Reducing Gun Violence
-
But back to the topic:
It's hard to say - hard to think like a criminal/loop-holer when you aren't one. I'm not really sure what would be a solution. What I do know is that nothing found in Feinstein's proposal would have prevented Sandy Hook. (or Aurora, or Columbine, etc)
Bans on mag size, weapon type, amount, etc. wouldn't really have an effect on volume of gun violence, imo. It would just shift the demographics of victim/criminal. The cat is already out of the bag, and we know (from endless data on prohibition of various vices) that criminalizing any vice just puts said vice in the wrong hands.
The "repeating" firearm has been around for well over 100 years and these mass killings have just been a phenomenon over the last 30-40 years. For me, the weapon type/size/caliber isn't the problem. So here is where I would focus my efforts. I think background checks don't necessarily need to be more extensive, but maybe a little more focused. I think many understand the trade of freedom for safety and it would apply here too. Your medical records don't remain as private anymore. Adderall, Ritalin, these scripts are a red flag. Psychiatrists should have some responsibility/culpability moving forward. They don't get to remain silent. Not to get all Alex Jonesy, but we are waaaaaay to big for our britches when it comes to what we think we know about neural pathways. Drugs for depression, anxiety, etc., only treat symptoms, and do not focus on cause. Which, to me, is dangerous when dealing with the mind. Despite being the same mechanism of action, there's a big difference in stopping a runny nose and targeting neural receptors.
This is a mental health issue, not a guns issue.
I watched a 30 min vid on Sandy Hook last night that is kind of intense. I need to dig around more to determine the validity of some of the things addressed in the film, but they are pretty scary if accurate.
Also, if you want to get in the mind of a clueless, deceitful member of congress, read this:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/backlash-and-blowback/anti-gun-senator-shoots-intruder
-
As I mentioned before, old buddy. I agree with George Will who asks how much money are we willing to spend on programs that will have almost 0 effect? That's the bottom line. As you've said the vast majority of gun crime and murder is unrelated to the rare public massacres. I've heard nothing substantial from either side save for some political posturing. If it's at all possible let's keep in mind that the second Amendment is not now nor ever has been about deer hunting.
So we need to move off that point and admit to ourselves that the second Amendment really is out dated.
The handgun ban a couple decades ago was found to be unconstitutional. The vote? 5 to 4. Doesn't sound like it's written in stone.
Englands ban isless than 30 years old.
Then we might move on to how to curb the gun death epidemic. I do have some thoughts about some of the disingenuous rhetorical being bandied about but I'll get to that in another post. I believe first and foremost that if we are to make a dent in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of gun crimes there needs to be serious and mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns. And we need to enforce the laws we already have.
Just yesterday I read a story about some dirt ball in a neighboring community who had murdered 1 young woman and left another a vegetable. He had a criminal record involving illegal firearms. Had there been a mandatory 10 year sentence these women would be alive and healthy as we speak. On the other hand the attorney who got him back out on the street would have missed a paycheck.
So there's one step that will curb gun violence.
Strict mandatory sentences for committing a crime with a gun.
Tell me why you (as I assume you will) disagree.
WSS
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Meanwhile, here in Ohio, background checks have increased 34 percent since...
AR-15's are flying off the shelves.
And the 2nd Amendment isn't outdated, just like the 1st Amendment isn't outdated.
And yes, it is about deer hunting, my friend. Partly. It's about protection of your home, your family.
It's about putting food on the table during any hard times, country wide, or personal economic.
It's about that ability, across this country, to not be disarmed by any kind of tyrant who gets into power,
because there are too many of us with guns. It''s about freedom, and being safe in our homes.
Say, Obamao and co. can do a "bailout" and send money to every gun owner to buy a high quality
Liberty safe for their guns. Just use the money being sent to Egypt and ObaMao's muslim brotherhood buddies.
-
The left loves to use problems as currency. They can make stupid promises, for votes, and split.
Wail about the poor.
Well, the poor stayed poor during the Carter wailing about the poor, the Clinton wailing about the poor, all eight years,
and during Obamao's wailing about the poor. It was never about the poor. They simply lied.
It was about gaining personal wealth, fame, and political power. And the poor are still poor.
Yeah, let's require criminals buy gun crime liability insurance. dang, that's stupid.
And heck is worse than that. geez.
-
If we can agree on the premise that in general, laws penalize the law-abiding, not the law-breaking, we could have an honest discourse over this issue (which I believe we are in this thread). 'Penalize' can be in the form of a mere annoyance, to monetary or safety problems for those who abide by the law. I'm not so sure requiring insurance for firearm owners will have a worthwhile effect (if we are looking to lower gun violence).
I posted a video in another thread by a guy going by "Amidst the noise" or something like that on youtube/twitter and he makes some really good points. Violent crime (all forms) in the US is on the decline and has been for some time. Yet we are at the top of the list when it comes to per capita handgun ownership. There is a strong correlation there. LaPierre and others like to imply causation, just as Feinstein and the other fools manipulate data to serve the counter to that argument and also imply causation.
Here it is again ICYMI:
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Pretty smart guy to sum it up like that, after presenting information so clearly.
-
As I mentioned before, old buddy. I agree with George Will who asks how much money are we willing to spend on programs that will have almost 0 effect? That's the bottom line. As you've said the vast majority of gun crime and murder is unrelated to the rare public massacres. I've heard nothing substantial from either side save for some political posturing. If it's at all possible let's keep in mind that the second Amendment is not now nor ever has been about deer hunting.
So we need to move off that point and admit to ourselves that the second Amendment really is out dated.
The handgun ban a couple decades ago was found to be unconstitutional. The vote? 5 to 4. Doesn't sound like it's written in stone.
Englands ban isless than 30 years old.
Then we might move on to how to curb the gun death epidemic. I do have some thoughts about some of the disingenuous rhetorical being bandied about but I'll get to that in another post. I believe first and foremost that if we are to make a dent in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of gun crimes there needs to be serious and mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns. And we need to enforce the laws we already have.
Just yesterday I read a story about some dirt ball in a neighboring community who had murdered 1 young woman and left another a vegetable. He had a criminal record involving illegal firearms. Had there been a mandatory 10 year sentence these women would be alive and healthy as we speak. On the other hand the attorney who got him back out on the street would have missed a paycheck.
So there's one step that will curb gun violence.
Strict mandatory sentences for committing a crime with a gun.
Tell me why you (as I assume you will) disagree.
WSS
WSS
As I mentioned before, old buddy. I agree with George Will who asks how much money are we willing to spend on programs that will have almost 0 effect? That's the bottom line. As you've said the vast majority of gun crime and murder is unrelated to the rare public massacres. I've heard nothing substantial from either side save for some political posturing. If it's at all possible let's keep in mind that the second Amendment is not now nor ever has been about deer hunting.
So we need to move off that point and admit to ourselves that the second Amendment really is out dated.
The handgun ban a couple decades ago was found to be unconstitutional. The vote? 5 to 4. Doesn't sound like it's written in stone.
Englands ban isless than 30 years old.
Then we might move on to how to curb the gun death epidemic. I do have some thoughts about some of the disingenuous rhetorical being bandied about but I'll get to that in another post. I believe first and foremost that if we are to make a dent in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of gun crimes there needs to be serious and mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns. And we need to enforce the laws we already have.
Just yesterday I read a story about some dirt ball in a neighboring community who had murdered 1 young woman and left another a vegetable. He had a criminal record involving illegal firearms. Had there been a mandatory 10 year sentence these women would be alive and healthy as we speak. On the other hand the attorney who got him back out on the street would have missed a paycheck.
So there's one step that will curb gun violence.
Strict mandatory sentences for committing a crime with a gun.
Tell me why you (as I assume you will) disagree.
WSS
I don't necessarily, but this is not a new idea. I'd look into what Richmond did in the 90s in an effort to reduce gun crime, which involved mandatory sentences and became a template for lots of other cities. I think it was called Project Exile, or something like that.
-
One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.
If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.
This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I agree with your last sentence completely.
I don't expect magazine size restrictions or assault weapons bans to do much of anything. They might be worth doing, and might make some small difference, but they're hardly game changers. But I think all we're talking about is stuff that affects things on the margins.
Stiffer penalties for gun owners whose weapons fall into the hands of other people who use them for crimes. If you're in a home with someone who is mentally ill, you should be forced to have a real conversation with yourself about how to lock up your guns or not have them at all.
A more extensive system of background checks to try and do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. This is going to be pretty complicated work, but likely worth more effort than an assault weapons ban with holes.
As for mass killings, I think in America you can do less about that than every day gun crime. If someone is nuts and is intent on killing lots of people it's extremely hard to deter them, or stop them. Which isn't to say you shouldn't try to figure out ways to try, but it's probably hard to do.
-
Also, if a local school board decides that keeping an armed guard in the school somewhere is something they want to do, I think that's fine for them to choose to do that. Does it take on an additional risk, and increase the likelihood of an accident or incident? Sure. But if they're willing to accept that risk for the increased security it provides I think that's perfectly fine for them to decide that. I don't get this notion that having armed response is somehow useless.
What I wouldn't think is worthwhile would be to make this national policy for every school in the country like the NRA wants to do (so that we talk about something other than guns). We don't need a nationwide version of the TSA for every school in the country.
If local school boards want to do that, fine with me. And good luck, because it's going to be sad when that policy leads to problems and incidents too, probably after some school board somewhere unknowingly hires the wrong person for the job.
-
Also, if a local school board decides that keeping an armed guard in the school somewhere is something they want to do, I think that's fine for them to choose to do that. Does it take on an additional risk, and increase the likelihood of an accident or incident? Sure. But if they're willing to accept that risk for the increased security it provides I think that's perfectly fine for them to decide that. I don't get this notion that having armed response is somehow useless.
What I wouldn't think is worthwhile would be to make this national policy for every school in the country like the NRA wants to do (so that we talk about something other than guns). We don't need a nationwide version of the TSA for every school in the country.
If local school boards want to do that, fine with me. And good luck, because it's going to be sad when that policy leads to problems and incidents too, probably after some school board somewhere unknowingly hires the wrong person for the job.
Also, if a local school board decides that keeping an armed guard in the school somewhere is something they want to do, I think that's fine for them to choose to do that. Does it take on an additional risk, and increase the likelihood of an accident or incident? Sure. But if they're willing to accept that risk for the increased security it provides I think that's perfectly fine for them to decide that. I don't get this notion that having armed response is somehow useless.
What I wouldn't think is worthwhile would be to make this national policy for every school in the country like the NRA wants to do (so that we talk about something other than guns). We don't need a nationwide version of the TSA for every school in the country.
If local school boards want to do that, fine with. me. And good luck, because it's going to be sad when that policy leads to problems and incidents too, probably after some school board somewhere unknowingly hires the wrong person for the job.
The weird dystopian future that we actually live in makes it so that an appalling notion of posting armed guards at elementary schools seems like a rational solution. But what the N.R.A. fails to mention is that these shootings also happen at shopping malls, movie theatres, train stations, cafeterias, fast food resteraunts. Are we going to post an armed guard EVERYWHERE? I mean if schools want to have a well equipped and trained liscensed and bonded guard I'm all for that, but to scratch the surface of this problem you're going to have to go down the rabbit hole a little deeper. It's going to have to be a comprehensive mental health overhaul combined with new standards for gun ownership. Banning guns is a meaningless, divisive concept. It won't happen it can't happen.
-
Heck you do realize that stiffer penalties for honest gun owners who allow their weapons to fall into the wrong hands isn't that much of a big deal right?
It's not useless, mind you. It may well serve to make people who have pistols lying around the house lock them up.
And you do realize you are back to talking about only the tiny percentage of public massacres correct, dot gun violence in general?
Remember the gun the kid used at Sandy Hook was stolen from his mother.
I don't suppose filing charges posthumously would be of great help.
I'm talking mandatory 10 years for anyone convicted of a crime with a gun.
I think that would be a deterrent in a lot of street crime which is the biggest number.
WSS
-
And a question for the Liberals as well as the privacy Obsessed conservatives.
I have absolutely no problem with an in depth psychological background check for someone who wants to buy a weapon. Fine with me.
Just curious however, where do you draw the line? Is anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti depressant already disqualified?
But don't forget you guys freak out when I mention having DNA on file for every US citizen.
Hell we can't even get a nationwide database for medical procedures prescription drugs and psychological testing.
Will you sit still for a psychological profile For each and every citizen on file somewhere?
WSS
-
One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.
If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.
This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.
One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.
If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.
This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.
This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.
-
One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.
If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.
This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.
This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.
This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.
You should learn to read, doctor. Specifically two lines later. If you can't read how can I take you seriously?
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I agree with your last sentence completely.
I don't expect magazine size restrictions or assault weapons bans to do much of anything. They might be worth doing, and might make some small difference, but they're hardly game changers. But I think all we're talking about is stuff that affects things on the margins.
Stiffer penalties for gun owners whose weapons fall into the hands of other people who use them for crimes. If you're in a home with someone who is mentally ill, you should be forced to have a real conversation with yourself about how to lock up your guns or not have them at all.
A more extensive system of background checks to try and do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. This is going to be pretty complicated work, but likely worth more effort than an assault weapons ban with holes.
As for mass killings, I think in America you can do less about that than every day gun crime. If someone is nuts and is intent on killing lots of people it's extremely hard to deter them, or stop them. Which isn't to say you shouldn't try to figure out ways to try, but it's probably hard to do.
I agree with your last sentence completely.
I don't expect magazine size restrictions or assault weapons bans to do much of anything. They might be worth doing, and might make some small difference, but they're hardly game changers. But I think all we're talking about is stuff that affects things on the margins.
Yes.
Stiffer penalties for gun owners whose weapons fall into the hands of other people who use them for crimes. If you're in a home with someone who is mentally ill, you should be forced to have a real conversation with yourself about how to lock up your guns or not have them at all.
Fine with this as well. All of my weapons are locked up.
A more extensive system of background checks to try and do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. This is going to be pretty complicated work, but likely worth more effort than an assault weapons ban with holes.
Completely fine with this as well, as I suggested. Not only should the person receiving the ritalin Rx have a red flag in their "file" but the parent(s) and prescribing Doctor ought to have a red flag as well. As to what the red flag means or demonstrates, that's another conversation.
As for mass killings, I think in America you can do less about that than every day gun crime. If someone is nuts and is intent on killing lots of people it's extremely hard to deter them, or stop them. Which isn't to say you shouldn't try to figure out ways to try, but it's probably hard to do.
Agreed.
-
This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.
You should learn to read, doctor. Specifically two lines later. If you can't read how can I take you seriously?
You should learn to read, doctor. Specifically two lines later. If you can't read how can I take you seriously?
I think that's on you, buck. What you're writing, and what I think you want to write are two separate things. Work on that.
massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms.
Lanza's mother didn't kill anyone.
Edit:
Holmes bought his weapons via loopholes. Online sales are supposed to be sold by FFL dealers to FFL dealers only. The onus is on both the seller and purchaser to make sure that happens. It's illegal to not follow through with it. But not always caught. Just like speeding. Or drunk driving. Both of which kill children.
-
Heck you do realize that stiffer penalties for honest gun owners who allow their weapons to fall into the wrong hands isn't that much of a big deal right?
It's not useless, mind you. It may well serve to make people who have pistols lying around the house lock them up.
And you do realize you are back to talking about only the tiny percentage of public massacres correct, dot gun violence in general?
Remember the gun the kid used at Sandy Hook was stolen from his mother.
I don't suppose filing charges posthumously would be of great help.
I'm talking mandatory 10 years for anyone convicted of a crime with a gun.
I think that would be a deterrent in a lot of street crime which is the biggest number.
WSS
Heck you do realize that stiffer penalties for honest gun owners who allow their weapons to fall into the wrong hands isn't that much of a big deal right?
It's not useless, mind you. It may well serve to make people who have pistols lying around the house lock them up.
And you do realize you are back to talking about only the tiny percentage of public massacres correct, dot gun violence in general?
Remember the gun the kid used at Sandy Hook was stolen from his mother.
I don't suppose filing charges posthumously would be of great help.
I'm talking mandatory 10 years for anyone convicted of a crime with a gun.
I think that would be a deterrent in a lot of street crime which is the biggest number.
WSS
I've already said a couple times that these are efforts to change things at the margins. As for the dead mother, the point of the legislation would be to force people like that to consider what might happen to them if their guns fall into the wrong hands, and to make sure they don't. This doesn't necessarily prevent Sandy Hook, but if that woman kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination to Lanza would have had to get his guns somewhere else. Problem is, he probably wouldn't have had a hard time doing that either.
These aren't ideas geared to stop another Sandy Hook. They're ideas geared toward stopping gun violence in general. Your idea for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is fine. I'm just telling you that it's not new.
-
And a question for the Liberals as well as the privacy Obsessed conservatives.
I have absolutely no problem with an in depth psychological background check for someone who wants to buy a weapon. Fine with me.
Just curious however, where do you draw the line? Is anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti depressant already disqualified?
But don't forget you guys freak out when I mention having DNA on file for every US citizen.
Hell we can't even get a nationwide database for medical procedures prescription drugs and psychological testing.
Will you sit still for a psychological profile For each and every citizen on file somewhere?
WSS
And a question for the Liberals as well as the privacy Obsessed conservatives.
I have absolutely no problem with an in depth psychological background check for someone who wants to buy a weapon. Fine with me.
Just curious however, where do you draw the line? Is anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti depressant already disqualified?
But don't forget you guys freak out when I mention having DNA on file for every US citizen.
Hell we can't even get a nationwide database for medical procedures prescription drugs and psychological testing.
Will you sit still for a psychological profile For each and every citizen on file somewhere?
WSS
I have no idea how a system like this would work. It's above my pay grade. I suspect this is what's been discussed over the last few weeks, devising a system of background checks that's more useful than the one we have now, which isn't very useful, and misses about 40% of gun sales.
-
If we can agree on the premise that in general, laws penalize the law-abiding, not the law-breaking, we could have an honest discourse over this issue (which I believe we are in this thread). 'Penalize' can be in the form of a mere annoyance, to monetary or safety problems for those who abide by the law. I'm not so sure requiring insurance for firearm owners will have a worthwhile effect (if we are looking to lower gun violence).
I posted a video in another thread by a guy going by "Amidst the noise" or something like that on youtube/twitter and he makes some really good points. Violent crime (all forms) in the US is on the decline and has been for some time. Yet we are at the top of the list when it comes to per capita handgun ownership. There is a strong correlation there. LaPierre and others like to imply causation, just as Feinstein and the other fools manipulate data to serve the counter to that argument and also imply causation.
Here it is again ICYMI:
If we can agree on the premise that in general, laws penalize the law-abiding, not the law-breaking, we could have an honest discourse over this issue (which I believe we are in this thread). 'Penalize' can be in the form of a mere annoyance, to monetary or safety problems for those who abide by the law. I'm not so sure requiring insurance for firearm owners will have a worthwhile effect (if we are looking to lower gun violence).
I posted a video in another thread by a guy going by "Amidst the noise" or something like that on youtube/twitter and he makes some really good points. Violent crime (all forms) in the US is on the decline and has been for some time. Yet we are at the top of the list when it comes to per capita handgun ownership. There is a strong correlation there. LaPierre and others like to imply causation, just as Feinstein and the other fools manipulate data to serve the counter to that argument and also imply causation.
Here it is again ICYMI:
Leg, he's not controlling for gun crime here, only violent crime. I don't think he's making a very good argument. The correct comparison wouldn't be the one he's making. If he wants to make any conclusions about gun crime, then look at the numbers of gun crimes, not violent crimes, which include simple assaults, rapes, robberies, etc.
England, of course, has very low rates of gun crime. Japan has almost no gun crime at all. We have extremely high rate of gun crime, whether or not it's lessened in the past 20 years. He doesn't seem to want to point this out.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login