|
Guns have not been necessary in America for a very long time.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:It's pathetic, disengenous and absolutely disgusting. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Something a lot of people like to gloss over when it comes to gun deaths in the US is that the majority of them are criminals shooting other criminals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Why yes, well off American gun owner, you too can feel as if you are in a now war torn country historically swept with sectarian, ethnic, civil and now large terrorist organization troubles. Here we can observe a classic demonstration of the rush of adrenaline that someone gets for outragedly denouncing someone else on the Internet. Good job Rigged Death Trap! You have shown yourself to be a more morally correct individual and you will now be showered in social prestige and adulation for totally putting that badthinking poster in their place. I find it interesting that the Kreider "Guns are for pussies!" cartoon keeps getting reposted when those same people are upset enough at the idea of a fellow citizen carrying a weapon (one which has a slim chance of actually being used, let alone used against that terrified individual) that they want to ban all guns. And, no, I'm not buying the "we just want better gun control" thing, obviously many Americans (and American gun owners) support better regulations on guns, the problem with that idea is that the anti-gun people have admitted outright that incrementalism of gun control is a step towards a total gun ban, and slightly better gun control isn't going to meaningfully affect mass murder or drug killings. For the former there's no real fixing that outside widespread and comprehensive mental healthcare and an early detection system (though I guess the NSA is on that already???), and for the latter you'd have to somehow repatriate a huge fraction of the weapons floating around in America to even start to make a dent in that statistic. It seems to me that people who are afraid of guns calling gun owners "pussies" is a typical case of projection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
There are perfectly good reasons to be uncomfortable about random yahoos carrying firearms around you for no specific reason, particularly that they are more likely to escalate a minor situation as well as being much more likely to be paranoid, racist and generally unpleasant. Mental health accessibility is also an obvious red herring. Only a tiny fraction of murders are mental illness related, while the majority of gun related. Gun fanboys ignore this because they have to Tezzor fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Mental health accessibility is also an obvious red herring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Indeed. It is the foldy stocks that are to blame. Their widespread accessibility is certainly a major contributing factor, yes, as they lower the threshold for violence and make violence deadlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Legalise IEDs and the artillery shells they are made from, else the True Constitution/Glorious Socialist Revolution will never happen
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Here we can observe a classic demonstration of the rush of adrenaline that someone gets for outragedly denouncing someone else on the Internet. Good job Rigged Death Trap! You have shown yourself to be a more morally correct individual and you will now be showered in social prestige and adulation for totally putting that badthinking poster in their place. You're trying to do the same thing. -Troika- posted:Unlike you, at least he's honest about it. Actually, he's pretending to be above the debate tactic he's employing. So its the opposite of honest, and hypocritical to boot. Red and Black fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Their widespread accessibility is certainly a major contributing factor, yes, as they lower the threshold for violence and make violence deadlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:You're trying to do the same thing. Unlike you, at least he's honest about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Something a lot of people like to gloss over when it comes to gun deaths in the US is that the majority of them are criminals shooting other criminals. by far the majority are suicides, like around 2:1 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122535 quote:In 2012, there were 32,288 deaths from firearm violence in the United States, including 11,622 homicides and 20,666 suicides. Firearms were used in 69.6% of all homicides that year (74.2% among men and 52.4% among women) and 50.9% of all suicides (56.4% among men and 31.2% among women, for whom firearms ranked second after poisoning). primarily middle aged and older white men, a group that needs to cull as fast as possible, although all white men are at highest risk of firearm suicide. again i don't see how any proper leftist would want to reverse this trend boner confessor fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Well if suicide is illegal, then obviously everyone who commits suicide with a handgun is a criminal who shot a criminal. I am sure they would be reassured to know they have been packaged into a statistic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:by far the majority are suicides, like around 2:1
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:primarily middle aged and older white men, a group that needs to cull as fast as possible, although all white men are at highest risk of firearm suicide. again i don't see how any proper leftist would want to reverse this trend  As a white person I welcome the sweet embrace of death knowing the world is safe in the hands of the rad-soaked super-roaches who will feast on the remains of our pitiful civilization. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Here we can observe a classic demonstration of the rush of adrenaline that someone gets for outragedly denouncing someone else on the Internet. Good job Rigged Death Trap! You have shown yourself to be a more morally correct individual and you will now be showered in social prestige and adulation for totally putting that badthinking poster in their place. No one is coming to take your guns away. That, in America, has already been settled and probably never will happen during my or your lifetimes. I get it man Guns are fun but the price the rest of the country is paying for completely free, unquestioned public access to your hobby is getting quite unacceptable for them. Also you're a prick. Good job trying to appear the calm and collected one. Obviously im so angry and so goddamn outraged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
i don't know many gun people personally but all of those i do know who don't just own guns but talk about guns in casual conversation, talk about going to the range this weekend, etc. have all openly fantasized at some point about resisting an oppressive government through force of arms and/or righteously murdering a criminal in some clear cut 100% legally permitted to kill a stranger scenario
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Late to the party as usual. My one problem with the topic on gun laws is my liberal colleagues will say "We should ban them!" but there are so many guns out there in America, and so much public support for it. It's ridiculous how people will cling to their guns and there is some kind of palpable fear that the gubmit is coming to take away your guns. Getting rid of guns in America would take billions and billions of dollars and involve overreaching prison laws to nonviolent offenders. It'd most likely pay off in the long term but in the short term election cycle system we have in place nobody would like it. I think getting rid of guns is going to be a process of A. Making them legal but expensive to own and B. Fostering a culture that doesn't glorify guns and gun violence. Anything else is just spinning your wheels. quote:i don't know many gun people personally but all of those i do know who don't just own guns but talk about guns in casual conversation, talk about going to the range this weekend, etc. have all openly fantasized at some point about resisting an oppressive government through force of arms and/or righteously murdering a criminal in some clear cut 100% legally permitted to kill a stranger scenario I'm from the south. I know plenty of people who own guns and have conceal carry that aren't interested in going out and shooting someone and being a hero in the process. Just have them as they enjoy the masculine image it represents or have anxiety and feel they need protection. Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What exactly about foldy stocks do you believe makes violence deadlier? Oh sorry I read that as "foldy sticks," meaning guns. Folding stocks don't in themselves make violence deadlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
There are people who would like to take my guns, but they will never actually be able to do it. And if they tried, I would shoot them. With my guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
So tezzor, what's it like being a conscientious objector from the class struggle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
OP, philosophically speaking, I'm opposed to the idea that the government should be able to ban me from owning something or doing something because they have deemed that it is unnecessary for me to have or do it, rather than presenting a case that the government has a legitimate, compelling interest in ensuring that I don't. Practically speaking, legal access to guns isn't strongly correlated to homicide rate across countries or regions or eras, so strict regulation is unlikely to create a meaningful, long term reduction in the homicide rate. The squeeze isn't worth the juice, and as the drug war has shown, creating a massive black market and large prison population in order to regulate something that people are going to want whether it's legal or not has poor outcomes from both a law enforcement and social perspective. Nelson Mandingo posted:I think getting rid of guns is going to be a process of A. Making them legal but expensive to own Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i don't know many gun people personally but all of those i do know who don't just own guns but talk about guns in casual conversation, talk about going to the range this weekend, etc. have all openly fantasized at some point about resisting an oppressive government through force of arms and/or righteously murdering a criminal in some clear cut 100% legally permitted to kill a stranger scenario And more than half the posters on this forum regularly fantasise about violent revolution, eating the rich etc. Does this mean they can all be arrested?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:No one is coming to take your guns away. I don't own any guns and haven't fired a gun since summer camp target shooting like 15 years ago as a kid. I did, however, grow up among hunters and farmers who had fully legitimate and necessary uses for their weapons. I called that post out because you saw someone respond to the Kreider cartoon with an image of a group who actually had a legitimate use for weapons instead of being cowardly and using it for a security blanket, and jumped to some pretty wild conclusions and assumptions in an eager attempt to excoriate someone instead of, I don't know, responding in good faith. There's kind of a pattern developing in public discourse over the last several years that you're participating in! "The price the rest of the country is paying is getting unacceptable" is total crap fearmongering. Violent crime and murder rates have been dropping steadily over the past several decades. You're letting the media narrative and your particular echo chamber terrify you into thinking that everyone is a hair trigger away from filling you with lead. Do you think shark attacks are a serious problem that we need to do something about? Chomskyan posted:You're trying to do the same thing. It's not a debate tactic at all. It's bullshit social posturing from people who're more interested in the results of appearing morally correct and getting to yell at people. He did the same shitposting in Volkerball's Islam thread. It's clear that he doesn't actually have any deeper than surface-level comprehension of a topic and instead of sitting back and listening RDT read one thing that seemed Correct to him and assumed anyone who disagreed is a filthy, repugnant, disgusting wrongthinker, whether it's "Gun owners are actually insanely violent manchildren hobbyists, trifling nonthreats yet extremely dangerous" or "No, you see, Daesh is exclusively the results of geopolitics and absolutely nothing else" and just repeating that over and over. It's annoying as gently caress to see this over and over in D&D, it's just a more evolved version of cheerleading really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Guns are pretty useless for all the things that the consumer gun culture imagines. After all, those things are largely imaginary: defense from hoodie-wearing marauders etc. Americans are incredibly safe, thanks to their prosperity and not to guns. But as long as white militias and white militia fellow-travelers arm themselves, others should as well. We need to be able to shoot back at them when they try to run through our neighborhoods like Janjaweed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I don't own any guns and haven't fired a gun since summer camp target shooting like 15 years ago as a kid. I did, however, grow up among hunters and farmers who had fully legitimate and necessary uses for their weapons. I called that post out because you saw someone respond to the Kreider cartoon with an image of a group who actually had a legitimate use for weapons instead of being cowardly and using it for a security blanket, and jumped to some pretty wild conclusions and assumptions in an eager attempt to excoriate someone instead of, I don't know, responding in good faith. Oh. I guess guns are necessary then in todays America because the Peshmerga forces are fighting ISIL/S. Consider me convinced. I feel I overeacted a slight but its really disengenous to compare the situation in America to a place with full blown Civil War. And yeah shitposting. Its nice to be called out for stuff like this cross-thread, it makes me feel all giddy. Cool that you took two posts about geopolitics and insist I keep repeating stuff. Sure schooled me. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Gun ownership in the US has been on the rise for the last 30-40 years, likewise violent crime has been declining over the same time period. I'm not going to claim that the correlation is directly linked, but suffice to say there could be some causation at work. Regardless statistically speaking an extremely low percentage of legal guns and gun owners are ever implicated in a violent gun related crime (on the order of fractions of a %). The We'd do better dealing directly with inner city violence than worrying about Jebediah in the backwoods of Idaho who has a nice rifle and handgun collection and who'll likely never fire them in anger. Edit: Pretty much everything I've said can be found at bjs.gov, specifically their gun crimes statistics http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27 Also page 32 is noteworthy for showing that justifiable homicides by police have been consistent/declining for 20 years, and by citizens have been outright declining for 25-30 edit 2: It is worth noting, when considering the thread's question of "Are Guns Necessary" that given the constitutional right to bear arms, the burden of proof does not rest upon those seeking to keep their firearms to prove their usefulness, but rather those seeking to take them to prove they are not only un-necessary, but outright antithetical to the operation of a free society. Statistically (and popularly) this does not seem to be a viable argument. edit: Missed this the first time SedanChair posted:Guns are pretty useless for all the things that the consumer gun culture imagines. After all, those things are largely imaginary: defense from hoodie-wearing marauders etc. Americans are incredibly safe, thanks to their prosperity and not to guns. But as long as white militias and white militia fellow-travelers arm themselves, others should as well. We need to be able to shoot back at them when they try to run through our neighborhoods like Janjaweed. The number of justifiable homicides by citizens is not far removed from the number by police over the last 30 years. The two most common situations where citizens are justified in taking a life are in fact "Disrupting a crime" (i.e. came home and found someone burgling my house) or "Attacked Citizen" These situations are not common in a general sense (they are unlikely to happen to a given person on a given day) but they are legitimate reasons to be concerned about self-defense. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=32 treeboy fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:And yeah shitposting. Its nice to be called out for stuff like this cross-thread, it makes me feel all giddy. Cool that you took two posts about geopolitics and insist I keep repeating stuff. Sure schooled me. While weak reading comprehension (whether intentional or not) is commonplace in D&D it's actually pretty rare to see someone who repeatedly can't grasp what's actually being said. Here's another example, maybe you can understand after the third time it's been explained to you: Rigged Death Trap posted:Oh. I guess guns are necessary then in todays America because the Peshmerga forces are fighting ISIL/S. I'm talking about stuff like this. You read something you didn't like, boiled it down to absolute minimums then going PFFT HAHA WHAT A DUMB THING TO SAY and contributing absolutely nothing else to the thread. This is nothing more than slightly more sophisticated cheerleading. You did the same thing in the Islam thread which I had recently read, so it was a handy example to bring up. Guns are not necessary, but really nothing else is "necessary" in America except food. It's a dumb premise to debate. I don't think guns are actually a problem in America, however, and I'm not comfortable with the people who are so very extremely loving eager to disarm people for no actual real reason. As others are repeatedly pointing out, violent crime is dropping, the vast majority of gunowners never use them for anything other than shooting targets or hunting, and it's the drug war and poverty that's actually the root cause of most of the current gun-related homicides. Gun suicides are an externality of our poor mental healthcare and the lack of access to euthanasia. So what is left that's so goddamn important and pressing that the masses must be pacified and cowed and stripped of their weapons? Historically, when a ruling class or government has enacted weapon bans, it's very very rarely been good news for the population. For every Zimmerman-style anecdote about how horrible guns are there's several dozen anecdotes of people legitimately defending themselves from criminals. Statistics are not on your side, the law is not on your side, popular opinion is not on your side, anecdotal necessity isn't on your side, and even hunters/farmers/ranchers aren't going to be on your side. So what exactly is the impetus here for a gun ban other than "I'm scared of those dangerous murderweapons that are pfft lol they're just toys"? Frankly, if anything, the police are much more deserving of being disarmed than the population.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:And more than half the posters on this forum regularly fantasise about violent revolution, eating the rich etc. Does this mean they can all be arrested? there's a bit of a difference between what people post on a comedy forum on the internet and what people say to friends and peers in real life, the two aren't equivalent. i also didn't say these people should be punished, i was just noticing a pattern. calm down paranoid patty, nobody's coming to steal your guns boner confessor fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
If you ban guns only the capitalists will have guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Volcott posted:There are people who would like to take my guns, but they will never actually be able to do it. Nelson Mandingo posted:Late to the party as usual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:So you would die before your gave up your hobby? Because when you start shooting government agents, they shoot back, and they have better weapons than you. They can see you from space and launch an airplane to blow you up with a missile if you weren't going down to heavily armed and highly trained other guys with guns. Ah yes, because poorly equipped, organized, and funded militants have never proved troublesome for militarily superior and wealthy states in the past, just so long as you ignore 20th Century history. This is also assuming that areas like Central/South America wouldn't gleefully flood more powerful weapons into the country for $$ (which they would). Also ignore the likely reticence of at least some of the US military to engage with a popular revolt by American citizens. As far as I'm concerned as long as the US Government is concerned about seizing guns then the guns are performing their job. Also your gun buyback would probably be hundreds of billions, if not more. There are roughly 350 million guns in private ownership in the United States, if you offered even $500 for each gun (many are worth much much more than that) you're looking at close to $200b. That's peanuts compared to the last "stimulus" the country got and would likely do just as much (i.e. jack poo poo) also ignore that it's being paid for with tax dollars so really it's people simply getting money back that they already paid into the system via payroll deductions and suddenly your idea sounds really really bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
treeboy posted:Ah yes, because poorly equipped, organized, and funded militants have never proved troublesome for militarily superior and wealthy states in the past, just so long as you ignore 20th Century history. predominantly the only troublesome part is hosing Real Patriots out of your tank treads treeboy posted:As far as I'm concerned as long as the US Government is concerned about seizing guns then the guns are performing their job. the government isn't concerned about this though, at all
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
I tend to think that if we have the moral right to kill in self defense or in defense of another, that this seems to imply that we have the moral right to own weapons for that purpose. Just how much this can inform the debate on gun control, I don't know. If it's accepted, it would seem to strengthen arguments for allowing people to carry handguns. Doesn't really have much to do with most other kinds of guns. - As to the practicality of increasing gun control, I don't think it's likely to happen at all. At one point there was a national political base for gun control, there isn't anymore. Sandy hook was not only the worst gun massacre, but it is also just about the worst -possible- gun massacre. Somone shooting a bunch of little kids in their elementary school is as horrific as crime gets. If that wasn't enough to shock people into changing their minds on gun control, it's unlikely anything will in the foreseeable future. - I believe that most people on the pro-gun side badly misinterpret the second amendment. I believe it is a guarantee against being disarmed, not a guarantee of the right to collect guns or have them be a hobby. If the government issued every adult in the country say- a handgun, an assault rifle, and a shotgun- and then strictly outlawed the trade or possession of all other guns, I don't believe the second amendment would present any objection. Somone going before a judge and claiming his right to keep and bear arms was infringed could be responded to with "That isn't true. You freely keep and bear a handgun, an assault rifle and a shotgun." So, while I am a gun owner, and do enjoy shooting as a hobby, and enjoy having a weapon in case I were to need to defend myself in some extremely unlikely exigency, I don't think that the second amendment is some talisman against all gun regulations and controls. Nor that all gun regulations and controls are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Gun buybacks, in practice, have generally ended up with the buybacks mosty only getting broken/lovely guns, AND with people standing outside the buybacks offering cash for anything they think looks collectible.  For that matter, there have been a number of instances where people aquired a bunch of weapons more cheaply than the buyback was paying, immediately hauled them all over to the buyback, and made a profit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:predominantly the only troublesome part is hosing Real Patriots out of your tank treads You don't go outside much do you? I bet you're also one of the people who thinks Police should be disarmed and the populace should throw off their oppressors, but expects the government to be able to effortlessly put down an armed revolt. Which is it, jackboots or peaceniks? Or do you only want an armed military who's expected to open fire on disobedient citizens at a moments notice. I recommend moving to China or the Middle East if the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
treeboy posted:You don't go outside much do you? I bet you're also one of the people who thinks Police should be disarmed and the populace should throw off their oppressors, but expects the government to be able to effortlessly put down an armed revolt. Which is it, jackboots or peaceniks? Or do you only want an armed military who's expected to open fire on disobedient citizens at a moments notice. I recommend moving to China or the Middle East if the latter. so because i pointed out that most armed civilian revolts of the last hundred years were complete failures, i must be either a naive peacenik/supporter of a militarized police state? that seems like a pretty broad range of possibilities. you're effectively stating that i have some opinion on guns from one extreme to the other. i don't think i understand your question and or accusation here
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so because i pointed out that most armed civilian revolts of the last hundred years were complete failures, i must be either a naive peacenik/supporter of a militarized police state? that seems like a pretty broad range of possibilities. you're effectively stating that i have some opinion on guns from one extreme to the other. i don't think i understand your question and or accusation here Keep your idiotic schtick to the Gamergate thread please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
^^^ I'm not sure what's idiodic about what he said? He was replying to a dumb post.treeboy posted:You don't go outside much do you? I bet you're also one of the people who thinks Police should be disarmed and the populace should throw off their oppressors, but expects the government to be able to effortlessly put down an armed revolt. Which is it, jackboots or peaceniks? Or do you only want an armed military who's expected to open fire on disobedient citizens at a moments notice. I recommend moving to China or the Middle East if the latter. Your reading comprehension is questionable. Last I checked, Popular Thug Drink did not say that he wants the government to have a huge military capable of effortlessly putting down an armed revolt. Him observing that something is the case does not mean that he wants thing and is happy about it. This shouldn't be tough to understand, but I guess you were too busy acting out some fantasy of totally owning some socialist online to actually read the post you were responding to. As for the questions in the OP, I'm pretty confident that, if it were possible to magically remove all privately owned guns from the US, it would be an improvement. We need only look at other developed countries with either no privately owned firearms or strictly restricted firearm ownership for evidence that this would the case. I say this as someone who actually thinks guns are really neat and wouldn't mind owning one someday for recreational purposes (since I'm aware that they're basically useless for self defense*). That being said, I'm pretty sure it's impossible to actually reasonably accomplish this. Given the status quo, where guns can easily be acquired through illegal channels, I'm not sure how effective various forms of gun control are. It seems likely that requiring background checks and the like would at least prevent a few tragedies, which is better than nothing, but I don't have the evidence on hand to support this. I find it doubtful that stuff like limiting magazine sizes will actually accomplish anything. *In the sense that the chance of the firearm causing a tragic accident heavily offsets whatever remote chance I might actually end up in a situation where shooting the gun would be justifiable. Popular Thug Drink posted:so because i pointed out that most armed civilian revolts of the last hundred years were complete failures, i must be either a naive peacenik/supporter of a militarized police state? that seems like a pretty broad range of possibilities. you're effectively stating that i have some opinion on guns from one extreme to the other. i don't think i understand your question and or accusation here He's trying to say "haha this guy is so hypocritical because he believes two contradicting things (that I made up)!" Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Yes, for hunting. It is a huge part of American culture with no real large downsides.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:16
|
|
