Blogs Oct 1, 2009 at 10:46 am


"Owning a gun is owning a stupidity"

So in that case you must own alot of guns then?
That's interesting. I know that if I owned a gun I would do something stupid with it and either get in trouble or get hurt.
I'm willing to bet that these people who died in a gunfight didn't actually know how to use a gun. Unfortuneately the majority of people out there who own weapons have never been properly trained in how to use them. That will get you killed. Someone who's never been shown how to use a table saw is probably at a higher risk of chopping off their fingers.
Let's help Charles get to 100 comments here, people?

What you've said here echoes what I've said many times. It couldn't be more true. Gun ownership for self-defense is a tragic fantasy.
How many more robberies would occur if the pool of potential perpetrators could confidently assume that their victims would be unarmed and harmless? How many fewer if counter-violence was considered probable?
The second you reach for your gun, the other guy has to shoot you. The mere presence of a gun escalates the situation.

By the time you see the threat, it's too late to pull your piece. And yet gun enthusiasts can never let go of this fantasy that it will be different when it's their turn to pull their piece.
#1 it actually used to say:

"Own a gun is owning a stupidity."
#3, see #6
Yet another bogus study by some ivory-towered, east coast fuckwit who set out to prove guns were evil and (gosh, what a surprise!) succeeded. How much do you want to bet that this "study" ends up just as thoroughly discredited as all the previous ones that supposedly arrived at the same conclusion?
but the handgun makes you FEEL safer, so it's worth all the suicides, homicides, mass murders, accidental shooting we have as a result of saving FEELINGS.

i know that a "well-regulated militia" is defined by the courts as "any male over 18", but give me a break. i don't see any REGULATION. it's like saying a well-tempered clavier is any piano with 88 keys.
Charles is right.
you Libs turn your guns in.
let the government take care of you.
@3 - You have flawed logic. What about the people who don't go near table saws? They have an even lower risk of getting their fingers cut off than a properly trained saw operator.
"This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes."

This would make sense to me if shootings were random like cancer or car crashes - I haven't studied the findings but don't a lot of shootings occur between people who know each other? Or even rival gang members, both of whom are more likely to have a gun? I would be more interested in statistics that show the success of an attempt to actually respond to seeing a gun by pulling a gun.

By the way, I am strongly in favor of gun control, but would prefer much tighter arguments to support that position.
If there was anything to back this up, why aren't you nuts clamoring to disarm cops? Because they should be more likely to get killed because they have guns too.

Nope, it doesn't work that way.
I couldn't agree with you more. Owning a gun and I am talking about a handgun (not rifles or shotguns especially used for hunting) ostensibly used for "protection" is an invitation to tragedy. And also, I am not talking about handgun accidents (several of which occur, many fatally) like what happened to Plaxico Burress (the NFL player who accidently shot himself while carrying a handgun). No, the problem is "other" handgun owners.

Consider this: someone armed say intent upon commiting a crime, any crime sees someone armed and not a cop or soldier. It is completely in the interest of the former to be stealth and ensure that the latter is vulnerable. It's commonly called "getting the drop on the victim (the latter)". Unless the latter has compound eyes, a weapon of any sort proves useless once the person is disarmed (got "dropped"). The latter could easily be killed. Thus proving possession of a firearm not only didn't protect him but arguably got the victim killed.

I'm with you on this one Charles.
The only thing guns are good for is shooting abandoned major appliances. SO FUN.
Part of the problem with this stat is that it doesn't account for the fact that people who own guns (mafia, gang members...) already are living in a culture of violence and are therefore more likely to be shot and killed. Maybe it is or isn't a large portion of that stat, but it is at least some piece of it.

That being said, I would think that if you are armed, an intruder is more likely to kill you out of their own self defense.
hey douchebag.

when you the citizen own a gun you would have to keep it
1. on your night table by the bed
2. loaded and with the safety off
3. where your kid could get it
4. you would also have to STAY AWAKE ALL NIGHT
5. so that when the armed intruder comes in even though it's dark you could
and fucking shoot to kill.

(without saying "hey Billy, is that you? drunk again?)

Good luck I hope you don't kill your drunk son Billy.
@14 We pay cops to take that risk.
First, while I'm not really in favor of gun control, I will come out fully in favor of any studies which will annoy gun nuts. They have absolutely zero interest in a serious study of these matters, preferring NRA-backed studies that reaffirm all their preconceptions. And anything that gets them just that much closer to having a rage-induced stroke and keeling over is probably a plus for us all. Paranoid freaks, they are.

Having said that: this study sounds quite crappy when you look at the details. It's basically saying that people who got shot were more likely to have a gun on their person, as far as I can tell. Imagine! Did it occur to them that those particular people may have been at much higher risk of getting shot anyway, gun or no gun? Did they make even the slightest attempt to control for this?
This is the same idiotic case-control methodology that CDC's Kellermann used to do, before Congress cut off his funding. In epidemiology they compare the environment and habits, etc., of dead people to nearby folks who aren't dead.

Kellermann found a correlation between being shot dead and owning a gun, but there was a stronger correlation between renting your abode and being shot dead, and even stronger between not owning a dog and being shot dead.

Yet the CDC never put out any press releases encouraging dog ownership, because their agenda was to limit legal gun ownership.

In the article linked here, only six percent of the dead people were armed. So I would say you're better off being armed.
Anything that results in an increased number of dead gun owners is fine by me. Those people are dangerous. How many of the dead gun owners in this study were killed by non gun owners? Precisely.
If people were really interested in self-defense, they'd wouldn't carry a gun: they'd carry a personal taser.

Guns are for angry, insecure people who are more interested in making a political statement. They are not a rational choice.
I cannot fathom living in a country where people walk around carrying guns. And I've never met a Canadian who didn't also think this was ridiculous, just a terrible idea (not saying there isn't one out there, but it's pretty rare). Not even the sport hunters I've known -- the ones who love guns and collect them, and keep dead animal heads all over the walls -- think it's anything but complete wingnuttery.

Guns deserve respect. It's beyond stupid and dangerous to allow them to be packed around like cellphones.
#16 "why aren't you nuts clamoring to disarm cops? Because they should be more likely to get killed because they have guns too."

Sounds about right, actually. What #19 said, of course, but did you consider the safety benefit that armed police presumably has for everyone BUT the police?

Maybe you could point to where in the study, or in this blog post, or even in the comments section thus far, that someone is clamoring to take guns away from homeowners?
"I cannot fathom living in a country where people walk around carrying guns."

Stay away from Vermont, then. Every Vermonter can walk around carrying a gun, whether openly or concealed.

After concealed carry was liberalized in Florida, criminals robbed people driving airport rental cars, because they were least likely to be armed -- you could look it up.
Do people who own guns live in an area/have a lifestyle that is more likely to get them shot to death whether they own a gun or not? There are a lot of independent factors not accounted for.
@20 is exactly how I feel. I don't own a gun, but I'm not in favor of gun control laws.

It's the ultra-conservative, "tha gub'mint wanna take mah gun", nuts who I despise. If they're the ones getting killed in gun fights, then I'm not really going to miss them much.

The stats are correct.

Guns are frequently used against their owners and you're more likely to shoot yourself or your family and friends than any robber.

Plus, and this is something people who watch movies don't get, they tend to jam, especially if you try to use them under pressure when it's confusing. Takes a lot of training to overcome that - something virtually all gun owners do NOT have.

IF what you are saying in Florida is true, it did nothing to prove crime went down. All it shows is that crime shifted. If it wasn't out-of-towners, it would have been teenagers and old ladies. If anything it shows that by carrying a gun, you increase the risk of violence against someone else. Does that make you feel good about yourself?
Plus, and this is the biggest point, guns are frequently used to kill cute fluffy kittens, puppies, and other baby animals.

Boom! Another headshot.
FYI, 5280 is an ex-Denver cop. Don't listen to anything that homicide-enabling douchebag has to say.
I could drive a truck through the holes in their methodology... Picking names out of a phone book isn't "random." Picking "random" names out of a Philadelphia phone book doesn't mean they'll tell you the truth if you ask them, "Do you own a handgun?" etc., etc...

Basically, their control group sucks.
If you are not prepared to commit murder, whether in the act of a crime or in self defense, you should not own a gun. If you are, fire away!
"Guns are frequently used against their owners and you're more likely to shoot yourself or your family and friends than any robber."

Unfortunately that's more Kellermann crap. Always remember these are retrospective studies of dead people (or I guess this new study is shot people) compared to nearby live people. His studies never purported to show more than that gun owners were more likely to be shot than non gun owners -- not that the owned gun would be the weapon used. You were more likely to have been shot by an acquaintance than a total stranger though.
"by carrying a gun, you increase the risk of violence against someone else"

In a jungle I would rather predators prey on some one else, yes.
With all the drama in my 20s, I'm sure that if I owned a gun, I'd be dead by now. It's push-button annihilation. What could be easier?

Maybe some people can handle this kind of power, but stats and sad stories show that many, if not most, people can not. I'm glad I was at least smart (or lucky, or privileged) enough to keep clear of guns.
I'm not arguing with the findings, but I do notice that this seems to completely discount the potential for guns to deter or halt non-gun violence. What about the knife-wielding mugger or the burglar who's scared off by the sight or sound of a firearm?

Not to make a case for or against, but it seems relevant. There's a lot more to crime and to violence than shooting.
I have a thought: If criminologists refrain from studying how AIDS is spread, using criminology techniques, let epidemiologists refrain from studying how people get shot, using epidemiology techniques.
@3, @6 -- Those without guns will run away (and its hard to hit a running target). Those with guns will stay in the fray... and up their chances of getting shot.

@11 -- Big difference between being stupid enough to carry a handgun for street thug protection, versus owning a rifle and participating in a local militia to counter gov't abuses. Think more carefully please!

In sum, I'd like to thank the group(s) who did this study, proving once again that Science works, bitches!
"The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. "

This is the most misleading sentence. Only six percent of those shot in assaults possessed guns, so people without a gun were over 15 times as likely to be shot in an assault as gun owners were.

What the study actually found than people who had been shot in an assault were 4.5 times more likely to own a gun than random Philadelphians who had not been in an assault at all, and who claimed not to own guns.
"Only six percent of those shot in assaults possessed guns, so people without a gun were over 15 times as likely to be shot in an assault as gun owners were."

Uh. What? No.
Hey Charles it is a good thing that you are not required to own a gun then. You are obviously not trained in how to use one and would be part of that statistic that probably would end up getting you hurt. However just because you are willfully ignorant and untrained about your own defense doesn't mean that anyone else is.

Do you have a better plan for how someone is to defend themselves? What about an older or petite woman who has no chance to defend herself without a gun if it ever did come down to it. The courts all the way up to SCOTUS have said time and time again that the burden to defend is on yourself, not the police. This is why if you are attacked and you call the police but they take 2 hours to even show up you cannot sue them. The burden for self defense lies with yourself. This includes escalating actions starting with avoiding trouble and leading up to use of violence for self defense.

Just because you don't want a gun does not mean you should take them away from law abiding citizens. Thankfully we have the bill of rights to defend ourselves against people like you.

Also I do not understand how so many people oppose prohibition of drugs (rightfully so) and yet believe we should prohibit guns. The two ideas don't match with a consistent and ration view of the issues. It is clear to me that the fear of gun ownership is mostly an emotional response and does not come from a rational and critical review of the issue.
Well, whether you like it or not, given last year's decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, guns are going to be with us for a long, long time. And considering that the Supremes granted cert in McDonald v. Chicago yesterday, my guess is that gun owners will have even more of a reason to celebrate come next June.
@38 - actually, other studies have shown guns tend to escalate things, so that formerly non-violent situtations frequently become violent. Part of that is the attitude of the gun owner, of course.

Just go take a martial arts course, or even Tai Chi, it's way better for you.
Will, I'm aware of no legitimate study that says that. And in fact, since the crime rate has decreased in every one of the 37 states that have "shall issue" concealed-carry laws, I wouldn't take anyone who said that very seriously.
Like it or don't, my fellow libruls, there is a 2nd amendment and I have taken advantage. I own many guns and if you break in I will own you (stupid).
Ah, good, I can go back to hating. These people that are shooting themselves are not trained, nor are they interested in being trained, in firearm safety and use. If they were, accidents could have been averted. I agree with 5280 and TAJ, keeping a handgun in your house and training everyone in the house in its use will NOT result in accidental deaths.

People with guns are more likely to get shot because they are more likely be in gangs, hold up liquor stores, mug people, live in dangerous neighborhoods, roll with violent people, and deal drugs.

This has nothing to do with self defense.

What was that about stupidity, Charles?
OK kids..lets take this one at a time.

as 1/2 of a gay male couple in a very rural area let me tell you that NOTHING stops "drunk Cletus" 3am shennaganagins like the sound of chambering a round with the pump action.

Responsible owners of firearms are not the problem. Urban dwelling jackasses and gang fuckfaces are.

Ya know what...I was gonna make some other points but fuckit.
seandr @15,

People who "live in dangerous neighborhoods, roll with violent people, and deal drugs" in MY country are much less likely to get shot. Because they don't have guns.

Why is this so difficult to understand?
My comment was meant for seandr @50, of course.…
If Rebecca Griego had a weapon when Jonathan Rowan hunted her down at her office in the U of W, would he have taken it from her and shot her? The no contact order she had out on him clearly made no difference.

When James Anthony Williams carved Shannon Harps up like a Thanksgiving turkey in the doorway to her apartment, if she'd been armed, would he have been able to take her weapon and kill her with it?

When 5 teenage thugs jumped Edward McMichael at a bus stop and beat him to death, if he'd been armed, would he have been killed with his own gun?

Perhaps, but nobody knows. What we do know is that in all three cases, these victims were not armed and they were killed. They couldn't protect themselves, and in the circumstances of their violent deaths, law enforcement couldn't have done a damn thing either. You might not like guns, think they are scary, dangerous or even stupid--and they can be. But as the three cases above show, there are completely legitimate reasons to arm yourself.
regardless of the legitimate use of fire arms for self defense, this study shows that a majority of fire arm owners are ill trained to safely and successfully use their weapons to defend their selves.
"this study shows that a majority of fire arm owners are ill trained to safely and successfully use their weapons to defend their selves."

That conclusion cannot be justified by the data presented.

This study focused only on people who had been shot during an assault. No one who remained unshot during an assault was studied, whether possessing a weapon or no.

Irena -- Canada is a wonderfully nonviolent place. Chicagoans kill each other without knives or guns at the same rate as Canadians do with all weapons.

Also, note that 80% of the Canadian "gun deaths" in your cited article are suicides. To reduce gun deaths in Canada further, I suggest either more mental health outreach, or making suicide pills available.
Rifles and shotguns are effective tools for defending one's home. Their presence is obvious, people who own them are generally trained, and with a shotgun, your aim doesn't have to be that precise.
Handguns, especially concealed handguns, are lousy for self-defense, but great for offense, which is why criminals carry them. You can't scare off someone by using a concealed weapon until you draw, at which point you've forced your opponent into shooting you first. Police carry handguns openly to point out that they have the power to shoot you, not primarily for self-defense, and certainly never as a concealed weapon.
I don't know why we can't make distinctions between the types of weapons in these arguments. Rifles and shotguns are used safely by hunters and for home defense all over the world. Handguns simply aren't.
And it's pretty obvious that you can't own certain types of weapons, especially the types of weapons that would be needed to overthrow a tyrannical government, which I always thought was the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment. Nobody is arguing for the right to own the kinds of weapons that could defeat the U.S. Army. That argument was lost decisively in 1865.
@ 12,

Yeah, you're right, if those people hadn't owned tables saws they would never have cut off their fingers in their own workshops at home, but what if they were wheeling their table saw down a dark alley and a lumberjack stepped out of the shadows? They could totally use that table saw to keep the axe-wielding psycho from splitting them in two like kindling!
I have a suggestion for Charles, why not just dig a six foot hole the ground and throw yourself in? If extreme pacifism is sooo desirable and is obviously your thing why bother living? Kill yourself and save humanity for those of us who like being alive.

By court precedent, the police are under no compulsion to protect you, and why should anyone want to protect a little pussy like you?
@47 - and I'm aware that you're paranoid, cause most cops and ex-cops are, since most of the people they meet day in and day out lie to them.

but, and this is the thing, carrying guns - for virtually EVERYONE - increases your chances of getting killed.

@58 "Rifles and shotguns are effective tools for defending one's home."

Have you ever fired a rifle? The bullet can go for miles. A .223 bullet can penetrate 12 pine boards a foot thick. Rifles are completely unsuited for home defense unless you're the only house for miles around, and you live at the bottom of a hill.
I meant 12 pine boards, each an inch thick.
ha ha ha ha ha

"extreme [generic believe] is not only morally excellent"

don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back there Ted, say hello to Bill while you are at it.

Second, remember that famous study that showed that child cavity count correlated right along with vocablulary? Totally solid science. So what do we take from that study? Feed our kids sugar so they learn faster? Keep them dumb for good oral hygine? Turns out that an older kid was likely to have both more cavities AND a higher vocabulary.

Is there maybe something going on here too? Maybe people who KNOW they are going into high risk situations are more likely to arm themselves. Maybe criminals are more likely to both have guns AND get shot than John Q Average.

Finally, this part gets me

"To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting.'

So wait, these random people had not been assaulted, not shot at, not shot anyone, so how are they useful for forming a baseline?

Wouldn't the most scientific way be to identify some number of random gun owners across the spectrum of age, race, & income spectrum, check back in 5 years and see how many of those people had been shot, or used the gun in self defense, then compare the same number to that same population as a whole ignoring the gun/no gun question?

A lightly constructed hollowpoint or soft point .223 will usually break apart when it hits a target and therefor penetrates less surfaces than your average handgun and shotgun. This is why SWAT teams all across America are now switching over to them.

Also, has anyone noticed that the places with the most gun control have the worst crime. ie DC and Chicago for example. Why is that? Probably because crime is a social disorder and has nothing to do with the implements used.

You are far more likely to be stabbed, raped, or assaulted in England than almost anywhere in the US. They dont have many guns there but they do have a huge violent crime problem. On top of that they dont include any victims under the age of 16 in their stats, so the gap is even bigger.

Being a cop I can tell you the vast majority of people that get shot/sabbed or otherwise seriously assaulted, are not your church going grandma. These people lead a life of crime. Also your average criminal isnt a gang member. You have a lot more tweakers out there breaking into someones house than a gang member.

I have also seen far far more people successfully defend themselves with a gun against an attacker than killed or shot or stabbed. Remember you dont actually have to shoot someone to defend yourself if they run away at the sight of you being armed.
Yep, lets just bend over and take it... no don't mind me, I'm just throwing away my right to protect my life and safety. Because I have so little confidence in my ability to defend myself that I've decided to leave it in the hands of the very people who are trying to rape, kill, rob, or do other grievous harm to me. All I ask is that you use a little lube while your fucking my freedom in the ass.

NEW FLASH: It's easier to learn how to safely operate a firearm than safely operate a car. If you can't do it, you are either extremely irresponsible or incompetent and shouldn't be doing either. Man up and take responsibility for your own destiny.
"The second you reach for your gun, the other guy has to shoot you. The mere presence of a gun escalates the situation.

By the time you see the threat, it's too late to pull your piece. And yet gun enthusiasts can never let go of this fantasy that it will be different when it's their turn to pull their piece."

Not the time I had to draw.

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self defense, because you think it's a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

Evil grants no mercy, and to attempt to appease it is nothing more than a piecemeal surrender to it. Surrender to evil is slavery at best, death at worst. Thus your unconditional rejection of violence is really nothing more than embracing death as preferable to life.

You will achieve what you embrace.

The right, the absolute necessity, of vengeance against anyone who initiates force against you is fundamental to survival. The morality of a people's self-defense is in its defense of each individual's right to life. It's an intolerance to violence made real by an unwavering willingness to crush any who would launch violence against you. The unconditional determination to destroy any who would initiate force against you is an exaltation of the value of life. Refusing to surrender your life to any thug or tyrant who lays claim to it is in fact embracing life itself.

If you are unwilling to defend your right to your own lives, then you are merely like mice trying to argue with owls. You think their ways are wrong. They think you are dinner.

If, hoping to appease it, you willingly compromise with unrepentant evil, you only allow such evil to sink its fangs into you; from that day on its venom will course through your veins until it finally kills you.

Compromising with murderers grants them moral equivalence where none can rightly exist. Moral equivalence says that you are no better than they; therefore their belief--that they should be able to torture, rape, or murder you--is just as morally valid as your view--that you have the right to live free of their violence. Moral compromise rejects the concept of right and wrong. It says that everyone is equal, all desires are equally valid, all action is equally valid, so everyone should compromise to get along.

Where could you compromise with those who torture, rape and murder people? In the number of days a week you will be tortured? In the number of men to be allowed to rape your loved ones? In how many of your family are to be murdered?

No moral equivalence exists in that situation, nor can it exist, so there can be no compromise, only suicide.

To even suggest compromise can exist with such men is to sanction murder.

Many teach that saying someone is evil is prejudiced thinking. It's a way of belittling someone already in pain for some reason. Such people must be embraced and taught to shed their fears of their fellow man and then they will not strike out in violent ways.

They are dangerous to everyone because they embrace evil with their teachings. In so doing, in trying to be kind, to be unselfish, in trying to be nonjudgmental, you allow evil to become far more powerful than it otherwase would. you refuse to see evil, and so you welcome it among you. You allow it to exist. you give it power over you. You are a people who have welcomed death and refused to denounce it.

You are an empire naked to the shadow of evil.

These people think of themselves as enlightened, as above violence. They are not enlightened; they are merely slaves awaiting a master, victims awaiting killers.
Did you care to look at how the information was gathered for the study? Hate to break it to you, but that study is junk science. The group used was only those that have been shot...think about it for a while, if you can't figure out what's wrong with that, well.....then I pity you.
Biased statistics are Biased.
The study is faulty too small of a sample to "prove" anything.

Feel free not to own a gun, but stay out of my right to own one. I'm a responsible gun owner, I'm trained and have never shot anything other than Paper targets. I hope I never shoot anything but paper targets. But if someone threatens me or mine, they have voided their rights to be left unharmed.

Hopefully we will live in a world where guns will only be used for paper shooting, but I dont see that happening anytime soon
You anti-gun nutjobs are all loopy. If you don't care about your own safety fine. If you think the police can adequately protect your loved ones fine. I don't care about you. I do care about my own, and ignorant pacifists like you who vote to take away my gun rights put my family at risk.

Police do not prevent violent crime, they just clean it up afterwards. Pacifism actually encourages violent crime.

Compare the number of home invasions in Europe to the number in America. You'll see a lot more home invasions in countries where the citizens are not permitted to protect themselves with firearms.

Do you want to know how to stop a violent criminal? Liberal application of lead. All the police and courts can do if punish them after the fact, IF they get caught. That doesn't do anything to stop or prevent them from raping and murdering. 230 grains of jacketed lead does.
@ 71, what's your name? I want to keep an eye out for your obit.
@ 69, comments from anonymous unregistered cowards are junk comments. ESPECIALLY when they make sweeping statements with no basis in reality. Just so you know how it goes 'round here...
Which is not to say that some of the comments from people who are registered aren't junk comments.
I'm a gun owner and shooter who fires somewhere north of fifteen thousand rounds a year under competitive circumstances, has received self-defense training from some of the best in the biz, carry a pistol daily and I have to say, I'm really getting a kick out of all of the stereotyping and bigoted attitudes on display from the "open-minded" statists here.

On top of it, I wish you people could read your blather from the perspective of anyone with some education on the topic. You post things that you claim to be facts when it's quite clear that what you really know about firearms and self-defense wouldn't contain enough information for a bi-fold pamphlet.

Keep up with the crazy, ill-informed posts. You've all really tripped my giggle switch.
The problem with this study is that it includes all the criminals with guns. Criminal gun owner gets shot by a cop, this study counts it against the non-criminal gun owning homeowner. Criminal gun owner gets shot by a homeowner, this study counts it against the non-criminal gun owning businessowner. Criminal gun owner gets shot by his rape target, this study counts it against the non-criminal rape target herself.

The study is worthless unless it excludes the criminal gun owners who get shot. We want them shot, and it's a legal shooting most of the time. The fact that criminal gun owners get shot doesn't mean gun owning homeowners, businessowners, or rape targets will get shot. Those are the ones we care about.

Time to rework the data.
One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.