear which mistake he's making, which is even worse than making one of them boldly and proudly.
Why do I engage them? I don't know, probably because Logic 101 was one of my very favorite classes in college, and I've never quite gotten over it. I know, it's mean to the rest of you lovely people. Sorry.
Excellent post, Steve. And I note the "outraged" commenters missed your point that your Cessna would do very little, if any, damage.
Oh, I got that you were being snarky, jhupp--didn't mean to include you among the visitors from gun blogs. And engage away--it'll be entertaining at the very least. 
(By the way, I added you to the blogroll last week--good stuff, I encourage other IIRTZ readers to check it out.)
Thanks to search engines, posting about guns is a little like turning over a rock and watching the bugs scurry around, isn't it?
And here I thought it was us "gun nuts" who are supposed to be the ones intent upon killing anyone who disagrees with us. Silly little me.
I have never really understood why hoplophobes concentrate so very much on the tool, and not the operator. A firearm is nothing more than a carefully crafted piece of metal, into which countless hours of engineering, science, design, and construction were expended. By itself, it is worse than useless - it is a bloody waste of all of that effort.
The real problem, however, is the person using it. A firearm is a morally neutral tool, capable of absolutely nothing by itself. Case in point: http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/ . However, the person provides intent, motivation, and action, and the person is ultimately responsible for all of those things - not the inanimate, lifeless, mindless piece of hardware the person may be using at the time.
Should people who negligently leave firearms laying around, and then have some child come along and blow his or his friend's head off, be punished? Of course. Should criminals be punished for using firearms in the execution of their crime? A damned lot more than they are now, that is for sure! Should law-abiding citizens who only desire to defend themselves and their families, go hunting, go target-shooting, or some other innocuous and potentially life-saving activity be punished simply because they want to use equipment that our minds, knowledge, and science have designed for us? Uh, do I really need to answer that?
Gun crime should be punished, and massively so (me, I personally like a minimum of a life sentence for any crime committed with the assistance of a firearm). But using a few tragically unfortunate events as an excuse to disarm the rest of the country simply because you say so? Give me a break.
I know, we should just ban airplanes and fuel. I mean, if it saves just 3,000 people, it's all worth it, right?
Ha ha, just kidding about the plane thing. Just a little snark, and anyone who didn't smile is an idiot.
Uh huh.
This is not the first time I've read a suggestion of violence from someone who advocates strong and/or absolute gun control, and I'm starting to understand why.
It is ignorance. No, you aren't 'ignorant' in the colloquial sense, and neither are the others whom I've read suggesting violence, however 'jokingly'. You are ignorant of firearms and what they can do. Reading something in the paper or seeing a piece on the television is not now, nor will it ever be the same as doing. There is a twofold reality we gunnies realize every single time we pull a trigger:
1) The Power. No, not some he-man nonsense, the power of the chemical reaction we just instigated, and that the bullet (the pointy sharp thing that goes out the barrel, not the whole thing, which is properly called a cartridge) is gone, and that it 'cannot be undone' as they say. A basic rule of gun safety is the maxim 'you can't unshoot something'.
2) The Reality. Once you've shot the deer, it is dead. Period. So far as I know, there's no Deer Jesus, so Bambi there isn't going to come back to life, and I had better honor this creature's passing by eating all of it. I fully acknowledge that I am a member of a predatory species, and I am simply continuing a tradition that has been ongoing for somewhere around two million years. That is an inalterable feature of our nature; the last bit of evolutionary development was approximately 60,000 years ago in the aftermath of the Toba eruption, and whatever we were as a species after that is the way we are now. That we are sentient and can decide certain things is off-point here. We are still cavemen, and no amount of air-conditioning is going to change that.
No sir, you weren't joking. Not one little bit. I am overlooking this because you simply don't know what you're talking about. You have no direct experience of the awesome responsibility of gun ownership that we Gun Folks have agreed to bear. Come shooting with me: I'll show you how to do it safely. You don't have to buy one, I loan you one of mine, and I'll supply the ammunition and pay the range fee for you. And I guarantee that you will be the same person afterward, albeit one with a new skill. You won't have the urge to go kill anyone, at least not any more than you had before we started our range session.
It's not about the guns, it never has been. It's the people who decide that a firearm is the solution to their problems. And let me remind you that the UK, which has recently banned guns is now experiencing a wave of knife-related homicides and attacks. We humans are the danger, we ourselves are the weapon. Castigating the tool might be satisfying, but it does not address the problem.
You will notice that I haven't addressed anything else but the plane comment. Well, mostly. That's not an accident. I've read literally hundreds of these sorts of blogs and printed articles, and there's nothing new here. The simple fact is that there are hundreds of millions of firearms here in America, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do to remove them.
Sorry, you're just flapping your gums here.
Thanks to all who took time out from their pathological advocacy of mass slaughter of actual humans to stop by, say "Tut, tut", and moralize about one person's vaguely violent, utterly fantastical and unattainable rhetorical device. Boy Howdy, thanks for setting me straight. You gun nuts totally rock with your, like, logic and stuff.
Yeah, Steve, I'm surprised you haven't crashed your plane into buildings many, many times by now. Get help, Steve! You know what you should do?--get a gun and kill a few things; then you'll finally understand Power and Reality.
And all you "gunnies"?--why don't you try getting laid sometime?
Sorry, I had to wash up after making love...
What were you saying again?
Sorry, I had to wash up after making love...
But will your hand still respect you in the morning?
Why? It doesn't respect me now 
And KB is making the mistake of a) thinking a theoretically unprevented thing is therefore unpreventable, or b) thinking a less than 100% success rate is ... not a success rate.
Um, no. You were the one who proclaimed that there were "30,242 preventable deaths a year." Given the context of the post, it was obvious you meant "if only we could eliminate all the guns." How many would then be prevented? And at what other cost?
By that logic there are 43,000 "preventable" deaths by motor vehicle each year, almost 4,000 of which we could eliminate if we would just ban motorcycles. Nobody needs a motorcycle, after all, and if it saves just one life!
I urge you, since you've taken Logic 101, to study the level of violent crime - particularly crime committed with firearms - in the United Kingdom; a place where killing just isn't "cricket" and never has been. Start your research about 1900, and progress through the current date. Note with particular attention what has happened there since the 1996 handgun ban.
Then apply that logic that you've learned to the U.S., where homicide has been a relatively common thing since before the founding of the nation. Start, again, with our records since 1900. Note, if you would, what the ratio of the U.S. to the U.K. homicide rates have been and what they've done over the last decade and a half.
Then tell me again about how all the deaths by firearm here are "preventable." I'd be fascinated to hear what you discover.
When you're done with that, we can discuss deaths by suicide.
I know why I engage in these discussions - because there are far too many people in this world who are ignorant of facts, dismissive of reality, and far to willing to throw away their rights for false promises of safety. I'd rather they didn't.
Peter, if all it takes is a trip to the range, I've already done that; I've fired guns before, and frankly, it wasn't the life-changing experience you described.
I would offer you a chance to experience what I have -- i.e., learn that a nephew or cousin or grandchild has been shot to death, or be there when your mother get the news from the victim's grandparents -- but I wouldn't wish it on anyone, even someone who -- to summarize what you said -- believes that "Guns don't kill people, people who can't be trusted with guns kill people, and what we should do about it is maintain the status quo and make sure those people continue to have easy access to guns".
The reason gun nuts are the laughing stock of the sentient universe is that there is no more transparent intellectual dishonesty than that of pro-gun propaganda. Is it because if you were honest with everyone, you'd be forced to admit you all want guns because you're cowardly bullies consumed by crippling sexual inadequacy, and don't think anyone's life is worth more than your inconvenience? Who can blame you? That doesn't sound quite as noble as all the phony posturing about defending oneself and imaginary rights and bogus cause and effect, does it?
Funny, I believe it was Freud who said, "Fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Methinks you have your references slightly mixed up, there.
I am very sorry that you had to go through that kind of experience, Steve, I really am, whether you choose to believe me or not. However, that one instance does not give you, or anyone else, the right to abridge anyone else's God-granted, and Constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense, bear arms, and all the rest of that good jazz.
I am sorry for being greedy. I am sorry for thinking that my life is more important than the dumbass who would choose to invade my home. I am sorry for believing that I should have the capability to defend myself, and more importantly, my wife, with capabilities equivalent to the threat. I am sorry for knowing better than to think that outlawing firearms will solve a bloody thing. And I am sorry for your world viewpoint being shaken by those beliefs being expressed.
I would, of course, point out how quickly you devolved to ad hominem attacks, childish namecalling, and all the rest of those typical activities of the emotionally-driven hoplophobes of the world... but you will probably just write those off as righteous indignation, haul out your dead family members as a shield again, and go about sticking your head in the sand and a target on your ass.
You will have to forgive me for believing that I am a master of my own life, and the defense thereof.
Yeah, Tom, I saw the link; thanks! I have actually been meaning to add you for a while, but my good intentions are outweighed by my enormous laziness. So my blogroll just gets older and less indicative of my reading. One of these days....
Anyway, far be it for me to blogwhore in one of my first efforts at comment thread participation, but I started writing a lengthy comment in response to some of the ... gun enthusiasts. And it just kept getting longer and kept requiring more links to back up what I was saying. So I went ahead and made it even longer and put it chez moi. I think the fact that it started in this very space makes it more forgivable, but it's here for anyone who's still interested and still reading this thread.
You will have to forgive me for believing that I am a master of my own life, and the defense thereof.
Apparently buying a handgun turns you into Chrétien de Troyes. (It's well known in NRA circles that Chrétien de Troyes was deathly afeared of home invasion by dumbass. And he liked to hit targets on other men's asses, if you know what I mean.)
Well, Tom, you wanted hits, you got hits; hope quality is not an issue.
I wish we could get a battle royale going between those who think deadly force is a God-given right and those who want to carve the Ten Commandments -- one of which is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" -- on everyone's forehead. You could sell tickets to that.
Yup, plenty of hits all right--thanks! I think I'll post a follow-up this evening responding to some of the arguments in comments.
"That's even if I filled the tanks and flew it into a building..."
Criminy, you lack imagination. To better your chances of success pick softer targets ... like an open air stadium during a sold-out ball game. I'm sure you could do much better than 32.
Hmmm:
"It would be pretty difficult to do the kind of damage that was done on Monday at Virginia Tech with a single-engine Cessna. That's even if I filled the tanks and flew it into a building -- say, the one where 60,000 NRA members are gathering in St. Louis for their annual meetings.
Don't tempt me."
Well, ace, if your cousins were anything like you are, I can see why they were killed.
I read that statement as a threat.
Perhaps the TSA and the FAA will agree.
Or maybe they won't want the responsibility of licensing a nut who makes terroristic threats against people he has never even met.
You'll find out.
...gun nuts are the laughing stock of the sentient universe...
HAHAHAHAHAHA
You've got a much better chance finding the laughingstock in the mirror, Steve-O.
Steve,
So I'm sitting here with the seriously wonderful First Cup of Coffee of the day, dragging through my list of blogs and what do I see?
Your response to me that's been highlighted in another blog! Wow! Is this that 'e-famous' thing I've heard about? Do I need an e-limo and stuff?
Anyhow, on to the response:
OK, so you've shot a gun. Fine. This obviously doesn't apply to you, but my direct life experience tells me that there are a sizable number of people on the anti-gun side who have no 'trigger time' to balance out the fear that a gun generates. Screaming on a chat list that a gun is an inanimate object gets one but so far, and direct experience is one cure.
I'd prefer to debate with folks who have gun experience but who still don't like guns, as the fear part is thereby removed from the discussion.
Unfortunately, all I have before me today is you, but I'll try my best.
You invoke fear, but wrongly. I'll explain: part of my own personal socialization was my size. I'm a big guy, not fat, but muscle-y (if that's a word). It was taught to me that taking advantage of my physical size to win the day is usually the wrong thing to do, but using my size and strength to defend others less able was a good use of my size. This has led me to always look out for the weaker, less able around me, whether or not I happen to be armed at that time.
That is to say that although I cherish my independence, I'm still part of Society and that my continued freedoms rest on supporting the society in which I live.
Inasmuch as fear is involved, I'm afraid that something will happen right in front of me and I won't be able to do anything about it, big strong me. I don't ever see myself as a victim, any scenario that I've ever entertained that includes a gun is based on my use of that gun in defense of someone else. I would personally grab the idiot around the neck and sqeeze really hard if I was the one to be attacked, even if I had a gun on me. I don't entertain any kind of 'High Noon' shootout. And since I'm legally and civilly responsible for the bullets that fly out of my muzzle, I would go out of my way to Not Shoot in any bad situation. In fact, if I were the one being attacked, I'd be focusing on running away, since due to the aforementioned strength and size, I can do that. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but for me, the gun is the absolute last resort when I'm the one being assaulted. Obviously in other circumstances (my wife has Cerebral Palsy and cannot walk well and cannot run at all) the gun is the only option. I don't like it at all, but I don't get to make the rules, I simply use the tools I can use. And in this case that's a gun.
OK. So you don't give any validity to the centuries of documentation regarding armed minorities, either individually or in groups using firearms to protect themselves or to force the Powers That Be to simply leave them alone. But you do quote the now outdated Freudian concept and manage to mangle it at the same time. Normally this is where I would insert some humorously snarky observation, but I'll leave that to the others who will read this.
Go back to the history books with this thought: the American Revolution started in January of 1629 with the dissolution of Parliament and the beginning of Personal Rule under Charles I. That is where our Right to own guns comes from. This is also where the idea of universal Human Rights independent of any government got its' start. As you re-read all this from the suggested vantage point, you might come to one of the conclusions that I have: that gun ownership by private citizens is the very root of all our other Rights. After all, Free Speech and Expression is kinda hard when you're dead.
And in conclusion, why did you think it was necessary to misquote me in order to make your point? You and I are on the same side here, the difference is that I choose a gun for a defense scenario I pray never happens. "Bad Guys", criminals, crazy people should not have guns. Period. And all you can do to refute me is to cloud the issue with emotional outcries. Why weren't your dead relatives able to protect themselves? Or, is it why did your dead relatives choose to not defend themselves? I don't ever want to pull my pistol out of its' holster any place other than at the range, but I carry it anyway, because I'm just not any good at predicting the future. You might think that I'm another Clint Eastwood wannabe, but I know I'm looking at nightmares and endless second-guessing if I ever shoot someone. I don't ever want to be in that situation, but I'm not going to be the one that chooses that ultimately. My choice is to be a survivor, albeit a psychically damaged one.
And finally, some reality: how do you plan to take the guns out of society? I'm not surrendering anything that I have ammunition for. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of uniformed police swear oaths to the state Constitution and some even swear to uphold the federal one as well. Would you like to wager on just how many wounded/killed police officers it's going to take before they refuse to carry out an unConstitutional order? Before they turn to folks such as yourself and say "You made the mess, now you clean it up. We're not gonna keep dying to further your political agenda."?
You want to call it 'sexual inadequacy'? Fine, the day you come to confiscate my guns and I place several 168 grain Boat-tailed hollowpoints in your skull as a reward for your effort, we'll just put 'sexual inadequacy' as the Cause of Death. That works for me.
(Hat tip to Sharp as a Marble for the head's up)
"The reason gun nuts are the laughing stock of the sentient universe is that there is no more transparent intellectual dishonesty than that of pro-gun propaganda."
Geez, Steve. Project much?
"I wish we could get a battle royale going between those who think deadly force is a God-given right and those who want to carve the Ten Commandments -- one of which is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" -- on everyone's forehead. You could sell tickets to that."
Now, I know this advice may be a bit unsolicited, but I've learned that a good way to formulate an argument is to actually know what the f*** you're talking about. I'll give you a hint, basing a Christian themed argument on a vastly simplified version of the Ten Commandments taught to small children in Sunday school doesn't fall under that. The actual text translates MUCH more accurately as "Thou shall do no murder," I.E. kill with malice. Hundreds of years of Common Law precedent, as well as thousands of years of teachings of the Abrahamic religions very clearly differentiates between murder and self-defence against unjust aggression.
Of course, considering that your "argument" consists entirely of gross distortions, outright lies, and virulent ad hominem attacks, I'd say that you're probably not gonna find this very helpful.
Is it because if you were honest with everyone, you'd be forced to admit you all want guns because you're cowardly bullies consumed by crippling sexual inadequacy,
So how exactly is this supposed to work? My gun makes me more masculine and my wife's gun makes her more feminine?
Not a whole lot of substance from the gun fetishists...not that I'm surprised. I'll address Linoge's comments in a separate post; Peter simply offers up the same vague cliches about 'self-defense' and guns being essential to human rights that thousands of gun fetishists have offered before him, without actually making the case that guns are necessary or even helpful to either (one misread historical event does not an argument make). And beyond those two, there's nothing to address--just a whole lot of vitriol.
But hey, it sure is helping the hit count. Keep those visits coming, guys!
Tom,
...not a whole lot of substance?
Typical. That you dimiss what I say doesn't make it irrelevant. Or untrue.
Let's get down to it:
I have guns.
You don't.
You don't like that I have guns.
Too damn bad. It's none of your business.
You want to take them away. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.
And there's not a thing you can do about it.
But by all means keep bleating about it. It's an amusing way for me to spend some otherwise spare time.
How many examples of succesfull self defense will it take take to get thru to you?
The woman I married drove off a man significantly bigger than her who had kicked in the door of her apartment by the use of a firearm.
A college friend of mine who was doing civil rights organizing in Texas in 1969 deterred a group of rednecks armed with chains and pick handles by displaying a Colt Python.
Deb posts examples on a regular basis and Clayton posts even more.
That you dimiss what I say doesn't make it irrelevant. Or untrue.
The lack of substantiation does not make your assertions irrelevant or untrue; it does, however, make them unsubstantiated.
How many examples of succesfull self defense will it take take to get thru to you?
More than the total of gun-related suicides, accidental deaths, and domestic homicides--that would be a start, anyway.
Well, since I seem to be one of the unfortunates to whom you actually pay attention to, Tom (I am not sure whether I should be honored or ashamed), I will say this for you:
Simply dictating that an argument is unsubstantiated does not make it so. In the same vein, simply calling an argument a "vague cliche" does not make it so.
At the risk of devolving to the same level of name-calling and ad hominem attacks that you have been wielding throughout this entire conversation, every single comment you have made in this thread has only served to indicate just how little you understand about the topic at hand, and how much you are ruled by your emotions.
Why do I say this, you ask? Well, your very last sentence is evidence enough. Unfortunately, while there are relatively good statistics indicating just how many sucides are committed with firearms (something that should not factor into this debate, honestly), how many accidental deaths there are with firearms, and how many domestic homicides there are with firearms, there are not an equivalent number of statistics indicating how many times a person has defended themselves or their family simply by displaying their firearm. I cannot imagine the number of times someone has heard a strange noise outside their home, racked their shotgun, and the noise stopped. That is one particular noise which is universally feared. How many other similar instances remain unreported to the police? Hell, how many times do people actively defend themselves with firearms and do not report it to the police?
So, as I was saying, through your use of name-calling (Gun fetishits? At least we know what weblogs you read on a regular basis.), ad hominem attacks (Attacking our sexuality? Come on. Not only did you get the diagnosis wrong, using it as leverage in either direction is just stupid - Freud is more discredited every year.), and now pathetic strawman arguments (Such as demanding information that simply does not exist.), you have more than indicated where you stand on the topic at hand, and how specious and frail that stance is.
People only reduce themselves to the tactics you have been wielding when they know they are defending an indefensible position. Congratulations for being a classic example thereof.
Should you actually follow through on writing that post addressing my comments, please do not expect me to comment upon it, or this thread farther. This is not a debate, Tom. This is you acting the petulant child and flinging poo-colored insults whenever you get the chance. I have no time for that kind of nonsense.
First, the Freud quote isn't Freud.
Sometimes a gun is just a gun, unless it's your manliness.
Second, Steve, don't you know that guns don't kill people, bloggers with planes kill people? After all, there's that famous Condi Rice quote, "No one could have imagined them taking a gun, shooting it into the Pentagon, into the World Trade Center, using guns as a weapon."
Hey, George, don't you know that Freud says you're sexually and emotionally a loser if you hate on guns, except he didn't say it, so never mind; Freud has been discredited anyway, and people only reduce themselves to torturing the English language when they know they are defending an indefensible position, which you are, wherefore and heretofore, including but not limited to, a classic example thereof.
Or something.
"How many examples of succesfull self defense will it take take to get thru to you?
More than the total of gun-related suicides, accidental deaths, and domestic homicides--that would be a start, anyway."
There are in close to 1 million successful uses of guns in self defense every year (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). The statistics are out there, should you be bothered to look. The majority of these do not involve shooting - in most cases, just showing a weapon is sufficient to ward off attackers. Google "gun facts" and educate yourself.
Kevin, I am familiar with that dubious statistic (which, by the way, Linoge just said doesn't exist), which comes from the Kleck-Gertz study. I'm also familiar with critiques of that study.
1.If you want to save lives, pass a law against murder and no one will get murdered. /s
2.We have no borders. Talking about banning something-anything-is a waste of time. We have no borders. /truth.
3.We -the Gun Tribe- (see Alphecca.com) are not giving up our guns. Will not. and you and your kind aren't tough enough to make us. /truth.
4.People who proclaim their opposition to murder and then talk about killing 3000 people are not really opposed to murder. /truth.
Somebody wanted statistics on the use of firearms for self-defense. Since I know you won't accept the data from Lott and the like, I present the data from the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub...ii/
hvfsdaft.txt
These figures are from 1994, mostly because when Clinton was in office, he didn't like the way the numbers were coming out, so these stats are no longer collected. Go figure, a political decision about data collection?
Between 1987 and 1992 the government determined that firearms were used in self-defense 82,500 times per year. 62,200 of those were violent crimes.
In 12,100 instances of firearm-self-defense, the victim still received some injury. In 50,000 instances the victim was UNHARMED as a result of the criminal encounter. In the remainder of cases, data on injury was not available.
Now, these aren't prevented deaths per se, but they are prevented injuries. Including such violent encounters as rape.
The data collection was supposed to be reworked in 1993, but I can find no current studies at the BJS.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub...ii/
hvfsdaft.txt
Seems I managed to fat-finger the URL in the above post... sorry. this is the correct URL.
Zendo Deb, thanks--that's actually a much more helpful point of reference.
" Kevin, I am familiar with that dubious statistic (which, by the way, Linoge just said doesn't exist), which comes from the Kleck-Gertz study. I'm also familiar with critiques of that study."
Are you also familer with the dozen+ studies that return similar results? Or the fact that the "critiques" are universally reliant on the NCVS results (which is where the 80k figure comes from btw), a study that, incidently, NEVER EVEN DIRECTLY ASKS ABOUT DEFENSIVE GUN USE. The NCVS was designed to tally CRIME rates, it is completely unsuited for measuring defensive gun use, which is probably why it doesn't bother trying (although that hasn't stopped the anti-gun bigots from trying to use it that way).
Anybody know what happened to jhupp? We were supposed to have a debate.
Heyy you history crackheads!! this is hard and stupid so a little help would be nice for me and Des! In what year did Charles I dismiss Parliament and rule alone???? Please and thanks
Hey Kevin Baker i kno what happened to JHUPP!!! He died in 1842 from hemoria clifius at age 78. Though others thought he commited suicide but doctors and scientists proved otherwise. Hemoria Clifius is a very rare disease that starts in your pelvis and travels to the brain causing seizures, heart attacks, and bleeding from the ears!
Commenting by HaloScan
