RE: Canadian gun control...

RE: Canadian gun control... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KYsissy -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:17:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Wrong. I know this will go over your head but I am going to point it out anyway. Australia's crime, and even murder rate are virtually unchanged from before the passed their draconian laws. Quite wrong. Read the link I gave that quoted from the Australian Institute of Criminology. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Ours, with a steadily increasing number of guns out there is dropping rapidly. Yeah... so rapidly that the US still have the highest gun stats than any other OECD country by several orders of magnitude. Your rate of decline is sooo minimal it barely changes the figures that are quoted to 2 or more decimal places. I hardly call that "rapidly". And it's still waaay out of control. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Since you and other anti gun types won't remember that I have said before that while this does not prove that more guns = less crime it destroys the idea that more guns = more crime. You have either said, or implied, in previous gun threads that more guns make it safer for people; Ergo: less crime. So you are back-peddaling again. Not a straw man. Pick any city in the US and the story is the same. The small drug patches are where the majority of the gun violence happens. If you do not recognize this as a fundamental fact, you have willful ignorance. This is absolutely true. Lawless areas have large numbers of people with illegal guns also predisposed to violence. Step away from those areas and you have tons of law abiding citizens with guns almost no gun violence at all. Take out the psychopaths (the real psychopaths) and you have just a tad bit less, because there are so few legitimate psychopaths. But certainly in Aurora, CO or in CT, those areas have essentially no gun violence until a crazy goes off (in a no-gun-zone, of course, both times). Remove those and you've got nothing. You can also see the difference by looking at domestic violence. There's plenty of that everywhere. Middle-class, upper-class, most assaults are domestic. That's more of a societal problem, not something you see only in gangs, although I'm sure gang members are even worse to their partners than others. Google almost any "city" and "shooting map" and it shows there are pockets where most of the shootings happen. These pockets also happen to be drug areas. Coincidence? I know putting two and two together is just too much for some here but there it is.

BamaD -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:19:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy Not a straw man. Pick any city in the US and the story is the same. The small drug patches are where the majority of the gun violence happens. If you do not recognize this as a fundamental fact, you have willful ignorance. But each and every tiny area of any US town and city are not the sole thing used to make the statistics for the whole of the US. You said it yourself - "small drug patches..." Cherry pick what you like. It doesn't extrapolate to make it typically a US-wide statistic. Wiki doesn't agree with you. It's as simple as that. The you are cherry picking because you eliminate those areas and all crime is much lower.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 46% is not a minimal drop in crime, it is massive. Where?? I don't see that figure in any stats for the US. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD gun deaths in Australia may have dropped but the murder rate is virtually unchanged, and you know it. The topic is for guns - not other sources. Another strawman diversionary tactic. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I said that that one fact did not prove that more guns = less crime, I did not say that they didn't have a good effect on the crime rate. You really are dense, aren't you? Nope. You deny what you have previously stated or implied in other threads. You say it destroys the idea that more guns = more crime. US statistics appear to prove otherwise. The US have more guns per capita than any other OECD country. The US have a much higher rate of gun crime per capita than any other OECD country. Those stats are equatable. More guns per capita therefore make more gun crimes. Again... gun crimes, not other crimes.

Musicmystery -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:30:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 And still, some people were able to get guns, storm a government building, and..... Oh FFS. Compared this to the incidences in the US. There's a clear difference.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:32:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy Not a straw man. Pick any city in the US and the story is the same. The small drug patches are where the majority of the gun violence happens. If you do not recognize this as a fundamental fact, you have willful ignorance. But each and every tiny area of any US town and city are not the sole thing used to make the statistics for the whole of the US. You said it yourself - "small drug patches..." Cherry pick what you like. It doesn't extrapolate to make it typically a US-wide statistic. Wiki doesn't agree with you. It's as simple as that. The you are cherry picking because you eliminate those areas and all crime is much lower. I'm not cherry picking. I'm saying that KY's cherry-picking disagrees with Wiki as a national statistic for the US. Of course if you eliminate any high crime area in any place around the world, the crime rate will be lower. That's basic maths. Duh! But... it doesn't mean that any particular high crime area (and the reason for that crime rate) is typical across the whole nation. To make such an inane extrapolation is ludicrous.

KYsissy -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:33:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy Not a straw man. Pick any city in the US and the story is the same. The small drug patches are where the majority of the gun violence happens. If you do not recognize this as a fundamental fact, you have willful ignorance. But each and every tiny area of any US town and city are not the sole thing used to make the statistics for the whole of the US. You said it yourself - "small drug patches..." Cherry pick what you like. It doesn't extrapolate to make it typically a US-wide statistic. Wiki doesn't agree with you. It's as simple as that. What am i cherry picking? You obviously have zero knowledge on the subject beyond what a few websites throw out there. If I was cherry picking I would either be trying to eliminate the high crime areas or exagerrating them. The point is drugs fuel the gangs who do the majority of the shootings. Go ahead, pick a city and google yhe city name and shooting map. You will see pockets where most of the shootings happen. These pockets are also drug areas. I know for a fact this correlation is true in Chicago, Louisville, and Atlanta. I know this will be the case in every city lookup, except maybe East St. Louis cuz that town is a complete shithole. This is the truth no matter how badly you want it not to be. And if you refuse this simple exercise, willfull ignorance.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy What am i cherry picking? You obviously have zero knowledge on the subject beyond what a few websites throw out there. Go ahead, pick a city and google yhe city name and shooting map. You will see pockets where most of the shootings happen. These pockets are also drug areas. I know for a fact this correlation is true in Chicago, Louisville, and Atlanta. I know this will be the case in every city lookup, except maybe East St. Louis cuz that town is a complete shithole. This is the truth no matter how badly you want it not to be. And if you refuse this simple exercise, willfull ignorance. I can cite a traffic jam in just about every major city in the UK at certain times. That doesn't make the whole country in a gridlock. Cherry picking "pockets" of certain crimes and those areas where it happens. That in itself does not extrapolate to a national statistic for the whole of the US. That is what you are cherry picking. It's the extrapolation concept and logic you are not grasping.

KYsissy -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:49:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy What am i cherry picking? You obviously have zero knowledge on the subject beyond what a few websites throw out there. Go ahead, pick a city and google yhe city name and shooting map. You will see pockets where most of the shootings happen. These pockets are also drug areas. I know for a fact this correlation is true in Chicago, Louisville, and Atlanta. I know this will be the case in every city lookup, except maybe East St. Louis cuz that town is a complete shithole. This is the truth no matter how badly you want it not to be. And if you refuse this simple exercise, willfull ignorance. I can cite a traffic jam in just about every major city in the UK at certain times. That doesn't make the whole country in a gridlock. Cherry picking "pockets" of certain crimes and those areas where it happens. That in itself does not extrapolate to a national statistic for the whole of the US. That is what you are cherry picking. It's the extrapolation concept and logic you are not grasping. Your post#73. You asked for citation that gangs are responsible for the majority of gun violence. Citations provided. Then it became a straw man. Ways to see correlation of areas with lots of shootings and how they match with drug areas provided. That became cherry picking. I have come to the conclusion that discussion is not your focus. Arguing for arguments sake is. As such i am done. Good night all.

BamaD -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:53:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 46% is not a minimal drop in crime, it is massive. Where?? I don't see that figure in any stats for the US. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD gun deaths in Australia may have dropped but the murder rate is virtually unchanged, and you know it. The topic is for guns - not other sources. Another strawman diversionary tactic. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I said that that one fact did not prove that more guns = less crime, I did not say that they didn't have a good effect on the crime rate. You really are dense, aren't you? Nope. You deny what you have previously stated or implied in other threads. You say it destroys the idea that more guns = more crime. US statistics appear to prove otherwise. The US have more guns per capita than any other OECD country. The US have a much higher rate of gun crime per capita than any other OECD country. Those stats are equatable. More guns per capita therefore make more gun crimes. Again... gun crimes, not other crimes. I am of the view that if you have 100 murders a year 90 with guns and you ban guns. If the next year you only have 10 murders with guns but you still have 100 murders you have gained nothing. You, of course feel better if they are shoved out of windows. the subject isn't reducing gun deaths, it is reducing deaths. By the way my 46% comes from the FBI, I realize that since they aren't British you don't count them. The FBI also says that guns are used to stop violent crime 650,000 times a year.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:54:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom On pt. 1, that's what I thought. And it is problematic. A cop shooting a dangerous felon who is an imminent threat dead isn't gun violence in the meaning being discussed here. So "good" shoots get conflated with wrong ones, making the total higher than it should be. I thought you might come back with that. A gun death, whether you consider it good or bad, is still a gun death whether you like it or not. I don't consider any gun death to be good - no matter what the circumstance. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom On pt. 2, the issue is that most of us aren't in gangs. So guns aren't a threat to us. The gangbangers kill the gangbangers. Whether they use a gun, a knife, their fists or an IED, they're killing each other. There is no effect on the rest of us. Unless you happen to get caught in the crossfire or the mele. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom So it's not a real risk to me unless I decide to join the Crips or the Bloods or MS-13 tomorrow. If we're looking at societal effects, we have to consider them on the average person, not those who choose a life of violence. In the same way, if in the heyday of the Mafia, two warring families gunned down 50 made men and 1 innocent person, that's 1 relevant murder. That's all that matters to the rest of us. So these data again make guns appear much more dangerous than they are. In your example, 50 made men and 1 innocent bystander is still 51 gun deaths. And in my eyes, it's 51 murders by a gun. I don't discount the other 50 just because it happens between two warring groups/families or whatever.

BamaD -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 6:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom On pt. 1, that's what I thought. And it is problematic. A cop shooting a dangerous felon who is an imminent threat dead isn't gun violence in the meaning being discussed here. So "good" shoots get conflated with wrong ones, making the total higher than it should be. I thought you might come back with that. A gun death, whether you consider it good or bad, is still a gun death whether you like it or not. I don't consider any gun death to be good - no matter what the circumstance. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom On pt. 2, the issue is that most of us aren't in gangs. So guns aren't a threat to us. The gangbangers kill the gangbangers. Whether they use a gun, a knife, their fists or an IED, they're killing each other. There is no effect on the rest of us. Unless you happen to get caught in the crossfire or the mele. quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom So it's not a real risk to me unless I decide to join the Crips or the Bloods or MS-13 tomorrow. If we're looking at societal effects, we have to consider them on the average person, not those who choose a life of violence. In the same way, if in the heyday of the Mafia, two warring families gunned down 50 made men and 1 innocent person, that's 1 relevant murder. That's all that matters to the rest of us. So these data again make guns appear much more dangerous than they are. In your example, 50 made men and 1 innocent bystander is still 51 gun deaths. And in my eyes, it's 51 murders by a gun. I don't discount the other 50 just because it happens between two warring groups/families or whatever. you kill him so he doesn't kill you and that is as bad as if he had killed you, thinking like that will lead to extention

Lucylastic -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 7:05:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The FBI also says that guns are used to stop violent crime 650,000 times a year. yeah give me the site on that, cos im calling BULLSHIT

Musicmystery -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 7:27:44 PM)
It's from an advertisement. "According to noted criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University, every year some 650,000 Americans use firearms to thwart criminal assault." Even Paul Blackman, research coordinator for the N.R.A., concedes that the advertisement "stretches the data." He adds, "I don't know of any criminological study that has tried to quantify the number of lives saved based on the number of guns that were successfully used for protection." Kleck says his study did not consider the question of lives saved. Nor did he conclude, as the N.R.A. claims, that a crime or an assault had been "thwarted" in each of his estimated 645,000 (the ad upped it to 650,000) annual instances of a protective use of a gun. Kleck notes that his study may have included incidents in which a homeowner merely heard noisy youths outside his house, then shouted, "Hey, I've got a gun!" and never saw any possible attacker. His numbers are based on a 1981 poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. It asked 1,228 U.S. voters whether in the previous five years any member of their household had "used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property." In short -- the numbers and the claim in the ad are flatly made up. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html A relatively balanced view of the gun question comes, surprisingly, from Kleck. "The vast majority of the population lives in low-crime neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for defensive reasons," he says.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 7:32:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 46% is not a minimal drop in crime, it is massive. Where?? I don't see that figure in any stats for the US. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD gun deaths in Australia may have dropped but the murder rate is virtually unchanged, and you know it. The topic is for guns - not other sources. Another strawman diversionary tactic. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I said that that one fact did not prove that more guns = less crime, I did not say that they didn't have a good effect on the crime rate. You really are dense, aren't you? Nope. You deny what you have previously stated or implied in other threads. You say it destroys the idea that more guns = more crime. US statistics appear to prove otherwise. The US have more guns per capita than any other OECD country. The US have a much higher rate of gun crime per capita than any other OECD country. Those stats are equatable. More guns per capita therefore make more gun crimes. Again... gun crimes, not other crimes. I am of the view that if you have 100 murders a year 90 with guns and you ban guns. If the next year you only have 10 murders with guns but you still have 100 murders you have gained nothing. You, of course feel better if they are shoved out of windows. the subject isn't reducing gun deaths, it is reducing deaths. By the way my 46% comes from the FBI, I realize that since they aren't British you don't count them. The FBI also says that guns are used to stop violent crime 650,000 times a year. I really don't know where you get the insane idea that I advocate banning of guns. I don't. What I advocate is the banning of guns in public places - all public places. If in the next year you still have 100 murders with only 10 being by gun, that is a distinct advantage because most assaults without a gun would usually also be without a gun. So I dispute that you would still have 100 murders. Or can't you grasp that logic?? Check out these figures: http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/ Also, you say that the FBI stats show a 46% drop in gun crimes? According to The Guardian, showing stats by state as well as overall (from FBI figures), apart from Hawaii almost all the other states were showing percentage of firearms murders of all murders in the 60% and more range. Overall, the US only dropped by 3% for firearm murder rates. In another chart, it shows a pie chart of murder weapons - 68% is by firearms. It states - The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 3% on the previous year Note 3%, not 46%. Data provided by the FBI. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state Also - The 2011 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 3.8 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2010 estimates. The violent crime rate for the year was 386.3 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 4.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate), and the property crime rate was 2,908.7 offenses per 100,000 persons (a 1.3 percent decrease from the 2010 figure). -And- Each of the four violent crime offense estimates decreased when compared with the 2010 estimates. Robbery had the largest decrease at 4.0 percent, followed by aggravated assault with a 3.9 percent decline, forcible rape with a 2.5 percent decline, and murder and nonnegligent manslaughter with a 0.7 percent decrease. Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/fbi-releases-2011-crime-statistics Again... not 46% as you claim.

BamaD -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 7:38:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 46% is not a minimal drop in crime, it is massive. Where?? I don't see that figure in any stats for the US. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD gun deaths in Australia may have dropped but the murder rate is virtually unchanged, and you know it. The topic is for guns - not other sources. Another strawman diversionary tactic. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I said that that one fact did not prove that more guns = less crime, I did not say that they didn't have a good effect on the crime rate. You really are dense, aren't you? Nope. You deny what you have previously stated or implied in other threads. You say it destroys the idea that more guns = more crime. US statistics appear to prove otherwise. The US have more guns per capita than any other OECD country. The US have a much higher rate of gun crime per capita than any other OECD country. Those stats are equatable. More guns per capita therefore make more gun crimes. Again... gun crimes, not other crimes. I am of the view that if you have 100 murders a year 90 with guns and you ban guns. If the next year you only have 10 murders with guns but you still have 100 murders you have gained nothing. You, of course feel better if they are shoved out of windows. the subject isn't reducing gun deaths, it is reducing deaths. By the way my 46% comes from the FBI, I realize that since they aren't British you don't count them. The FBI also says that guns are used to stop violent crime 650,000 times a year. I really don't know where you get the insane idea that I advocate banning of guns. I don't. What I advocate is the banning of guns in public places - all public places. If in the next year you still have 100 murders with only 10 being by gun, that is a distinct advantage because most assaults without a gun would usually also be without a gun. So I dispute that you would still have 100 murders. Or can't you grasp that logic?? Check out these figures: http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/ Also, you say that the FBI stats show a 46% drop in gun crimes? According to The Guardian, showing stats by state as well as overall (from FBI figures), apart from Hawaii almost all the other states were showing percentage of firearms murders of all murders in the 60% and more range. Overall, the US only dropped by 3% for firearm murder rates. In another chart, it shows a pie chart of murder weapons - 68% is by firearms. It states - The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 3% on the previous year Note 3%, not 46%. Data provided by the FBI. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state Also - The 2011 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 3.8 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2010 estimates. The violent crime rate for the year was 386.3 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 4.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate), and the property crime rate was 2,908.7 offenses per 100,000 persons (a 1.3 percent decrease from the 2010 figure). -And- Each of the four violent crime offense estimates decreased when compared with the 2010 estimates. Robbery had the largest decrease at 4.0 percent, followed by aggravated assault with a 3.9 percent decline, forcible rape with a 2.5 percent decline, and murder and nonnegligent manslaughter with a 0.7 percent decrease. Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/fbi-releases-2011-crime-statistics Again... not 46% as you claim. You moron I didn't say in one year, in the last 15 years it has dropped from just under 7 to just over 4 in the same time the murder rates in your perfect countries has been stable. And you are still obsessed with just counting gun deaths, you do know they are just as dead if the murder weapon was a knife. In DC the end result of the handgun ban was that while the % of murders committed with firearms was cut in half this was only because the murder rate with firearms remained steady but the total murder rate doubled.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 8:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You moron I didn't say in one year, No, you didn't specify any time frame whatsoever. But to try and draw a sensible comparison, you need to specify a time frame or people will assume it's from the previous year - like most stats do. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD in the last 15 years it has dropped from just under 7 to just over 4 in the same time the murder rates in your perfect countries has been stable. The Guardian report states the UK figures are also down. So, not stable as you claim but also decreasing. I could claim that housing costs have risen by over 30,000% but it would be a stupid claim to make because I would be referring to costs over the last 50 years or so. So to pluck a figure of 15 years for a comparison is ridiculous unless you made that clear from the outset of your argument. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you are still obsessed with just counting gun deaths, Ummm.... because the initial post was about a gun crime happening in Canada?? It wasn't reporting a pillow fight in the town hall was it. No, it was about a gun crime. By US standards, a couple of people getting shot and some official building getting a few bullet holes is piffle and not even news-worthy. But because it was in Canada where such events are such a rarity, it was headline news. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD you do know they are just as dead if the murder weapon was a knife. Yes, I do. And your point is???? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In DC the end result of the handgun ban was that while the % of murders committed with firearms was cut in half this was only because the murder rate with firearms remained steady but the total murder rate doubled. And this piece of trivia is important... why?? As a few people have said over many months on various topics from guns to healthcare, the US way of trying things piecemeal or in tiny trials in tiny areas is just a waste of time and money and invariably doesn't work. The US have proved that time and again ad-nauseum. To do the job properly, anything must be done on a national scale, country wide, or it's a guaranteed failure.

thompsonx -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 8:12:14 PM)
ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have seen many Canadians condemn the access to firearms in the US. Exactly how many?

lovmuffin -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 8:12:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Ok, I may be just about the only American citizen who gets interrogated regarding firearms when I cross the border....but, yeah, don't think so. I am just a gal coming across the border in her car with her two dogs and inevitably get asked the question..."do you have any firearms on you?". That's weird. Where do you cross the border? I have crossed the border more times than I can remember and I have never once been asked that question. At the Western Washington/BC border It's the same thing going to Sault St Marie from Michigan. Every time they ask if we have any firearms. They don't even ask a follow up question, they just repeat the same almost or exact firearms question, usually 2 more times between asking other questions like do we have any tobacco. They even ask the tobacco question 2 or 3 times.

BamaD -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 8:24:33 PM)
But to try and draw a sensible comparison, you need to specify a time frame or people will assume it's from the previous year - like most stats do. Only an idiot would think that the 46% represented one year, particularly since I was making a comparison to the effects of a law passed nearly 20 years ago

BamaD -> RE: Canadian gun control... (10/22/2014 8:26:58 PM)
By US standards, a couple of people getting shot and some official building getting a few bullet holes is piffle and not even news-worthy. Again an assumption on your part not reflected in reality, as I pointed out our news media never passes on a chance to make gun owners look bad.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625