Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Just Another High School Shooting

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The law was formed in reaction to a convenient shooting, one of many such examples that lead me to believe these convenient shootings are used to promote gun control.

What you desire is cynical and fruitless: for the public to not learn from (or respond to) mass shootings. You don't sound very bright.

Quote

The constitution takes certain choices off the table for the majority, as noted by the federal judge who stopped this summer's planned confiscation program out in California.

The voters of the state decided that one, too. Californians firmly rejected the casual possession of LCM's, using their ballot box.  It's pitiful that you are repeatedly celebrating this ruling, which is temporary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's true that dead people no longer use their guns.

The issue is, once he's dead, the registered gun must be surrendered to the government. Or maybe his family will break the law.

I doubt they will, so I think it's almost certain that his gun is destined for confiscation because he registered it. It doesn't make me feel any safer knowing that registration will result in confiscation in that case. Does it make you feel safer?

Does it at least make you feel stupider for saying it doesn't happen when in fact the law requires it?

Orphaned guns are truley a heartbreaking saga.  Especially when kept separated from grieving loved ones.  But with proper paperwork, they can be reunited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yeah - we all say that, all the time. 

It's the last thing my wife and I say to each before falling asleep at night and first thing we say when we wake up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's true that dead people no longer use their guns.

The issue is, once he's dead, the registered gun must be surrendered to the government. Or maybe his family will break the law.

I doubt they will, so I think it's almost certain that his gun is destined for confiscation because he registered it. It doesn't make me feel any safer knowing that registration will result in confiscation in that case. Does it make you feel safer?

Does it at least make you feel stupider for saying it doesn't happen when in fact the law requires it?

Orphaned guns are truley a heartbreaking saga.  Especially when kept separated from grieving loved ones.  But with proper paperwork, they can be reunited.

No they can't.

Anyone who did not register a scary weapon in his state by the date on which the registry closed is banned from acquiring one. There's no paperwork, no exception. The guns were registered and will be confiscated when the owners die.

Your lies don't fool those of us who pay attention. Registration is leading to confiscation every single day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No they can't.

Anyone who did not register a scary weapon in his state by the date on which the registry closed is banned from acquiring one. There's no paperwork, no exception. The guns were registered and will be confiscated when the owners die.

Your lies don't fool those of us who pay attention. Registration is leading to confiscation every single day.

So not registering their weapon indicates they are irresponsible gun owners and the gun will be orphaned upon death.  Responsible gun owners will make sure their precious has a warm home after they pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

You are tying the tools, not the behavior.   We need to increase individual accountability and responsibility.  To do that, we need to be tougher on the enablers along with the perpetrators.  Just like MADD did.  Prior to MADD, bartenders were not responsible for over serving.  Now they can be held liable.

Who are the "over servers" or enablers in this scenario?  Are you implying the gun sellers are the over servers?  The difference is more than a few extra shots of jack and then getting behind the wheel of a 6000lb car is deadly.  Selling an extra Glock or two to a qualified buyer is not.  More guns sold to the same person doesn't make them more likely to kill whereas more shots of tequilla is.  So your analogy falls as flat as your erection without viagra.  

Although, in all fairness - I am impressed with your sudden embrace of personal responsibility and looking at the behavior rather than the toolz.  If you are at all serious, maybe you could take your boy jocal aside and have "the talk" with him.  He still focuses almost solely on toolz.  Maybe you could beat some sense into him.  And by "beat some sense into him", I'm not talking about that metaphorically.  I think he really needs some sense BEAT into him.  Just saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The law was formed in reaction to a convenient shooting, one of many such examples that lead me to believe these convenient shootings are used to promote gun control.

What you desire is cynical and fruitless: for the public to not learn from (or respond to) mass shootings. You don't sound very bright.

Quote

The constitution takes certain choices off the table for the majority, as noted by the federal judge who stopped this summer's planned confiscation program out in California.

The voters of the state decided that one, too. Californians firmly rejected the casual possession of LCM's, using their ballot box.  It's pitiful that you are repeatedly celebrating this ruling, which is temporary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Which is why you need to change the physical logic, as was done in Australia, cos no matter how irrational and unconventional you are - you aren't going on a shooting rampage unless you can find & obtain the gun to shoot.

Treat the number of guns accessible in a neighbourhood as a number that must remain constant or increase - you're always going to have the problem with irrational people getting a hold of them and going on a rampage. Treat the number of guns accessible in a neighbourhood as something that can be changed to address the problem, and you start getting somewhere.

 

Bent Siri, honest question for you.....  Where does your concept of "treat the number of gunz in a neighborhood" as the main driver of how to reduce violence actually take into account the rights of those who have a right to own a gun but are not out there killing people???  

I realize in pusstrailia - there is no "right to own a gun" - so that decision was easy to take everyone's gunz away from them to prevent the very very few who commit crimes with gunz out of the greater population.  But like it or not, there IS that right here in the US of A.  So transport your brain, if you can, to the US and the 2nd Amendment.  How do you reconcile the fact that the vast majority of people who DO NOT commit crimes with their toolz have more of a right to continue to exercise their rights than the need to stop a very few people who ignore the laws against killing?  

Don't take this personally - but part of the reason I have so much disdain for you and your "look what we did in Pusstrailia" schtick - is that we are not pusstrailia and we have different rules.  If you actually couched your schtick in terms of "if you could get around to repealing your stupid bill of rights, then think about implementing what AUS did" then I could actually respect that.  But you don't.  You say this shit as if we could just snap our fingers and make it happen.  It doesn't work that way.  Or in other words:  FUCK YOU, 2nd Amendment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Who are the "over servers" or enablers in this scenario?  Are you implying the gun sellers are the over servers?  The difference is more than a few extra shots of jack and then getting behind the wheel of a 6000lb car is deadly.  Selling an extra Glock or two to a qualified buyer is not.  More guns sold to the same person doesn't make them more likely to kill whereas more shots of tequilla is.  So your analogy falls as flat as your erection without viagra.  

Although, in all fairness - I am impressed with your sudden embrace of personal responsibility and looking at the behavior rather than the toolz.  If you are at all serious, maybe you could take your boy jocal aside and have "the talk" with him.  He still focuses almost solely on toolz.  Maybe you could beat some sense into him.  And by "beat some sense into him", I'm not talking about that metaphorically.  I think he really needs some sense BEAT into him.  Just saying.  

Spatial Danger has a mind of his own. He does flights of fancy in his behavior around here. I would want to have a latte with Spatial before getting into any experimental planes with him. IMO, if Spatial Danger were attacked by Jeffie at a future U.S. regatta, Spatial would be mostly laughing.

Your post ends in violent imagery. Which follows the  mis-characterization my hopes, plans, and emphasis. I am just a gunowner feeling angst while seeking dignity in future gun ownership. Fucking kooks and extremists have changed the cache of our guns Jeffie.

This is my focus, off the top of my head:

  • I'll admit that I support the limitation of battlefield weapons and the like.
  • A focus on mindless confiscation? Not so much. I provide info to change attitudes.
  • My constructive focus would start with the reversal of research blockage, to minimize the impact of infringements.
  • The focus would encourage moderate policy discussions in glossy gun magazines, pronto.
  • The focus would include the consideration of peer-reviewed history.
  • The focus would squarely address these abortions: the PLCAA, the Tiahrt Amendments, and FOPA.
  • Interstate trafficking laws would get robust overhaul.
  • BATFE would be rolled into the FBI, and dealer enforcement would become visible and viable.
  • Training would become attached to gun permits in 50 states.
  • Wayne LaPierre would be prosecuted under RICO statutes, and would be replaced by Mike Weisser, Dick Metcalf, or Mark O'Mara.
  • Backburner focus, for Gouv, mainly: after two decades or so, the Second Amendment could be tweaked.
  • Focus much? Pooplius and Jeffie Poo would each be held accountable for half a dozen dangling falsehoods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 But like it or not, there IS that right here in the US of A.

The right is to have a gun indoors. The right can be, and is, regulated, even in states with individual rights constitutions.

Do you agree yet that outdoor gun rights are TBD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Who are the "over servers" or enablers in this scenario?  Are you implying the gun sellers are the over servers?  The difference is more than a few extra shots of jack and then getting behind the wheel of a 6000lb car is deadly.  Selling an extra Glock or two to a qualified buyer is not.  More guns sold to the same person doesn't make them more likely to kill whereas more shots of tequilla is.  So your analogy falls as flat as your erection without viagra.  

Although, in all fairness - I am impressed with your sudden embrace of personal responsibility and looking at the behavior rather than the toolz.  If you are at all serious, maybe you could take your boy jocal aside and have "the talk" with him.  He still focuses almost solely on toolz.  Maybe you could beat some sense into him.  And by "beat some sense into him", I'm not talking about that metaphorically.  I think he really needs some sense BEAT into him.  Just saying.  

The enablers may be the gun dealer who sells to less than stable people.  The enablers may be parents who maintain their personal arsenals knowing their children are unstable.  The enablers may be the gun clubbers who dismiss any means of connecting weapons with people.  Once we do that, I think we will see a surge in personal responsibility in regards to guns and people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 But like it or not, there IS that right here in the US of A.

Yoo Hooh. Paging a loud bully to answer a good question. "That right" is to have a gun indoors. 

Let's clear up one Jeffie Poo falsehood, and advance one conversation. Do you now agree that outdoor gun rights are TBD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Bent Siri, honest question for you.....  Where does your concept of "treat the number of gunz in a neighborhood" as the main driver of how to reduce violence actually take into account the rights of those who have a right to own a gun but are not out there killing people???

Honest question for you, Princess. Where have I ever said that reducing the number of guns reduces violence? Feel free to find just one instance of me saying that guns cause violence. Just one.

Don't take this personally, but one of the reasons I have so much disdain for you and your "Fuck You, 2nd Amendment" schitck is that you know you cannot address the argument put before you. Instead you consistently make up one to beat up on. If you couched your "Fuck You, 2nd Amendment" bullshit in "Yes, more guns around does mean it's more likely they'll be used in violent crime and so increase the rate of homicide" - you'd get some respect for honesty. Not so much for the lack of compassion toward your fellow man, innocent children killed, and so on - but at least you'd be admitting to your sociopathy. Until you can man up to that shit, I expect you'll continue to compete with Tedious Tom in the "Most Tiresome Twat on PA" poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

 Feel free to find just one instance of me saying that guns cause violence. Just one.

Why are you always asking people to look shit up for you? It would be filed between 'find someone who cares' and 'no one gives a fuck'.

argueing with you wastes enough of people's times with out doing your research for you as well. Ask yourself to look it up Siri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:
15 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No they can't.

Anyone who did not register a scary weapon in his state by the date on which the registry closed is banned from acquiring one. There's no paperwork, no exception. The guns were registered and will be confiscated when the owners die.

Your lies don't fool those of us who pay attention. Registration is leading to confiscation every single day.

So not registering their weapon indicates they are irresponsible gun owners and the gun will be orphaned upon death.  Responsible gun owners will make sure their precious has a warm home after they pass.

No, not registering their weapon indicates a gun owner who does not wish to have his gun confiscated by the state upon his death.

That's why the closing of the registry generated "scores of thousands" of new felons. Uncooperative folks who read the law and decided to keep their guns instead of signing up to have them confiscated.

Many of those felons are first offenders. People who never broke a law until they decided against gun registration/confiscation.

So they're suddenly "irresponsible" people. Or maybe the law is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No, not registering their weapon indicates a gun owner who does not wish to have his gun confiscated by the state upon his death.

That's why the closing of the registry generated "scores of thousands" of new felons. Uncooperative folks who read the law and decided to keep their guns instead of signing up to have them confiscated.

Many of those felons are first offenders. People who never broke a law until they decided against gun registration/confiscation.

So they're suddenly "irresponsible" people. Or maybe the law is wrong.

The people in each state determine what is right for that state. Try to keep up.

The ones who break the law are on their own, they will criminals based on their own choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:
17 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Who are the "over servers" or enablers in this scenario?  Are you implying the gun sellers are the over servers?  The difference is more than a few extra shots of jack and then getting behind the wheel of a 6000lb car is deadly.  Selling an extra Glock or two to a qualified buyer is not.  More guns sold to the same person doesn't make them more likely to kill whereas more shots of tequilla is.  So your analogy falls as flat as your erection without viagra.  

Although, in all fairness - I am impressed with your sudden embrace of personal responsibility and looking at the behavior rather than the toolz.  If you are at all serious, maybe you could take your boy jocal aside and have "the talk" with him.  He still focuses almost solely on toolz.  Maybe you could beat some sense into him.  And by "beat some sense into him", I'm not talking about that metaphorically.  I think he really needs some sense BEAT into him.  Just saying.  

The enablers may be the gun dealer who sells to less than stable people.  The enablers may be parents who maintain their personal arsenals knowing their children are unstable.  The enablers may be the gun clubbers who dismiss any means of connecting weapons with people.  Once we do that, I think we will see a surge in personal responsibility in regards to guns and people.

I agree with all of that and have repeatedly said so.  If a gun dealer knowingly sells a gun to a prohibited person or one who is clearly on drugs or unstable - they should be held criminally liable for the use of that gun.  I have repeatedly said that parents should be held accountable for the safe storage of their weapons and should be held liable for negligence if they allowed a gun to get into their kid's hands and then something bad happened.  I have repeatedly said I would be ok with registration as long as I could get an iron clad constitutional guarantee that a gun cannot be confiscated as a result of that registry without a specific warrant for cause.  IOW - no closed registries, confiscation upon death of the owner, etc.  

And every time several us "gun clubbers" have suggested similar common sense approaches, we get shot down.  

One last thing, as I said, I have no issue with a gun dealer being held responsible for a sale to a clearly unstable, suicidal or high person.  But I do not expect them to be trained mental health professionals.  How do you deal with the person who appears normal and has no background history but is borderline whacko?  Or a buyer who is perfectly sane at the point of sale but 6 months later snaps and goes on a killing spree.  You can't hold the dealer responsible for that anymore than you can hold a liquor store employee responsible for selling a bottle of tequila to someone who then gets shitfaced a week later after a bad day at work and crashes her car into a school bus and kills 20 kids.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Yoo Hooh. Paging a loud bully to answer a good question. "That right" is to have a gun indoors. 

Let's clear up one Jeffie Poo falsehood, and advance one conversation. Do you now agree that outdoor gun rights are TBD?

NO I do NOT agree with that.  Not even slightly.  Gun rights, indoors or outdoors are not TBD in the slightest.  And no jcoal gyrations are going to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I have repeatedly said I would be ok with registration as long as I could get an iron clad constitutional guarantee that a gun cannot be confiscated as a result of that registry without a specific warrant for cause.  IOW - no closed registries, confiscation upon death of the owner, etc.

Have you forgotten that iron is easily cut?

There's one guarantee: grabbers will do everything possible to restrict any registry, including and especially closing it if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

NO I do NOT agree with that.  Not even slightly.  Gun rights, indoors or outdoors are not TBD in the slightest.  And no jcoal gyrations are going to change that.

Cite where this was decided. I am quoting the Ninth Circuit, which uses the term "outdoor gun rights, if any." They got testy with NRA hyperbole quite similar to yours, then snaped that  the discussions have not begun on the means, manner and place restrictions which will apply outdoors. Gorsuch's SC had a chance to confirm your outdoor rights with Peruta, they declined to in July. 

Back up your false statement, Princess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Cite where this was decided. I am quoting the Ninth Circuit, which uses the term "outdoor gun rights, if any." They got testy with NRA hyperbole quite similar to yours, then snaped that  the discussions have not begun on the means, manner and place restrictions which will apply outdoors. Gorsuch's SC had a chance to confirm your outdoor rights with Peruta, they declined to in July. 

Back up your false statement, Princess.

Fuck you, 2nd Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Honest question for you, Princess. Where have I ever said that reducing the number of guns reduces violence? Feel free to find just one instance of me saying that guns cause violence. Just one.

No response. About what I expected.

And you wonder why everyone knows you have no interest in "serious discussion" on the topic :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 1:27 AM, Bent Sailor said:

As someone from a country where the rate of school shootings are measure in decades, not weeks, the idea of someone opening fire in a school kind of shocks me to the core.

Weeks? The only way to get there is to count kind of funny.

Quote

Everytown's criteria for inclusion in its count are broad. They include shootings that happen at colleges and universities, as well as at high schools and elementary schools. Accidental discharges — when a gun inadvertently goes off in someone's pocket, for instance — are included as well.

Are you counting Aussie "school shootings" at universities? How about accidental discharges? Do you think counting those as "school shootings" is an honest tactic politically? Or maybe an honest tactic when applied to the US but not your country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

No response. About what I expected.

And you wonder why everyone knows you have no interest in "serious discussion" on the topic :rolleyes: 

Jeff's not the one quoting and replying to himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Weeks? The only way to get there is to count kind of funny.

Are you counting Aussie "school shootings" at universities? How about accidental discharges? Do you think counting those as "school shootings" is an honest tactic politically? Or maybe an honest tactic when applied to the US but not your country?

I am happy to use the same definition of school shooting for both countries. Australia still comes out better, what with there being far less guns available to people to shoot or "accidentally discharge" at schools, universities, or community college parking lots.

I don't need dishonest tactics - the numbers win out regardless. Australia has less gun crime than the US per capita. School shootings included. Whatever your choice of definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree with all of that and have repeatedly said so.  If a gun dealer knowingly sells a gun to a prohibited person or one who is clearly on drugs or unstable - they should be held criminally liable for the use of that gun.  I have repeatedly said that parents should be held accountable for the safe storage of their weapons and should be held liable for negligence if they allowed a gun to get into their kid's hands and then something bad happened.  I have repeatedly said I would be ok with registration as long as I could get an iron clad constitutional guarantee that a gun cannot be confiscated as a result of that registry without a specific warrant for cause.  IOW - no closed registries, confiscation upon death of the owner, etc.  

And every time several us "gun clubbers" have suggested similar common sense approaches, we get shot down.  

One last thing, as I said, I have no issue with a gun dealer being held responsible for a sale to a clearly unstable, suicidal or high person.  But I do not expect them to be trained mental health professionals.  How do you deal with the person who appears normal and has no background history but is borderline whacko?  Or a buyer who is perfectly sane at the point of sale but 6 months later snaps and goes on a killing spree.  You can't hold the dealer responsible for that anymore than you can hold a liquor store employee responsible for selling a bottle of tequila to someone who then gets shitfaced a week later after a bad day at work and crashes her car into a school bus and kills 20 kids.  

Without registration and an iron clad chain of custody, all of this responsibility holding is toothless and unenforceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Funny how you and Bent have the same talking point here, LB.

We are like brothers Tom. We couldn't be closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Weeks? The only way to get there is to count kind of funny.

Are you counting Aussie "school shootings" at universities? How about accidental discharges? Do you think counting those as "school shootings" is an honest tactic politically? Or maybe an honest tactic when applied to the US but not your country?

I am happy to use the same definition of school shooting for both countries. Australia still comes out better, what with there being far less guns available to people to shoot or "accidentally discharge" at schools, universities, or community college parking lots.

I don't need dishonest tactics - the numbers win out regardless. Australia has less gun crime than the US per capita. School shootings included. Whatever your choice of definition.

Well, OK, use them if you want. I think an accidental discharge that happens at a school is not what most people mean when they say "school shooting" so I find it dishonest when you use that definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Sometimes it's best to emulate what works.

Is that all ya got?

We have 10x the pop, we're leaders on the world stage in every possible way, with a completely different history. Apologies to Aussies but they aren't relevant to much of a gun discussion.

Now add the other big players and lets  see how the harmless chatter goes. Apples to apples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Is that all ya got?

We have 10x the pop, we're leaders on the world stage in every possible way, with a completely different history. Apologies to Aussies but they aren't relevant to much of a gun discussion.

Now add the other big players and lets  see how the harmless chatter goes. Apples to apples. 

Inconvenient truth that Australia has a successful gun program.  I like countries that have sound gun policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Why the constant comparison of US and Oz gun laws? 

 

Just don't point your gun at armed home invaders in Australia, our politicians want criminals to have a safe working environment.

 

Quote

Border farmer has guns taken after confronting man armed with a knife at his home

 FATHER who armed himself with an unloaded rifle during a home invasion has been left wondering what he could have done differently, after having his guns seized.

Police took David Dunstan’s three firearms from his farming property at Bungowannah on Thursday afternoon.

   Police seized his guns, which he uses for pest control at his property, later that day.

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/4927063/border-farmer-has-guns-taken-after-confronting-man-armed-with-a-knife-at-his-home/?cs=11      

 

If you want to copy our gun laws you will lose the right to defend yourself with a gun in your own home against armed home invaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Inconvenient truth that Australia has a successful gun program.  I like countries that have sound gun policies.

Move to one. Here, banning ordinary .22's and conducting (warrantless) home inspections as they do presents some problems. At least in some states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Fuck you, 2nd Amendment.

Umm, not really wanting to wade in here, but aren't there a whole bunch of regulations around what you can carry, where you can carry, how you can carry?  Or are you now in the Gouv camp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Inconvenient truth that Australia has a successful gun program.  I like countries that have sound gun policies.

Criminals have no trouble getting guns in Australia, a Police officer was killed with a full auto AK47 in Qld and we have never been able to legally buy full auto AK47s.

 

Quote

GUNS are being found in Melbourne’s northwest suburbs every two days in what Victoria Police acknowledge is an alarming trend.

Long arms, handguns and homemade firearms are being seized by police in increasing numbers in Broadmeadows, Sunshine and Melton and other suburbs.

Police are also recording a firearms incident every six days, including seizure of weapons, armed robberies or shootings, according to North West Metro region acting Commander Mick Hermans. Victoria Police resources have been reallocated to deal with the influx of weapons in northwest suburbs, which are already typically overrepresented in crime.

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/victoria-increase-in-number-of-guns-and-weapons-seized-by-police/news-story/ef5d36ce1fd27c7ea37925f1fc5bae1b

 

These full auto Tommy guns have never been legal to buy here, the gun grabbers say guns are stolen from licensed gun owners.

Quote

A man has been caught with a sub-machinegun in his bag at a major shopping centre in Sydney's inner west, police say. 

As shoppers were heading to Marrickville Metro at lunchtime on Wednesday, the man travelled to the shopping centre by taxi with a Thompson-brand fully automatic sub-machine gun.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-found-carrying-fully-automatic-submachine-gun-in-marrickville-police-20151118-gl2i1k.html

 

Try New Zealand if you want a country with sound gun laws, they haven't had a mass shooting since 1997 they allow all the scary black semi autos with sound moderators.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Move to one. Here, banning ordinary .22's and conducting (warrantless) home inspections as they do presents some problems. At least in some states.

 

Those in Australia who are subject to a Firearm Prohibition Order can have the police rock up and search their home whenever the Police feel like doing it they don't need a warrant to search those subjected to a FPO.

 

We don't want that dickhead spatial ed or jocal here perhaps they should go to Mexico if they like tough gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the drift away from OZ laws. I started a new thread so you guys can focus on the school shootings, as many love to do.

School tragedies are not the elephant in the room.  And yes I have had a teenager die in a senseless way. Ban cars. They're the killing tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

Those in Australia who are subject to a Firearm Prohibition Order can have the police rock up and search their home whenever the Police feel like doing it they don't need a warrant to search those subjected to a FPO.

 

We don't want that dickhead spatial ed or jocal here perhaps they should go to Mexico if they like tough gun laws.

Hell, they can just choose to move to L.A. or Chicago or DC ... safe places with stricter gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Honest question for you, Princess. Where have I ever said that reducing the number of guns reduces violence? Feel free to find just one instance of me saying that guns cause violence. Just one.

Don't take this personally, but one of the reasons I have so much disdain for you and your "Fuck You, 2nd Amendment" schitck is that you know you cannot address the argument put before you. Instead you consistently make up one to beat up on. If you couched your "Fuck You, 2nd Amendment" bullshit in "Yes, more guns around does mean it's more likely they'll be used in violent crime and so increase the rate of homicide" - you'd get some respect for honesty. Not so much for the lack of compassion toward your fellow man, innocent children killed, and so on - but at least you'd be admitting to your sociopathy. Until you can man up to that shit, I expect you'll continue to compete with Tedious Tom in the "Most Tiresome Twat on PA" poll.

Why do you always answer a question with a question???

The main thrust of my question is what about the rights of the people who are not out shooting others?  I personally don't think its fair or right to punish literally tens of millions of law abiding gun owners over the sins of a few thousand.  I've never been a big fan of collective punishment.  But this is exactly a pusstrailian "solution" looks like.  Sorry, not thanks.  And thanks to the 2A, we can tell you to fuck off.  I realize that on your rock, you didn't have that luxury.  Shrug.  Whatever.  But we do.  And I intend to keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

No response. About what I expected.

And you wonder why everyone knows you have no interest in "serious discussion" on the topic :rolleyes: 

No fucktard.  Its called "work".  You should try it sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No fucktard.  Its called "work".  You should try it sometime.

Over the span of a few years, you have evaded the import of most gun related discussions. You prop up a straw man, wail away, and go away. Your depth can be found in the variety of abuse you spew.

You presently claim that outdoor gun rights are established. You drink to the eminent reversal of the NY SAFE Act. We are dealing with a fantasy guy here who obviously hasn't studied the Heller decision.

There's a punch line to your life.  You whored your gun rights and gun hobby for filthy lucre in a land of despots. You traded your gun rights in on the streets of the oil-soaked Mideast, while waxing on about the Bill of Rights. YCMTSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, the Spokane shooter kid had been suspended from school for a series of threatening notes. The guns returned with the shooter kid as he returned from suspension. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 I realize that on your rock, you didn't have that luxury.  Shrug.  Whatever.  But we do.  And I intend to keep it.

You rock in your home with one gun, so far. This is one of the Pooplius baby steps (which hasn't advanced). It's attempted advancement was Steven Halbrook's baby, Heller II, which blessed gun registration. I have been reading his body of work.

Hi Jeff. You are a rooster crowing away about having outdoor gun rights which are yet to be discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

We don't want that dickhead spatial ed or jocal here perhaps they should go to Mexico if they like tough gun laws.

The exemplary track record for using tough gun laws is New England. Their gun safety stats are an example to all, even to California.

Mr. Bin Lyin, Mexico is the logical extension of your value system. Historically, your beliefs have generated banana republics while snuffing civil rights. This is a great read  from a wonk who grew up with guns.

Quote

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Weeks? The only way to get there is to count kind of funny.

Are you counting Aussie "school shootings" at universities? How about accidental discharges? Do you think counting those as "school shootings" is an honest tactic politically? Or maybe an honest tactic when applied to the US but not your country?

If a gun goes off in a school, something is wrong. What's the gun even doing there in the first place? And why are you accepting ANY firearms discharges in or near a school, before or after school hours, intentional or unintentional, including in school playgrounds and parking lots? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?

Most "accidental discharges" are actually negligence.

Pooplius, why are you promoting, accepting, or dismissing gun accidents or gun negligence in or near schools or universities? What kind of society are you promoting here?

And why are universities each paying millions for metal detectors and gunsafes for guns that educators didn't want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
4 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Inconvenient truth that Australia has a successful gun program. ...

I say again, this matters because?

Because "this," meaning successful weapons control, is part of a pattern among first world countries. The pattern began to be set in the late 1200's, and did not deviate. Displaying arms was a misdemeanor. Riding with intent to use a weapon, or hiding the weapon, was a felony. This culminated in the writings of Blackstone, a jurist who guided the jurisprudence of the Colonies.

Violent citizen interaction was confined to castile doctrine, to one's home. Which is why Heller rests there too. Nothing has changed, except the violent post-seventies rhetoric coming from the Larry Pratt camp. The rhetoric, these new, violent self defense norms, have no fucking legal foundation.

The new urban myth of violent self defense "rights" is a poorly supported can of worms. The case law is the word "confrontation" from Heller I. 

Quote

II THE COMMON LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF OTHERS Darrel Miller (see p88)

The common law of self-defense doesn’t begin with the individual, it begins with the sovereign.14 In the first century after the Norman invasion of England, the patchwork of local regulations, private vengeances, and family feuds were gradually supplanted by an all-encompassing “king’s peace.”15 Initially, the king’s peace existed only at “certain times, in certain places, and in favour of certain privileged persons.”16 But eventually, the king’s peace came to “cover all times, the whole realm, [and] all men.”17

http://lcp.law.duke.edu/article/self-defense-defense-of-others-and-the-state-miller-vol80-iss2/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Because "this," meaning successful weapons control, is part of a pattern among first world countries. The pattern began to be set in the late 1200's, and did not deviate. Displaying arms was a misdemeanor. Riding with intent to use a weapon, or hiding the weapon, was a felony. This culminated in the writings of Blackstone, a jurist who guided the jurisprudence of the Colonies.

Violent citizen interaction was confined to castile doctrine, to one's home. Heller rests there too. Nothing has changed excepty the violent post-seventies rhetoric coming from the Larry Pratt camp. The rhetoric, thesenew  violent self defense norms, have no fucking legal foundation.

The new urban myth of violent self defense "rights" is a poorly supported can of worms. The case law is the word confrontation" from Heller I. 

I know you guys have done the  homework. But rulings are only effective if followed.

My stance is that Americans are different. We've covered our butts and everyone else's. That's what we do. And guns have been in our hands since the Pilgrims arrived. And confrontations happen outside. And, and, and

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

I know you guys have done the  homework. But rulings are only effective if followed.

My stance is that Americans are different. We've covered our butts and everyone else's. That's what we do. And guns have been in our hands since the Pilgrims arrived. And confrontations happen outside. And, and, and

We Americans certainly are different.  We have 20 six year olds cut down by an assault rifle and yawn in boredom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I know you guys have done the  homework. But rulings are only effective if followed.

My stance is that Americans are different. We've covered our butts and everyone else's. That's what we do. And guns have been in our hands since the Pilgrims arrived. And confrontations happen outside. And, and, and

Viva la difference?

In the wild west, our knives were longer and our fires were bigger. We could load our guns on Monday and shoot them all week long. We arrived to take the finest land, unlike thirty years of earlier whites. In the 1840's,  the Hudson Bay Co. sponsored starving Bostons in Puget Sound against policy, out of Christian charity. The settlers turned on the HBC as soon as their seeds grew to become our crops.

We are different, and we need to tone it down sometimes.  Lethally violent "self defense" as the new norm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Well, OK, use them if yo

accidental discharge that happens at a school is not what most people mean when they say "school shooting" so I find it dishonest when you use that definition.

Don't use them if you don't want. Australian statistics still work out FAR better. I find it dishonest when people try making out the issue is about accidental discharges when they're irrelevant to that point.

 

8 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Why the constant comparison of US and Oz gun laws? 

4x less homicide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why do you always answer a question with a question???

Because you started with one and it's basis was false. Which is exactly why you're taking umbrage at the way I posted rather than address what I posted. As usual.

 

6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The main thrust of my question is what about the rights of the people who are not out shooting others?  I personally don't think its fair or right to punish literally tens of millions of law abiding gun owners over the sins of a few thousand.  I've never been a big fan of collective punishment.  But this is exactly a pusstrailian "solution" looks like.  Sorry, not thanks.  And thanks to the 2A, we can tell you to fuck off.  I realize that on your rock, you didn't have that luxury.  Shrug.  Whatever.  But we do.  And I intend to keep it.

Actually, it seemed that the thrust of your post was that I was wrong about guns causing violence (when I said no such thing) and that I don't constantly repeat myself when it comes to acknowledging that a constitutional change is required to do what was done in Australia. Which I have acknowledged in the past. I don't see I need to constantly point out the obvious when I'm not arguing that issue.

But if you pretend otherwise, you can hide your refusal to accept an abundance of accessible guns means more US violence turns into homicide than Aussie violence does. Beat up on your strawman long enough and you hope that people forget the actual point I have been making for decades. Don't believe me? Just ask Chesapeake - he correctly stated that was my point YEARS ago in the face of a similar tirade by someone trying the "prove guns cause violence" line on me. It's not that my message is opaque - it's that you don't want to address it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No fucktard.  Its called "work".  You should try it sometime.

Uh huh. Clearly. Hence these posts, in just this thread alone, after I posted my question and before pointing out your gutless lack of response.

13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree with all of that and have repeatedly said so.  If a gun dealer knowingly sells a gun to a prohibited person or one who is clearly on drugs or unstable - they should be held criminally liable for the use of that gun.  I have repeatedly said that parents should be held accountable for the safe storage of their weapons and should be held liable for negligence if they allowed a gun to get into their kid's hands and then something bad happened.  I have repeatedly said I would be ok with registration as long as I could get an iron clad constitutional guarantee that a gun cannot be confiscated as a result of that registry without a specific warrant for cause.  IOW - no closed registries, confiscation upon death of the owner, etc.  

And every time several us "gun clubbers" have suggested similar common sense approaches, we get shot down.  

One last thing, as I said, I have no issue with a gun dealer being held responsible for a sale to a clearly unstable, suicidal or high person.  But I do not expect them to be trained mental health professionals.  How do you deal with the person who appears normal and has no background history but is borderline whacko?  Or a buyer who is perfectly sane at the point of sale but 6 months later snaps and goes on a killing spree.  You can't hold the dealer responsible for that anymore than you can hold a liquor store employee responsible for selling a bottle of tequila to someone who then gets shitfaced a week later after a bad day at work and crashes her car into a school bus and kills 20 kids.  

13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

NO I do NOT agree with that.  Not even slightly.  Gun rights, indoors or outdoors are not TBD in the slightest.  And no jcoal gyrations are going to change that.

12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Fuck you, 2nd Amendment.

Clearly too busy at work to respond... except, you know, when you do. Again, it's bullshit lines like that which tell everyone you're not interested in "serious discussion". Just another circle jerk with Tom where you can ignore the point and beat your chest while  being  possessing a tool. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Don't use them if you don't want.

Do you stand by this statement of yours?

On 9/14/2017 at 1:27 AM, Bent Sailor said:

As someone from a country where the rate of school shootings are measure in decades, not weeks, the idea of someone opening fire in a school kind of shocks me to the core.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you stand by this statement of yours?

Yes. As someone from a country where school shootings are almost unheard of, I am still shocked to the core by reports of someone opening fire in a school. That hasn't changed. Not going to regardless of how much you try quibbling about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes. As someone from a country where school shootings are almost unheard of, I am still shocked to the core by reports of someone opening fire in a school. That hasn't changed. Not going to regardless of how much you try quibbling about it.

I know you're proud of your country.

Just wanted to confirm that you think of an accidental discharge at a school as a "school shooting."

You should probably go back and look at how many "school shootings" your country has had if one counts universities and accidents as you do.

I still think it's BS. Just trying to pad the numbers like grabbers always do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you're proud of your country.

Has nothing to do with pride of country. It has to do with the statistical safety of my children. I know that's hard for you to accept, what with your national pride clashing with those figures.

 

Quote

Just wanted to confirm that you think of an accidental discharge at a school as a "school shooting."

I never stated that and have repeatedly told you that you can choose statistics not including such "accidental discharges" if you like. My children are still far less likely to be shot at a school in Australia than over in the US.

 

Quote

You should probably go back and look at how many "school shootings" your country has had if one counts universities and accidents as you do.

I have. Far less than the US. Even accounting for the population difference. Which won't go away no matter how many different ways you quibble about the numbers.

 

Quote

I still think it's BS. Just trying to pad the numbers like grabbers always do.

I'd suggest that's just projection on your part. You have been given the opportunity to define the parameters "school shooting" for comparison. You refuse to do so. We both know why, but do continue with your charade. No-one really expected you to be anything but disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad reality is that this shit is going to happen.  The best thing schools can do is armor up and not let these crazies through the door with weapons.  Have armed guards.  Make it as secure as Ft Knox.  Whatever.  If we trust schools to take care of our children during the day, then it needs to be made as secure as possible.  I think raz'r or mitch or someone like that agrees with me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I never stated that and have repeatedly told you that you can choose statistics not including such "accidental discharges" if you like.

You made your choice when you said we have a "school shooting" every few weeks and then stood by that statement.

That statement is only accurate if you count a negligent discharge that happens at a school as a school shooting.

Do you want to revisit the accuracy of your "weeks" assertion or do you want to continue to stand by your use of stats that include such things?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The sad reality is that this shit is going to happen.  The best thing schools can do is armor up and not let these crazies through the door with weapons.  Have armed guards.  Make it as secure as Ft Knox.  Whatever.  If we trust schools to take care of our children during the day, then it needs to be made as secure as possible.  I think raz'r or mitch or someone like that agrees with me too.

So basically turn our schools into super max prisons so that your right to play with firearms is not registered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you want to revisit the accuracy of your "weeks" assertion or do you want to continue to stand by your use of stats that include such things?

As I have stated, I do not care which definition you choose to use. If you wish to change the definition used to one you feel more accurate - do so. If you wish to use a different definition you think "pads" the numbers - do so.

Either way, the differential between our countries when it comes to "school shootings" remains so stark that the idea of someone walking into one and shooting at people still shocks me to my core. That shock isn't going to change cos you wish to quibble about which consistent definition is applied.

You're the one fixated on the specific frequency. My shock comes from the differential. That remains relatively consistent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

So basically turn our schools into super max prisons so that your right to play with firearms is not registered.

Jeffs is a defeatist argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a topic for another day is a complete overhaul of the school system. It only works for kids who want it. If school were voluntary, the disrupters, gangbangers, the bullies, indeed, the killers, wouldnt be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

As I have stated, I do not care which definition you choose to use. If you wish to change the definition used to one you feel more accurate - do so. If you wish to use a different definition you think "pads" the numbers - do so.

Either way, the differential between our countries when it comes to "school shootings" remains so stark that the idea of someone walking into one and shooting at people still shocks me to my core. That shock isn't going to change cos you wish to quibble about which consistent definition is applied.

You're the one fixated on the specific frequency. My shock comes from the differential. That remains relatively consistent.

 

My shock comes from your inability to talk about the stats you are using.

It's OK. You think a negligent discharge at a school is a "school shooting." LB 15 and the vast majority of our grabbers agree with you. I don't. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

So basically turn our schools into super max prisons so that your right to play with firearms is not registered.

Yep, basically.  Because yet again, registration will not "prevent" this from happening.  And its not like we have a backlog of unsolved school shooting cases with weapons left lying around that registration will magically solve.  You are an idiot if you think otherwise.  

Its the price of freedom.  There's always going to be some acceptable losses.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Is that all ya got?

We have 10x the pop, we're leaders on the world stage in every possible way, with a completely different history. Apologies to Aussies but they aren't relevant to much of a gun discussion.

Now add the other big players and lets  see how the harmless chatter goes. Apples to apples. 

Obviously not.

But if anyone tries to point out areas in which you fail miserably you get all cross and weepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

My shock comes from your inability to talk about the stats you are using.

You asked me to confirm my statement regarding my shock. I have done so. You asked me whether I prefer a definition including or not including accidental discharges. I have stated I don't care. I have offered that, if you don't like a given definition, that you choose of whichever definition you'd prefer for "school shooting". You have refused to do so.

I remain completely unshocked at the level of disingenuous bullshit you bring to any thread mentioning guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I have stated I don't care. I have offered that, if you don't like a given definition, that you choose of whichever definition you'd prefer for "school shooting". You have refused to do so.

I know you don't care that you're dishonestly padding the numbers by joining your buddy LB 15 in repeating the gungrabby propaganda talking point about it being "weeks" between our "school shootings."

If you cared, you'd say something like "perhaps that stat is wrong and it's more than 'weeks' but my point otherwise stands."

But your inability to back off in any way prevents it and amuses me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yep, basically.  Because yet again, registration will not "prevent" this from happening.  And its not like we have a backlog of unsolved school shooting cases with weapons left lying around that registration will magically solve.  You are an idiot if you think otherwise.  

Its the price of freedom.  There's always going to be some acceptable losses.  Just saying.

The price of your freedom to play with unregistered guns is to imprison our children.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you don't care that you're dishonestly padding the numbers by joining your buddy LB 15 in repeating the gungrabby propaganda talking point about it being "weeks" between our "school shootings."

I'm happy to accept your definition if you want. Have stated it multiple times. 

 

6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If you cared, you'd say something like "perhaps that stat is wrong and it's more than 'weeks' but my point otherwise stands."

I have stated I don't care which definition you choose. It matters not for where my shock comes from. You asked me to affirm a statement about my shock - I have done that. Your need to turn my expression of shock into something you can quibble about is, as always with you, indicative of just how low you slither when guns are discussed.

 

6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But your inability to back off in any way prevents it and amuses me.

Yes. I've noted just how you amuse yourself whenever someone starts discussing a recent school shooting. I think it pretty sick myself, but then again I don't expect much from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spatial Ed said:

So basically turn our schools into super max prisons so that your right to play with firearms is not registered.

I thought your schools were gun free zones, does that mean all these school shootings involve people who don't obey your laws?

 

School shooting deaths in Australia when semi auto rifles with sound moderators were allowed for self defence before our 1996 gun laws = 0, Since we had no deaths from school shootings before our strict laws we can say our gun laws had no effect on school shootings in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you're proud of your country.

Just wanted to confirm that you think of an accidental discharge at a school as a "school shooting."

You should probably go back and look at how many "school shootings" your country has had if one counts universities and accidents as you do.

I still think it's BS. Just trying to pad the numbers like grabbers always do.

Everyone, meet Tom

Tom thinks everyone in the world should be scared like he is, and carry weapons because of fear.

tom thinks there's a conspiracy to keep his precious away.

poor Tom, don't listen to Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Everyone, meet Mitch.

He might or might not think that an accidental discharge at a school is a "school shooting" but he sure does like to gossip about me.

You have a sickness. Seek help.

 

and yes, of course an "accidental discharge" is a shot fired at a school. And if you eliminated ALL of those from whatever stats you look at, it would not change the data materially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can define a "school shooting" for PA purposes:

It's one that appears here for expressions of concern before the bodies have cooled. All the others listed in gungrabby propaganda are just number padding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this one:

 

school shooting is a form of mass shooting involving an armed attack on an educational institution, such as a school or university. The U.S. Secret Service defines them as shootings where schools are "deliberately selected as the location for the attack".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you don't care that you're dishonestly padding the numbers by joining your buddy LB 15 in repeating the gungrabby propaganda talking point about it being "weeks" between our "school shootings."

If you cared, you'd say something like "perhaps that stat is wrong and it's more than 'weeks' but my point otherwise stands."

But your inability to back off in any way prevents it and amuses me.

This could have been a good discussion, mate. So far you have trashed it with one petty bit.  But I sometimes have hope for you, Tom Ray. 

I think it works better when you disappear after these shootings, than when you do the poodle attack dog bit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites