1. Bikerdoc's passing and how you can help

    As many of you know, bikerdoc- AKA Al Spiniello- is no longer with us. There are always extra expenses when someone passes. If you would like to contribute to support his family, please do so here: Bikerdoc GoFundMe page.

    (Note - this notice can be dismissed by clicking on the X in the upper right corner.)
    Dismiss Notice

Gun death solutions from the firearms community?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by HammsBeer, Oct 8, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Plan2Live

    Plan2Live Member

    May 17, 2011
    Columbia, SC
    HammsBeer - Most all of those are great ideas and should be promoted by a position neutral organization offering sound, common sense ideas for reducing violence or deaths involving firearms. It is clear that Obama is going to use his bully pulpit to loudly and frequently call for additional gun control as long as he has a willing partner in the media. Whether or not that ranting results in any additional laws is yet to be seen. However, he is going to make the noise and I agree that "we" need a consistent, succinct, positive push back message that is just as loud and just as frequent as his message. And yes, if "we" aren't involved in designing the menu we probably aren't going to like what we are asked to eat.

    Many here believe the NRA will always be able to prevail as they have done in the past. In my mind that is a single pronged approach and anyone with training in military tactics, business acumen or even life experience knows that you shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket so I say yes we need a secondary approach backing up the NRA's efforts. Two is one, one is none is a valid concept in my mind.

    And finally many of the responses to your original post remind me of the old joke; "Which is worse, ignorance or apathy" with the punch line being "I don't know and I don't care".

    Keep trying, "we" need more ideas and passion like yours.
  2. morcey2

    morcey2 Member

    Dec 31, 2010
    Central Utah
    You mean, so that they don't keep talking about "assault weapons" that blow deer in half because it's a "ghost gun" with a "shoulder thing that goes up" using "high-capacity ammunition magazine clips" and "the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available"? :banghead:

    Can we throw the media into that training also?

  3. txblackout

    txblackout Member

    Jan 29, 2014
    I would like the following:

    Improve submission of information to NICS.

    Make NICS available for free to everyone so I can run a check on someone that I am selling a gun to.

    Stiff penalties for allowing children access to guns who then harm themselves or others, including losing right to own guns.

    Stiffer penalties for gun crimes, longer incarceration for violent crimes

    Legalize drugs, release all drug criminals

    Change welfare so it does not incent people to not work. (i.e. no loss of benefits at low wage levels)

    Change welfare so it encourages people to get married

    Offer up $XX,000 to get a tubal ligation/vasectomy if you have 1 child on welfare, and subsequently less dollars the more children you have. Freakonomics suggests that the decrease in violence is due to legalization of abortion. Stop the crimes before the children are born.
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  4. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Mar 15, 2012
    I'm still pre-coffee this morning, so please bear with me.
    This sounds good as a campaign promise, but it's awful in practice. First of all, plea deals typically result in conviction, not after a trial. "In exchange for a plea of guilty, the State recommends . . . " From the prosecutor's perspective, there's no reason to bargain on sentencing if the defendant makes you go to trial and you beat him.

    Second, as a practical matter, "no plea deals" means:
    1) Every violent felony MUST go to trial, even when the defendant WANTS to plead out; and
    2) Some cases that would otherwise plead out will result in acquittals.

    Please bear with me through a hypothetical example: Police are called to a domestic disturbance. Mildred Methhead has called the police and said that her husband, Mike, is beating her again. Mike is a convicted felon. By the time police get there, Mike is gone. Mildred says that he's driving an El Camino he borrowed from his brother. Mildred describes the pistol that she says he threatened her with. Police run ol' Mike through NCIC & discover that he's got a suspended license, like always. They locate the El Camino, and make a traffic stop, where they find Mike and his brother. A search of the car turns up the pistol in the console. Mike ends up with the following charges
    1. Felony Assault;
    2. Felony, 1st Degree;
    3. Felon in Possession of a firearm; and
    4. Driving on a Suspended License, 19th offense.

    The prosecutor gets the file and reviews it. Mildred chooses to stand by her man and refuses to cooperate (which is surprisingly common). The odds of winning at trial on Counts 1 and 2 drop dramatically. Count 3 is in trouble because it's the brother's car and the handgun was in the console. So the prosecutor is left with Driving on a Suspended DL. Mike might, MIGHT get 6 months in jail. The practical reality is that he'll get 3 months and the jail will give him 2 for 1, and he'll get credit for time served in 6 weeks. If overcrowding at the jail is really bad, he'll be home before the prosecutor will.

    Alternatively, if the prosecutor is allowed to deal, he (or she) might be able to make some hay with having ol' Mikey plead to the FIP in exchange for dropping the Counts 1 and 2. In terms of the "long view," getting Mike to plead to the FIP (or perhaps Count 2, in exchange for dropping Count 1), sets Mike up to take him off the streets for a longer term down the road. It sets him up so that a prosecutor can argue, "Judge, he's been convicted or plead on dates X, Y, and Z. Clearly, the last sentences didn't keep him from beating up poor Mildred. Please max him out this time."

    I've allowed a DWI #3 to plead out as a DWI #2 for a similar reason: DWI #4 in a 5-year period is a felony here. I know that for charging purposes, the prosecutor's office doesn't care whether the prior convictions are called "DWI 1, 2 and 3," or "DWI 1, 2, and 2." The defendant took the deal and less than 3 months later, was charged with DWI #4, a felony.

    I don't disagree with you on this one.
    Or this one.
    This has huge potential to become an instant background check for everything: employers, neighbors, my daughter's potential suitors, her teachers, etc. That's problematic.

    I have some concerns about the felony/domestic/restraining order part, but those are public records. I'm very concerned about opening up mental health records to a toll-free line. I'm also concerned about the cost, staffing, reporting, etc. Reporting to NICS isn't very consistent now, so maybe we should work on that before opening records to the public.
    While I don't disagree with you in principle, there are already TONS of these kinds of programs in place. In spite of them, we're seeing 2nd generation gangs in our city. We've got real problems in poor neighborhoods, and we do need these programs, but it's not like we (as a society) aren't already working on those.
    No argument here.
    I agree with you, in principle, but . . . The law currently requires "adjudication" before 2A rights are removed. Even voluntary commitment doesn't strip one of 2A rights, at least under federal law. State law, obviously, varies.
    Agreed, and absolutely.
    I'd agree that nobody wants to think of a loved one as unstable, but the problem may be "professional, affordable help."
    Eight words for ya: Interstate Compact on the Carrying of Concealed Handguns. As much as I like this idea, I don't see how it addresses the concerns you raised in the OP.
    I like it, but I don't see how it addresses any of the concerns you raised in the OP.
    Nationally recognized enhanced carry permit . . . . this sure does sound federal. I don't want the federal gov't any more involved in concealed handguns and licensing than it absolutely HAS to be. That's a whole other discussion that I'm more than happy to have, but it's off-topic for this thread.
    No, there's a few government buildings where firearms really should be banned. The Varner Supermax prison unit comes to mind.
    I'm going to assume that you actually mean "gains uncontrolled access to a gun and does something bad with it."

    Effectively mandating "safe storage?" How do you plan to enforce this? Random home searches? I've got a small (A4) problem with that. Besides, the gun community has consistently argued against making one person responsible for the actions of another. Why change this? The parents aren't liable if the teen drives a car into a crowd and kills a few people (absent negligent entrustment or some such).
    Education = good. Mandating it, I'm not so sure about. Next thing you know, the broccoli industry will be clamoring to make every legislator who wants to legislate on broccoli have mandatory education about it. Nobody has time to be an expert on everything and that's why legislators have committees and hire experts to tell them about things.
  5. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Jan 3, 2003
    0 hrs east of TN
    You seem intent on fixating on so-called "hardliners" instead of the members who are in agreement with you and who have proposed one or more of your points. There will always be extreme positions posted on forums and people will always disagree, there's no need to make more of those than just strong feelings about different views.

    Most of the points you offer have been proposed on this forum at one time or the other. I point that out only to illustrate how very difficult it is to come up with something new to prevent criminal homicides and how frustrating it can be to discuss this problem. What we see as reasonable efforts that could make a difference are disregarded by the Antis that are more interested in guns than the possible solutions to violence.
  6. vito

    vito Member

    Jun 29, 2004
    Northern Illinois
    Many of the comments on this thread seem to be giving the benefit of the doubt to those seeking "solutions" to mass shootings and other crimes committed with firearms that what they are seeking is a reduction in the violence. I am not willing to make that assumption because the heart of the anti-gun faction is committed to banning the private ownership of guns and confiscating those that are now in private hands (and sometimes leading anti-gun spokesman admit to this). So any so-called "common sense" proposals are really only small steps toward the ultimate goal. I am totally convinced that even if there were virtually no gun violence in America, the anti-gunners would still be pushing for greater restrictions on ownership and use of guns because of what "might happen" in the future.

    The proof that it is the banning of guns, not the reduction of shootings that motivate the anti-gun crowd is seen in the predictions that the anti-gunners made about concealed carry. In state after state we heard the warnings about "blood in the streets" and "Wild West shootouts". When this did not occur, did the anti-gun folks say "Well, I guess we were wrong and that law abiding responsible citizens can safely handle the concealed carry of firearms"? Of course not, despite the reality they continue to castigate concealed carry and by extension, private gun ownership. The fact that civilian concealed carry licensed individuals have a lower felony rate than do actual law enforcement officers shows that good citizens are still good citizens even when they own and carry guns. But this has not slowed the pro-gun control crowd one iota.

    So rather than seeking a solution to so-called "gun violence", we need to accept that human beings are sometimes prone to severe violence, and we need to deal with that reality. What we do not need to do is to restrict the natural right of self defense of the good guys in a misguided effort to stop the bad guys from doing bad things.
  7. DaisyCutter

    DaisyCutter Member

    Jul 23, 2010
    Most suicides are old folks with health issues. They have a self-determined quality of life, and once it's gone, *bang*.

    For some, it's excruciating chronic back pain, for others, it's when they can no longer mow their lawn. (Actual cases)

    It's tough on the family, but no amount of counseling is going to chance most of those minds.
  8. DeepSouth
    • Contributing Member

    DeepSouth Contributing Member

    Jan 14, 2009
    Heart of Dixie
    Could you site the source for that statement, if that's true it's ammo I need, but I have to know it true or at least have a source before I repeat it.
  9. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    May 21, 2004
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    Maybe Christians will be allowed to participate in this "national discussion".

    In Genesis 6:5 we read: "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (ESV)

    So, the problem is in the human heart, one that is inclined to wickedness. The entire rest of the Bible deals with God's plan to change hearts. Thus, as a Christian, I believe that the problem will exist, in varying degrees (sometimes lessened during times of national revival, sometimes accentuated during times of national rebellion) until Christ comes back and ushers in His eternal kingdom.

    That said, the Christian is commanded to share the hope of Christ with the world, especially with those who are hurting (the suicidal) and those in open rebellion (the criminal element). This is done through the preaching of the Gospel, with acts of service; sustaining the weak, feeding the hungry, visiting the prisoners, and binding up the wounds. The answer, in reality, is Christ. He is the only One who can change wicked hearts and incline them towards justice.

    Like I said, I hope that Christians are allowed to participate in this discussion and bring these words into the marketplace of ideas. Like the Apostle Paul, I am troubled by the idols of our society, but that shouldn't keep me from proclaiming the "unknown God", even in the face of ridicule and opposition.
  10. Capybara

    Capybara Member

    Mar 21, 2012
    Ventura County, Ca.
    I don't know what the exact solution is to these problems but I know it has little to nothing to do with guns. It has everything to do with the broken society we have crafted. Trying to rebuild society is going to be nearly impossible. There are a few intelligent progressive statists who realize this and while they are not against more gun laws and banning guns, they acknowledge that more bans and laws won't do anything in a nation with 300 million guns. But most of them fall for the easy way out that their overlords propose, more pointless bans, more pointless gun laws when we cannot even enforce the laws already on the books.

    These problems, at their core, stem from a failure to lead. Failure of the family to stay intact. Failure of policies to take care of the mentally imbalanced and ill. Failure of people to take accountability for their actions. Failure to look out for and care about other people as much as they care about themselves. No politician is going to take ownership and responsibility for being a failure at their job and no sheeple is going to take responsibility for electing and following these failures. We have a failed community organizer as the Commander in Chief, we have a failed system of government, that while still superior to the systems that all other countries have, has become corrupt. The system is the best, but through the weakness of people's convictions, the system is failing too many in too many ways.

    There is no easy fix or even a difficult fix to our problems. We will eventually be outvoted, steamrolled and disarmed, the question is merely how long it will take. Sounds pessimistic but I am a realist. It's actually a miracle we have not yet fallen to complete tyranny as the rest of the world has. But when the Democratic frontrunners are an avowed Socialist and a tyrannical, corrupt egomaniac, then the opposing team is filled with cartoon caricatures who spout various flavors of conservative, yet still Statist rhetoric, we must realize that we just get to choose between two flavors of bad. Nobody is for freedom, nobody preaches responsibility, nobody presents solutions that can actually work. America, other than during the Civil War, has never been so divided because nobody is at the helm guiding the ship, we are wallowing and floating in circles as the ship sinks.
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  11. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Member

    Jun 19, 2006
    SLC, Utah
    It is fallacious to think that the main goal of hoplophobes is to reduce violent crime. It is also fallacious to think that there are magical minor laws that can prevent violent crime.

    The ultimate prohibition for violent crime already exists. Commission of murder is punishable by death. Why would lesser prohibitions have any effect when the ultimate prohibition ceases to be an effective deterrent?

    This is not an "extreme" position, how is it "extreme" to ask that the extant laws be enforced? If you think that this position is somehow "extreme" you have been duped.
  12. yokel

    yokel Member

    Apr 29, 2007
    Are we asking the right questions?

    Lousy questions turn your focus away from what you want and towards more of what you don’t want.

    I would submit that what is actually needed is a comprehensive strategy to dismantle the country's pernicious gun control culture.

    To violate the fundamental Constitutional rights is to deny individuals their fundamental moral entitlements. It is, in a sense, to treat them as if they are less than human and undeserving of respect and dignity. Taking Second Amendment rights seriously means taking responsibility for their protection everywhere. If, through its atrocious actions, a state destroys the lives and rights of its citizens, it temporarily forfeits its claims to legitimacy and sovereignty.
  13. HammsBeer

    HammsBeer Member

    Dec 5, 2013
    Spats McGee, thank you for the feedback. I'll try to clarify a few of my ideas...

    I should have said charged with a violent felony as too many of them seem to get off lightly on otherwise serious crimes, but I am certainly not well versed in legal matters so I will defer to your expertise.

    The details would not have to be disclosed, a simple go/no-go response would be effective. It could require information freely given by the person being checked, along with a pin number to allow the check to proceed. I could see it being useful in other situations like hiring a babysitter or handyman work at your home, which are often cash jobs. True the NICS checks are inconsistent and that would be a place to start.

    There is some legislation at the states level that bars someone from gun ownership if they have had any history of psychiatric help with no chance of restoring that right. That needs to change.

    There are states that have "may issue" carry laws with local LE that refuse to sign off on carry permits, thereby denying a person's right to carry. That needs to change to a shall issue so the people are not subject to LE whims.

    Similar to the state may issue laws, some local city ordinances (other than unlawful discharge of a firearm in city limits) ban certain types of firearms or carry rights.

    If someone wants to carry under the permit laws of there own state that is fine. But instead of trampling states rights with a national reciprocity law that forces stiffer or more lax standards on state permits, a separate federal level carry permit with additional training might be better recognized by all states, similar to how a driver's license is recognized in all 50 states.

    I'll concede a few places would be better to remain off limits.

    Mandating safe storage, no, that's unenforceable. But there are those parents who think junior can do no wrong, and are then shocked when he shoots his ex-gf and her new bf at school. Even the best teens make stupid decisions when the hormones start raging, so it's getting the parents to take real responsibility for the security of their firearms.

    I saw first hand at the '13 state hearings the so called "expert" that the legislators called upon to educate them about firearms. A whole plate full of misrepresentation and misdirection sprinkled with just enough truth to make it all sound good. Luckily a pro-gun representative at the hearing was able to dismantle his lies in front of everyone present.

    Thanks for taking the time to respond to each one of these ideas.
    I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. If you need honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
  14. denton

    denton Member

    Feb 22, 2011
    Free state of Utah
    You're doing better late at night than many people do when fully rested. Good post.
  15. AStone

    AStone Member

    Aug 5, 2005
    Far N, E coast
    I'm not reading here as closely as I'd like to. (Life is going to get easier for me for a while starting in November.)

    But what I am reading is interesting, thought-provoking and much of it seems reasonable.

    Will solutions emerge from this? Probably not. Color me skeptical (or is it realistic?). But any move in that direction can only help.

    I'm reminded again that this is one of the most difficult social issues that we face in the US.

    I'm most impressed, however, with the general civility of the discussion and the depth of ... explanation.
  16. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Dec 29, 2002
    ^^^^^This. More laws will only be enacted to further control the LAW ABIDING populace, and shift even more power to the politicians, and the agencies they direct.

    Maybe more resources should be devoted to the mental health issues, but I am not sure that would help anything either. Criminals, and crazies will always get the tools they need to commit crimes. The numbers of deaths from these mass shooting while disturbing, pale in comparison to gang member/drug dealers shooting each other, and the innocent as well.
  17. jrmiddleton425

    jrmiddleton425 Member

    Jan 18, 2011
    A mandatory mental health evaluation MIGHT have stopped the shootings in Virginia and Oregon. Even then you would have to apply the same rules to non-cartridge black powder and pre-1899 guns.

    What I think WILL eventually shake out is this, and it's not good: all sales and transfers must be done by an FFL, and a transfer cannot happen without a "Proceed" from NICS.
  18. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Jul 9, 2012
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    A mandatory mental health evaluation by whom, for what, and under what criteria is it evaluated by?

    Also, any kind of honest mental evaluation is a very time consuming process. It isn't done just by filling in a Q&A sheet. It isn't done by a single meeting with a health care professional. It's a long, involved, time consuming process. And that's not counting the time it takes to get an appointment set up in a "reasonable" time.

    It is an arguable point that far more people have been killed through the power of the pen than with guns. Or over religious matters. Does this mean such an evaluation is required before anybody can exercise their First Amendment rights?

    Is this mental health evaluation required of everybody, or only for those who seek to purchase firearms? Who's going to pay for this? Who is going to administer them? Will it be covered under insurance?

    These are all important considerations that I think many people over look in today's "everything is solved in one episode on TV" mentality. It's easy to say "just get a mental health evaluation". It's nowhere near that simple, or short, in real life.
  19. jrmiddleton425

    jrmiddleton425 Member

    Jan 18, 2011

    Believe me, I hear what you're saying; I've had more than a few medical referrals in my lifetime. The firearms laws what they are at the present time, there isn't a whole lot that can be done without major changes.

    That aside, the Heller decision placed two conditions on firearms ownership. A person must be legally sane, and not a felon.

    Secondly, mental illness places a person under a legal disability to own firearms.

    I guess what I'm saying is this: only in America, is it possible to require that a person not be mentally ill as a condition of owning firearms, and then throw up our hands and say "But there's no way to evaluate that!"
  20. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Jul 9, 2012
    SC (Home), VA (Work)

    And people often lose sight of several other factors, not the least of which is that safety is not absolute and that people have an individual responsibility that extends beyond their own personal boundaries.

    What I mean by that last part is that as individuals, we're also responsible for establishing and maintaining the foundations for proper behavior and good citizenship within our own families. Way too many problems in society are caused by fractured families and families who do not understand what their proper role in raising children is, many of which are also perfectly happy to let government agencies have far too big a hand in this.

    Oh, well...possible thread drift here. :)
  21. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Jan 10, 2014
    Somewhere in WA.
    A lot of people being shot in a country with 300 million guns doesn't surprise me. With that many guns and so many people willing to use them there are going to be mass shootings. You can't mandate morality and you can't pass any laws that will prevent mass shootings. If you could CA wouldn't have any mass shootings but there have been 19 there so far this year. http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

    I hear a lot about identifying people with mental health issues and denying them access to guns. But people with mental health issues have the same rights to privacy that I do. Are we going to violate everyone's 4A rights to privacy to find a few with a diagnosed mental illness who try to purchase a gun. Probably not without some intervention by the courts. It isn't going to solve the problem anyway because mostly people with mental health issues aren't prone to be violent. http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

    If you actually look at who the recent mass shooters are you would be more likely to find that they are suffering from toxic masculinity, white supremacy, racism, seeking attention or some other dysfunction that can't be defined as mental illness.

    Why can't we just accept that given the conditions of our society in the US that we are going to have mass shootings. This sounds a bit callous but we have lots of vehicles in the US also, just like guns. Drunk drivers killed 10,000 people in 2013. Is the answer to that taking all the cars off the road or maybe just find out who drinks and deny them a license to drive or purchase a vehicle.

    I can think of a few solutions to the mass shooting problem but I don't think anyone here wants to hear them.
  22. 12131

    12131 Member

    Dec 22, 2007
    God's Country (TEXAS)
    Here's the problem that some, or even many, gun owners do not realize. Or maybe, they're in denial. The ultimate goal of the anti side is the eventual total ban of private firearm ownership, period.
    They can tell you otherwise, but they're just lying to you to lull you into a comfortable position.
    Gun grabbers: We don't want to take guns away from you. We just want reasonable restrictions to solve the gun violence plague.
    Some gun owners: Yeah, they ain't so bad. Let's compromise to reduce gun violence. Let's try to find a solution.

    So, new gun laws are passed. Woo hoo! Utopia is near. Then, a few months later, another mass shooting.

    Gun grabbers: It's the evil guns again. We need stricter gun laws to solve this gun violence problem.

    So, you see, they will try to chip away at your right, one little piece at the time. Before you know it, your guns will be gone, if you continue to compromise. It doesn't matter what solutions you think you can come up with, or what new gun laws can be passed, shooting will still happen. And, every time it happens, the gun grabbers will push for more gun control.
  23. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Jul 26, 2004
    Want to stop gun violence?
    Everybody needs to stop shooting everybody else.
    It's as simple as that and about as achievable as world peace...
  24. steelerdude99

    steelerdude99 Member

    Dec 28, 2010
    Stafford County, VA
    But that is the system we have; the people elect someone to speak on their behalf. A gun proficiency test (or even "gun terms" test) is not part of the election process. This is a republic as opposed to a democracy; little r and little d and not related to the political parties of similar names. Some states, like WA make it easier than others to get a ballot initiative which makes it more of a democratic process (will of the majority who vote). It does not mean the voters understand the initiative. In the WA I594 case, a poorly worded ballot initiative cost them their rights. A few sentences did not describe what was in store for the "too lazy to read" masses.

    But anyhow, educating the ignorant would be an admirable goal; but how? Writing your reps from time to time to say you are in favor or opposed to a proposed law is a good place to start. Not a good writer? Then download a form latter from a state of national guns rights group. [Never "showing your cards" is part of the game. Saying that you did not vote for them or don't plan on voting for them will get you nothing!]

  25. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Richmond, Virginia
    "Is this mental health evaluation required of everybody, or only for those who seek to purchase firearms? Who's going to pay for this? Who is going to administer them? Will it be covered under insurance?"

    Having known and worked with more than a few dozen psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed social workers and licensed professional counselors over a period of three decades, I predict that the vast majority won't want to sign their name to a report that says a person is non-violent and not dangerous and won't ever shoot or kill anyone if allowed to buy a gun.

    Think about the personal, professional and all-around legal liability when the report turns out to be wrong. It might be next year or it might be 20 years, but some victim's lawyer will have a copy of the report.

    Sure, there will plenty of fly-by-night operators willing to make a buck, but overall - nah.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice