|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 15 2012 05:57 Zandar wrote:
So weird. 90% of the time there is a school shooting it seems to happen in the same country.
A country that has some silly gun law that a majority of its citizens wants to keep.
I guess they find all these deaths less important than the freedom to carry a gun.
Finland had more homocides by firearms in 2010 per 100k
Finland = 3.64
USA = 2.98
Remember that nearly 60% of firearm related deaths in the USA are suicide-related.
|
On December 15 2012 05:58 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:53 Hypemeup wrote:On December 15 2012 05:48 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 05:42 divito wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:
However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. Appeals to emotion make my brain hurt. Let's avoid fallacies people. His scenario is not an appeal to emotion. This actually happened to me. It's a real scenario. And one that people are faced with. Seriously. If these people ever get robbed and their families lives are at risk, they'd change their minds and have some sort of practicial tool for self defense like a gun if they are lucky enough to survive the encounter. I don't need that to happen to me, I can't imagine waking up at night and hearing 3 people break into your home not knowing what the hell they are going to do. I had no idea you were some sort of prophet who knows how people will react to these situations. When it happens to you, you know. It's life-changing. Mentally, it's the equivalent to getting raped. It's such a violation of your privacy and your person, there is no way it cannot change you. My mother didn't sleep at night for nearly a month after it happened. And it lingers. Even 5 years later, when I'm visiting I can tell she's shaken. I routinely get locked out when I go out at night... even though she knows I'm out. She'd rather have me wake her up to let me in than risk leaving a door unlocked. And this house is not in a bad neighborhood by ANY means. The doors were NEVER locked before it happened unless we were leaving for like a week at a time.
Having been mugged on my own & with my brother and having had my neighbours house robbed when their young teenage girl still in the house, I have been trough my share of "violent crimes". It did shake me somewhat but it did not change my thoughts on Gun laws in the slightest. People deal with traumas very diffrently, some will deal with it much worse than others.
|
On December 15 2012 06:03 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:57 Zandar wrote:
So weird. 90% of the time there is a school shooting it seems to happen in the same country.
A country that has some silly gun law that a majority of its citizens wants to keep.
I guess they find all these deaths less important than the freedom to carry a gun. Finland had more homocides by firearms in 2010 per 100k Finland = 3.64 USA = 2.98 Remember that nearly 60% of firearm related deaths in the USA are suicide-related.
May I ask you sources of your statistics?
|
On December 15 2012 05:55 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:53 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:49 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:41 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out. As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe  At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy. Of course you don't, i mean what redneck would actually know when most of them never shot a weapon to a mobile person on their fucking life. Unfortunately, i had, and i also trained the recruits at shooting, which even people with background using weapons, they are still really unlikely to pull the trigger when the time comes. You think you are safer because you have a gun, in reality you are not because you lack the training, the experience and you are more likely to get shot than kill the robbers if they are armed and had actually planned how to break into your house. If they planned to rob mine (which is more unlikely than yours, even with a gun), they wouldn't be armed. You clearly don't know a damn thing about americans and their situation with firearms and violent home invasions so stop pretending you do. Yes, i am pretty sure you are all goddamned marksmen.
Anyone not from a metro area has likely fired a gun in the Midwest.
|
On December 15 2012 06:00 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:56 crms wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism  But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:
[quote]
i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. The fuck is it with these arguments? The burglar wants money. He doesn't get money by killing you. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/suspect-in-violent-break-in-bustedYou can find countless other examples in the news if you actually try. There are people who commit acts of violence upon breaking in, be it rape, assault, or whatever else. If nothing else, if they break in, here in Texas, they know I could own a firearm, at which point my very presence could constitute a potentially violent response, even if I was NOT armed. Thus, if they have the means to visit violence upon me preemptively, I would be surprised if they didn't, just to control the situation. Now, if someone said "your house is going to be robbed in ten minutes" while I was out eating dinner, I'd stay out for a while, and let it happen, call the cops and insurance. That's common sense, keeping my family out of a dangerous situation. However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. Of course not. But this is about societal change, not one particular scenario. You are more than in your right to defend yourself within reason. But prevalent attitudes toward guns in US are not actually making you safer, quite the opposite in the long run. Problem is that to get safer society you would need to suffer a period of being less safe. And that is why strict gun control is such a problematic thing in US. You are in local maximum, to get to a global one you first need to reach local minimum. In other first world countries gun ownership for defense is mostly nonsensical as it is more likely that it will cause you harm then help with any defense. However, the guns don't cause the problem, the people cause the problem. I sincerely doubt that if we built a giant electromagnet to collect every gun in the country, it would cease violent crime. It would just stop us from hearing the story of the young female stopping the violent ex-boyfriend instead of ending up in the hospital or worse. Surely you're joking? Nobody thinks violent crime would cease. If the hypothetical situation arose where every gun was wiped out of the country, homicides and escalations resulting in death would CERTAINLY go down. There would still be violent crimes but it's a lot easier to kill with a gun purposefully or accidentally. Even as gun owner myself (12 gauge shotgun and .45 S&W) I can see this simple truth. I'm aware that gun crime requires guns. I just don't see guns as the root of the problem, they're just a means to an end. People who want to be violent will still be violent if they have less ways available. There was war and murder before the gun, after all. I don't believe gun control is bad. I believe that it would be incredibly difficult, between our political climate, and the number of available firearms, to actually implement something effective, and since that's the case, I prefer to be armed.
Those are my thoughts in a nutshell as well. As a responsible gun owner until there is a fundamental shift in our politics or culture there is no reason to NOT be armed. I wish I could snap my fingers and guns went away for good but it's just not a reality. Until significant progress is made in this realm, I'll keep me guns and have no qualms about it.
|
On December 15 2012 06:05 Moka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:03 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 05:57 Zandar wrote:
So weird. 90% of the time there is a school shooting it seems to happen in the same country.
A country that has some silly gun law that a majority of its citizens wants to keep.
I guess they find all these deaths less important than the freedom to carry a gun. Finland had more homocides by firearms in 2010 per 100k Finland = 3.64 USA = 2.98 Remember that nearly 60% of firearm related deaths in the USA are suicide-related. May I ask you sources of your statistics?
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
sort by homocide. sources are WHO and UN.
|
On December 15 2012 05:58 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:40 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:32 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. No it's not. What you are doing by having guns for self-defense is making the criminal move on to another house where the people don't have them. Why rob someone with a gun instead of someone who doesn't have one. Criminals do not burgle random houses. They usually plan the robbery in advance and cannot just move to another house. Have you ever discussed burglary with anyone who knows anything about it? (Police or crimianl) Can you provide me some evidence that backs up even a tiny inch of what you are saying? http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com/criminals-fear-armed-citizens-more-then-the-police-poll-states/1. Would you B&E (break and enter) a home if you thought it occupied?
A. No — 88 percent (the other 12 percent are hard-core burglars).
2. Would you B&E a home if you knew the owner was home and maybe had a gun?
A. No — 95 percent (the other 5 percent are called cat burglars)
3. Would you B&E a home if you knew the owner was home and did, in fact, have a gun?
A. No — 100 percent (I told you they fear the homeowner).
No other survey I studied in my 27 years of law enforcement in Miami Metro Dade County did I see a 100 percent, not even for a Mother’s Day holiday.In the US, most criminals fear us, in your country it's appears to be the opposite. Such a good source, as good as hearsay. Note that even without a gun there is 88% "prevention" rate. So you gained 12% and paid for that by having basically militarized and violent society in which you are more likely to get killed and more likely to get robbed (as the robbers actually do not know if you are home and/or own a gun thus making the above irrelevant). And I do fear criminals, I am not stupid. But I am less likely to be a victim of serious crime than you so the amount of actual fear is much less.
I don't even know where to begin with your post. So you're saying having guns for self defense has "created a militarized and violent society where you are more likely to get killed and robbed." I'm sorry that you learned these "facts" from god knows where but they are false. Guns don't MAKE anyone violent. You have this concept that reminds me a lot of The Lord of the Rings where the ring turns whoever has it evil, that is FUNNY. Again, you have no stats like I asked for that back up even the slightest bit of what you say. You just see crime and blame it on guns. That's stupid.
You fear criminals, but you are not stupid. Yet you are risking your own life on the chances that you'll never come across a criminal or get robbed or whatever. I could do that too, the chances are low in most places of even getting robbed whether or not you have a gun. But it does happen to people, A LOT, they have every right to defend themselves.
|
On December 15 2012 05:58 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:52 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 05:42 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:37 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:
[quote]
i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. The fuck is it with these arguments? The burglar wants money. He doesn't get money by killing you. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/suspect-in-violent-break-in-bustedYou can find countless other examples in the news if you actually try. There are people who commit acts of violence upon breaking in, be it rape, assault, or whatever else. If nothing else, if they break in, here in Texas, they know I could own a firearm, at which point my very presence could constitute a potentially violent response, even if I was NOT armed. Thus, if they have the means to visit violence upon me preemptively, I would be surprised if they didn't, just to control the situation. Now, if someone said "your house is going to be robbed in ten minutes" while I was out eating dinner, I'd stay out for a while, and let it happen, call the cops and insurance. That's common sense, keeping my family out of a dangerous situation. However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. I simply doubt the "countless". And I doubt the situation "it is my life or the life of the thiefes" occurs oh so often. I thought you were living in a first world country not fucking somalia. If it's enough to not be readily counted, it's countless enough for countless. And if it's a choice of my physical well-being vs a dead criminal, I'm content with a dead criminal. It could also be that it happens that rarely that nobody counts it. All you do is throw around the "but what if I and my family are threatened with deadly force". And I call it bullshit: You are living in a first world country. You are not at war. Why do you make up scenarios like you are at Afghanistan fighting Osama bin Laden? So you automatically assume that deadly force means land mines, RPGs, and AK's? Get your head out of the video game. People get killed and severely injured with kitchen knives and blunt objects. Obviously, the odds are lower, but fuck, people win the lottery. All that shit that always happens to someone else? Guess what, you're someone else to someone else. A lot of violent crime is only not lethal because of modern medicine.
sure because the burglar will dig some land mines in the house he breaks into.
But fuck it, that's the main point. Less people die when attacked with knifes and clubs compared to guns. And this actually is what matters. Like the chinese school rampage where nobody died because the kid used a knife instead of a gun.
|
On December 15 2012 06:00 JingleHell wrote:
if they have less ways available. There was war and murder before the gun, after all.
I don't believe gun control is bad. I believe that it would be incredibly difficult, between our political climate, and the number of available firearms, to actually implement something effective, and since that's the case, I prefer to be armed.
We had a day here once where everyone who had a weapon could give it to the police without any consequences.
This was after a law passed where some kind of knives like stilletto's where prohibited.
Those where popular among adolescents back then and quite common.
But if you kept it after that day the consequences would be severe.
Millions of weapons collected. Of course not all, but it's a start.
And they kept their promise too, mostly. 1 guy still got in some more investigation trouble when he came to the police station with an anti tank weapon 
|
On December 15 2012 06:06 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:00 JingleHell wrote:
if they have less ways available. There was war and murder before the gun, after all.
I don't believe gun control is bad. I believe that it would be incredibly difficult, between our political climate, and the number of available firearms, to actually implement something effective, and since that's the case, I prefer to be armed. We had a day here once where everyone who had a weapon could give it to the police without any consequences. But if you kept it after that day the consequences would be severe. Millions of weapons collected. Of course not all, but it's a start. And they kept their promise too, mostly. 1 guy still got in some more investigation trouble when he came to the police station with an anti tank weapon
Unfortunately, the people who would turn over their gun on a day like that aren't the ones I'm concerned about. Just saying.
|
On December 15 2012 05:53 JingleHell wrote:
Who deserves more protection under law, the person violating the rights of others, or the person having their rights violated?
Whether I own a gun or not, my "right" to not be broken into can still be violated. If I'm armed in my house, I think I stand more chance of being fired upon than if I'm not armed; only thing that will change that is the frame of mind of the criminal.
The whole issue is fairly circular though. The US is the only first-world nation that has such loose restrictions on guns, and has the kind of population and violence to showcase ridiculous stats. This gives pro-gun people something to point to, saying "see, we need it." It's going to be impossible to convince outside countrymen that have lower gun-related crime and higher restrictions on obtaining guns, that it somehow makes sense.
|
On December 15 2012 06:01 revel8 wrote:
Guns should be controlled. The current situation is not really working in America. How many more times must these sort of things happen there before people realise that? From reading this thread, still some way to go.
A very sad day.
They are controlled. Quite a bit actually.
|
On December 15 2012 06:06 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:00 JingleHell wrote:
if they have less ways available. There was war and murder before the gun, after all.
I don't believe gun control is bad. I believe that it would be incredibly difficult, between our political climate, and the number of available firearms, to actually implement something effective, and since that's the case, I prefer to be armed. We had a day here once where everyone who had a weapon could give it to the police without any consequences. But if you kept it after that day the consequences would be severe. Millions of weapons collected. Of course not all, but it's a start. And they kept their promise too, mostly. 1 guy still got in some more investigation trouble when he came to the police station with an anti tank weapon
Yeah, they do that here too. Pay you in some cities to turn in hand guns. You know who doesn't participate? Criminals.
|
On December 15 2012 06:08 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:06 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 06:00 JingleHell wrote:
if they have less ways available. There was war and murder before the gun, after all.
I don't believe gun control is bad. I believe that it would be incredibly difficult, between our political climate, and the number of available firearms, to actually implement something effective, and since that's the case, I prefer to be armed. We had a day here once where everyone who had a weapon could give it to the police without any consequences. But if you kept it after that day the consequences would be severe. Millions of weapons collected. Of course not all, but it's a start. And they kept their promise too, mostly. 1 guy still got in some more investigation trouble when he came to the police station with an anti tank weapon Yeah, they do that here too. Pay you in some cities to turn in hand guns. You know who doesn't participate? Criminals.
Criminals don't start school shootings
|
On December 15 2012 05:53 hzflank wrote:
The funny thing is: I think America's gun laws are right for American culture. I just don't like the way that people claim that American gun laws make American's safer. American gun laws cause more American deaths. But, the whole point of the USA is that it is the land of the free, where there is a little government intervention as possible. If someone were to simply say that freedom to bear arms is a core part of American culture I would not try to argue with that. But people saying that guns do not cause a lot of deaths in ridiculous.
I agree with this.
Although I hardly consider figthing fire with fire an expression of freedom. I actually don't think it is smart at all to allow common people to carry guns.
|
On December 15 2012 06:08 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:01 revel8 wrote:
Guns should be controlled. The current situation is not really working in America. How many more times must these sort of things happen there before people realise that? From reading this thread, still some way to go.
A very sad day. They are controlled. Quite a bit actually.
Evidently not enough.
|
On December 15 2012 06:06 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:00 JingleHell wrote:
if they have less ways available. There was war and murder before the gun, after all.
I don't believe gun control is bad. I believe that it would be incredibly difficult, between our political climate, and the number of available firearms, to actually implement something effective, and since that's the case, I prefer to be armed. We had a day here once where everyone who had a weapon could give it to the police without any consequences. This was after a law passed where some kind of knives like stilletto's where prohibited. Those where popular among adolescents back then and quite common. But if you kept it after that day the consequences would be severe. Millions of weapons collected. Of course not all, but it's a start. And they kept their promise too, mostly. 1 guy still got in some more investigation trouble when he came to the police station with an anti tank weapon
Every major city sponsors these from time to time.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459519/chicago-gun-turn-in-yields-5500-firearms/
|
On December 15 2012 06:08 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:53 JingleHell wrote:
Who deserves more protection under law, the person violating the rights of others, or the person having their rights violated? Whether I own a gun or not, my "right" to not be broken into can still be violated. If I'm armed in my house, I think I stand more chance of being fired upon than if I'm not armed; only thing that will change that is the frame of mind of the criminal. The whole issue is fairly circular though. The US is the only first-world nation that has such loose restrictions on guns, and has the kind of population and violence to showcase ridiculous stats. This gives pro-gun people something to point to, saying "see, we need it." It's going to be impossible to convince outside countrymen that have lower gun-related crime and higher restrictions on obtaining guns, that it somehow makes sense.
I'm aware that the argument is circular. See my other posts, regarding my opinion on gun control.
However, I don't agree that being unarmed makes you safer. It just changes the form the violence might or might not take. If the criminal isn't going to be violent if you're unarmed, they're probably just going to run or surrender if you pull a gun. If they're going to attack you, there's a chance they might have anyways, just to prove who's in control.
As for whether that attack will be lethal or potentially lethal, there's actually no way to prove it either way, because every situation will be different, and since it's all hypothetical from here, we can make it any hypothetical we want to support our side of things.
|
On December 15 2012 06:10 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:08 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:01 revel8 wrote:
Guns should be controlled. The current situation is not really working in America. How many more times must these sort of things happen there before people realise that? From reading this thread, still some way to go.
A very sad day. They are controlled. Quite a bit actually. Evidently not enough.
We do better than your next door neighbors.
|
On December 15 2012 06:10 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:08 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 06:06 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 06:00 JingleHell wrote:
if they have less ways available. There was war and murder before the gun, after all.
I don't believe gun control is bad. I believe that it would be incredibly difficult, between our political climate, and the number of available firearms, to actually implement something effective, and since that's the case, I prefer to be armed. We had a day here once where everyone who had a weapon could give it to the police without any consequences. But if you kept it after that day the consequences would be severe. Millions of weapons collected. Of course not all, but it's a start. And they kept their promise too, mostly. 1 guy still got in some more investigation trouble when he came to the police station with an anti tank weapon Yeah, they do that here too. Pay you in some cities to turn in hand guns. You know who doesn't participate? Criminals. Criminals don't start school shootings
How could you possibly think that's relevant? Psychopaths who murder children also don't turn in their weapons. What's your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
