Gun Control

DeletedUser16628

:cool:Sorry Duduie I'm on a roll here with my thoughts and get to the meat of the beast and let's lay aside the utter futility of gun legislation at this point and lets look at gun ownership in a more important aspect, especially for those progressives who are yelling so loudly for gun control. I am referring to the "personal right" and "individual freedom" aspect. Much as (Jane Smiley) wants everyone to believe that the only thing guns are good for is killing, it just ain't so.

To be fair, what Jane's statement should have been is that guns are only good for shooting (there is a BIG difference between "shooting" and "killing"). What you (or any other gun owner) shoots is entirely up to you. There are, however, many gun sports that involve no killing whatsoever (trap shooting, silhouette shooting, marksmanship competitions, biathlons, collecting, etc.). Likewise, hunting is considered a legitimate use for firearms the world over and it happens to be what I like to do 3-4 times a year.whether or not you enjoy these sports is of no consequence to anyone but yourself. If someone wants to use a firearm for legally-acceptable uses, that is their right. Just because you may not enjoy what they are doing is no reason to deny them the opportunity to do it. If we get into that type of mindset we will be tossing democracy aside in short order. Denying someone the right to use and possess something based solely on the idea that someone, somewhere, may use said device to do harm is not just naive, it is downright stuck on stupid. Where do we draw the line? Silverware? Baseball bats? Let's get a little more creative... how about Drain-o and gasoline? Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer? Toilet bowel cleaners? These chemicals and compounds (and many other commonly available) can be used to create horrendous explosive devices and lethal poisonous gases that could kill more people in seconds than a gunman could in an hour... just ask the survivors of the Oklahoma Federal Building disaster. Do you suppose anyone did a background check when Timothy McVeigh bought fertilizer?

But we still haven't arrived at the crux of the argument--the real reason why gun control is a losing argument. That specific point is the one non-lethal use of a firearm that we haven't discussed. The use that is at the crux of the entire argument. It is the specific reason for which the Second Amendment was written. What is that specific use?

Deterrence,Deterrence,Deterrence

This is why police carry them. This is why the military amasses them. This is why many homeowners purchase them. And, most importantly, this is why the Second Amendment protects them. An armed populace is the best defense against an oppressive government and ours is getting there as we soon will be swiping a card to poop.

Such statements may sound trite and outdated to many in our society, but those folks probably aren't reading their newspapers much--or they aren't very good at "putting two and two together".Okay I have more just got to go run the hounds real quick.
 

DeletedUser16628

Sorry everyone but when I go on a rant I tend to keep typing so here goes.Our current political situation is raising serious legal questions about the role of our president and his power over the other two branches of government. Regardless of your political beliefs or party affiliation, a president who can blatantly disregard the legal orders of Congress and the Judiciary is a scary thought. People are now being detained indefinitely without access to counsel or trial. Citizens of this country are no longer guaranteed their right to privacy and can have their communications monitored without search warrants a very big problem in my eyes.Also Legally-organized political action groups are being monitored as would-be terrorists. Children are being arrested for writing violent fiction or creating reasonable facsimiles of their schools in video game environments. Oppressive interrogation techniques (formerly known as "torture") are now not only condoned by our military, but their use is encouraged by our president.

Logic dictates that we should be vigilant. Logic dictates that we should pay very close attention to our government and our constitution. And logic dictates that there is a real need, still, for the deterring effect of firearms dispersed among the populace.

You may not own firearms....

You may not like firearms......

You may even wish that they had never been invented.

But, truth be told, the only thing standing between freedom and oppression is the mortal fear of those who would oppress us--the fear that we might fight back just as our fore bearers did before us. Like it or not, the firearms' ability to shoot is the very thing that makes them necessary. It was for a very good reason that the saying regarding the ol' cowboy Colt .45 came into existence. I'm pretty sure this is correct The quote is as follows:

"God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal".

If we cannot protect and enforce our freedom (both nationally AND individually), we are not really free.And that is the truth as I see it.
 

DeletedUser16008

infiniti99 said:

But, truth be told, the only thing standing between freedom and oppression is the mortal fear of those who would oppress us--the fear that we might fight back just as our fore bearers did before us. Like it or not, the firearms' ability to shoot is the very thing that makes them necessary. It was for a very good reason that the saying regarding the ol' cowboy Colt .45 came into existence. I'm pretty sure this is correct The quote is as follows:

"God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal".

If we cannot protect and enforce our freedom (both nationally AND individually), we are not really free.And that is the truth as I see it.[/I][/B]
Click to expand...

And that is the problem, the more fear you have the ever worse it will get. You cannot have peace enforced by arms for very long. America is a young country and like most youngsters has yet to grow up where force of arms are concerned.

Need is food, need is fresh water, need is shelter from the elements, need is not a gun thats a wish and a want.

Sooner of later youll put down you weapons of mass protection and the idea that you have a right to kill stuff even out hunting ( 90% of hunting is all about killing stuff for the fun of it btw ) is just an excuse to use these weapons (toys )... the truth is people LIKE the idea of being able to kill things, dosn't really compute with me why, but all the rest such as protection and all the statistics dosnt alter there is a a very basic itch being scratched and thats the prospect of being able to defeat another and kill them, very base, very male and very animalistic. Survival of the fittest or the biggest gun ?

You show me a pro gun lobbyist and ill show you his collection...;)

I will bet If I ask Infi his weapon arsenal it numbers far more than a simple handgun, which is all thats needed for protection. You cannot enforce freedom forever either that is an illusion. That is how I see it anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Victor Kruger said:
I will bet If I ask Infi his weapon arsenal it numbers far more than a simple handgun, which is all thats needed for protection. You cannot enforce freedom forever either that is an illusion. That is how I see it anyway.
Click to expand...

Really Sherlock? And what was the biggest hint? That he hunts? One can't hunt with a handgun, d'uh!
And is not about enforcing something with guns, is about avoiding something being enforced with the use of guns.
 

DeletedUser16008

Duduie said:
Really Sherlock? And what was the biggest hint? That he hunts? One can't hunt with a handgun, d'uh!
And is not about enforcing something with guns, is about avoiding something being enforced with the use of guns.
Click to expand...

D'uh ! since when does hunting have anything to do with personal protection and arms that we are talking about ?, unless your living in polar bear country or afraid a rabid deer is gonna attack you so no im not counting the hunting guns, although theres plenty who pretend they do go shooting with handguns along.. just in case that lethal chipmunk is running wild no doubt ... :hmf:

Im sure infi can answer well enough I consider him a m8 and i stand by my statement even if you didnt understand what I was getting at im sure infi does. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Ok lemme break it down, cause I see you got confused. Infinity said he likes to go hunting ("3-4 times a year"), as well as to have guns for protection. This means at least 1 handgun and 1 shotgun. You were talking about his arsenal and said: "it numbers far more than a simple handgun" and my reaction was: "d'uh!!! of course, because he said he goes hunting 3-4 times a year I don't believe he hunts with his handgun". I was just saying that you are stating the dang obvious ... He never claimed to only have guns for protection ;)
I think this is enough talk about infinity's gun collection.
 

DeletedUser

Where I live we have very tight gun control, and my chances of being killed by a firearm (given that I am not a member of a gang, criminal organisation or serving in the police or army) is about the same as being killed by lightning (and our storms are quite tame, too). I'm quite happy with those odds.
 

DeletedUser34315

Most of hunting is the killing? No, most of hunting is the chase, the testing of your skills, and the eventual taste of elk burger if you are successful.

And, the right to kill stuff, even hunting?
We largely eliminated natural predators. I can well recall the last hard winter we had, when there was not enough food for all of the massive deer herds.
We are helping keep a healthy ecosystem by hunting.

As to "a very male thing", i seem to recall an awful lot of rapes that having a handgun would have prevented......
 

DeletedUser16008

Gandalf Greyhame said:
Most of hunting is the killing? No, most of hunting is the chase, the testing of your skills, and the eventual taste of elk burger if you are successful.

And, the right to kill stuff, even hunting?
We largely eliminated natural predators. I can well recall the last hard winter we had, when there was not enough food for all of the massive deer herds.
We are helping keep a healthy ecosystem by hunting.

As to "a very male thing", i seem to recall an awful lot of rapes that having a handgun would have prevented......
Click to expand...

sfunny im sure the ecosystem was around long before guns were invented.

Culling is not the same as hunting, one is done for the necessity the other is just an excuse to make some money and go kill something, don't kid yourself. If you hunted for the chase as many profess then why not just use a paint-gun or tranquilliser gun ?

Obviously there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they too need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle. Example, in the US FBI Crime Reports sources indicated that there are about 350,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, are now in the hands of criminals. The argument "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold to or stolen by criminals and can then be used for crimes. If those 350,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 350,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year.

Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally, ergo high gun crime. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. It is much more difficult for petty criminals to obtain guns when this happens.

So the question remains, do stricter gun control laws on balance decrease criminal power more than impeding the freedom's of law-abiding citizens ? I would argue that most gun control laws have a much more significant impact on criminals than law-abiding citizens.
 

DeletedUser

Make some money and go kill something? MAKE? Really? How? I can't wrap my head around it. Last time I went fishing I spent 10 times more money per pound of fish, than buying it in a grocery store: the equipment, the permit, the camping expenses, the gas ... Needless to say it was worth it for the sport, but I would definitely NOT MAKE money, but lose. Plus there's a limit on the amount you can keep, as is with hunting. Is expensive and is worth the price if you love the sport and the thrill. But it does NOT MAKE you money.

As for "most gun control laws have a much more significant impact on criminals than law-abiding citizens" REALLY? Ok lets translate this to illegal drugs and reverse the situation. Say one can possess and use drugs with a permit (pot already is). You might get burglarized, someone would definitely wanna steal it right? Right. Then government bans the possession. Does it make it harder for junkies to get it? Umm, not in my opinion. Whether they steal your drugs or your money to buy the drugs with, is the same. As goes for guns. They will steal from you either way. But I think they will steal with more confidence knowing that you probably do not own a gun, than knowing you might own a gun.
 

DeletedUser16008

Duduie said:
Make some money and go kill something? MAKE? Really? How? I can't wrap my head around it. Last time I went fishing I spent 10 times more money per pound of fish, than buying it in a grocery store: the equipment, the permit, the camping expenses, the gas ... Needless to say it was worth it for the sport, but I would definitely NOT MAKE money, but lose. Plus there's a limit on the amount you can keep, as is with hunting. Is expensive and is worth the price if you love the sport and the thrill. But it does NOT MAKE you money.

As for "most gun control laws have a much more significant impact on criminals than law-abiding citizens" REALLY? Ok lets translate this to illegal drugs and reverse the situation. Say one can possess and use drugs with a permit (pot already is). You might get burglarized, someone would definitely wanna steal it right? Right. Then government bans the possession. Does it make it harder for junkies to get it? Umm, not in my opinion. Whether they steal your drugs or your money to buy the drugs with, is the same. As goes for guns. They will steal from you either way. But I think they will steal with more confidence knowing that you probably do not own a gun, than knowing you might own a gun.
Click to expand...

yup businesses make money out of killing for sport, not the hunters but off the back of it, yknow a licence costs so does equipment and all that as youve said... don't know many people that hunt fish with guns though so with a rod n line your ok in my book. However hunting animals as a sport i don't happen to agree with either. All off the back of killing when you go back to the basics, deer or whatever we are just another type of animal and it just diminishes the importance of life when other animals are hunted for mere sport. That is another issue though and off topic here really.

No its a cycle the same as with drugs, nor is this about drugs and junkies are often hooked and looking for the next fix and to pay for it, You don't have a great record where firearms are concerned with violent crime .

Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. .)
In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.

Source: FBI UCR report, I will bet thats far more now, its not something you wave a magic wand at it will take decades to level out but you have to start somewhere. Getting rid of semi or automatics would be a start and hard to argue against as a "protection" weapon
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34315

Victor Kruger said:
yup businesses make money out of killing for sport, not the hunters but off the back of it, yknow a licence costs so does equipment and all that as youve said... don't know many people that hunt fish with guns though so with a rod n line your ok in my book. However hunting animals as a sport i don't happen to agree with either. All off the back of killing when you go back to the basics, deer or whatever we are just another type of animal and it just diminishes the importance of life when other animals are hunted for mere sport. That is another issue though and off topic here really.

No its a cycle the same as with drugs, nor is this about drugs and junkies are often hooked and looking for the next fix and to pay for it, You don't have a great record where firearms are concerned with violent crime .

Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. .)
In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.

Source: FBI UCR report, I will bet thats far more now, its not something you wave a magic wand at it will take decades to level out but you have to start somewhere. Getting rid of semi or automatics would be a start and hard to argue against as a "protection" weapon
Click to expand...
Using 1994 statistics tells a very, very different tale.
12,996 murder victims in 2010. ( according to the FBI UCR report.)

A different look at the issue:
(article taken from justfacts.com)
* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]


That sounds like very, very many good reasons to have a gun.
 

DeletedUser

Gandalf Greyhame said:
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/crime/man-arrested-for-stabbing-raping-woman
It's common sense, eli. If someone is trying to rape me, and if I have a gun, and point it at someone, they're probably not going to try to rape me any more, eh?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, as the saying goes, common sense is not so common.
The link you provided proves nothing. It does not even tell us that the woman had no gun.
She went voluntarily to the man's apartment.
Did she have a gun at home?
Was she carrying a gun in a bag which she had put down?
Was she wearing a gun which she was unable to pull once the knife was produced?
If she had produced a gun would she have been killed before using it?
If she had used a gun and failed to kill outright with the first shot, would she then have been killed?
Having freely gone to the man's apartment and then shot him, would she have been arraigned on a murder charge?
If you try to base a firm conclusion on assumptions and absent evidence you are on a hiding to nothing.
Gun-owners are three times more likely to be killed by a firearm than non-gun-owners.
If I constantly carry a loaded gun with me I probably lower the risk of being a victim of a crime of violence while increasing my own chance of being fatally injured in the cases where I am unsuccessful. I am probably also more likely to be killed by a jumpy policeman, accidental discharge or to be incarcerated or judicially executed for an unlawful killing. Those are the brute facts. The choice is down to the individual. Don't assume this is a simple issue. "Common sense" will not get you very far.
 

DeletedUser16008

Gandalf Greyhame said:
Using 1994 statistics tells a very, very different tale.
12,996 murder victims in 2010. ( according to the FBI UCR report.)

A different look at the issue:
(article taken from justfacts.com)
* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]


That sounds like very, very many good reasons to have a gun.
Click to expand...

Thing is with those stats half of yours a alleged and a survey, the fact remains the deaths and cost of gun crime are huge...

If you have a gun and you wave it about of course it helps deter a burglar etc but it proves nothing as to if its a deterrent any more than if you wave a replica about.

There is no mention of weapons being discharged in any of those stats so you just dont know.

What is clear is the rate of murders by firearms is up to nearly 70% .. what % of those do you think would still be alive if there was less access to guns ? far more i am certain..it takes far more effort to kill without a gun than with it.

Theres a reason our ratio of murders here in the UK is far far less overall and a lot of it has to do with the control of firearms. It wasnt a big problem before it was seriously restricted but it was on the rise so it was dealt with, to the good and safety of the population I might add. Seems its well on the rise there and yet youd rather let people die than address the issue sensibly and start to control the extremes like automatics, at least it would be a start.

Care to answer the reasoning behind the need for semi or automatic weapons as part of a "protection" argument ? because im yet to hear anyone come up with one at all.
 

DeletedUser

Victor Kruger said:
Care to answer the reasoning behind the need for semi or automatic weapons as part of a "protection" argument ? because im yet to hear anyone come up with one at all.
Click to expand...

Sure. Full automatic weapons are so regulated and expensive that I don't think many people even own or dare to buy (or even show interest in buying). They fall into the special kind of weaponry together with special kind ammo and other devices that are being closely watched by the Big Brother. You can't buy one without him knowing. Is like putting a bullseye on yourself.
Semis? Really? They are basically the norm. Most CCW's are semis. And they are for protection!
 

DeletedUser34315

Victor Kruger said:
Thing is with those stats half of yours a alleged and a survey, the fact remains the deaths and cost of gun crime are huge...

If you have a gun and you wave it about of course it helps deter a burglar etc but it proves nothing as to if its a deterrent any more than if you wave a replica about.

There is no mention of weapons being discharged in any of those stats so you just dont know.

What is clear is the rate of murders by firearms is up to nearly 70% .. what % of those do you think would still be alive if there was less access to guns ? far more i am certain..it takes far more effort to kill without a gun than with it.
Source please?Because figures I've seen show a decrease.

Theres a reason our ratio of murders here in the UK is far far less overall and a lot of it has to do with the control of firearms. It wasnt a big problem before it was seriously restricted but it was on the rise so it was dealt with, to the good and safety of the population I might add. Seems its well on the rise there and yet youd rather let people die than address the issue sensibly and start to control the extremes like automatics, at least it would be a start.
Yes...it's called regulating no gun laws on a small ISLAND is much easier than regulating it in a country that borders mexico...
Making every decent firearm illegal, would simply ensure that the populace is badly armed, while those who have no qualms about buying illegal firearms are still going to have good guns.
Care to answer the reasoning behind the need for semi or automatic weapons as part of a "protection" argument ? because im yet to hear anyone come up with one at all.
Click to expand...
Be my guest, use a flintlock to defend yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16008

A different look at the issue:
(article taken from justfacts.com)
* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.

Thats pretty close to 70 & its your source not mine ;)

Full auto weapons restrictions varies from state to state,some allow class 3 weapons (full auto) some dont,the NFA tax of $200 is on NFA list weapons,full auto firearms,smooth barreled cartridge rifles,short barreled shotguns,short barreled rifles..ETC there isnt any extra tax on a semi-auto rifle,you can buy them at any guns shop, and KY allows full auto ownership and shooting Most states and the feds limit private citizens (non-law enforcement and holders of a machine gun dealers license ) to own firearms made prior to 1986 ban,and some limitted to the pre-1968 amnesty weapons. thats all to make machine guns very restricted and unavailable supposedly..:blink: not the case.

If you want a AK,UZi,MAC 9 ,or Tec99 you can if you are in any club have any interest in firearms or just have a chat in the local bar its simple to get ammo also.The truth is there are 500 illegal MGs for every legal one (likely more than that) a large proportion predate 1986/88 as a gun from most any decade in the last 50 years can be as effective as another. There is no need to even have had an exception date its just a joke and sadly many have died because of it.

I don't think you understand that with no tightening of regulations it will only increase. You don't need a well armed population your being paranoid, its amazing you seem to think the rest of the world goes around getting shot raped and robbed if they don't carry a firearm. Well hey heres some news, they don't and you sure don't need more than a handgun if all you are really interested in is self defence. All the rest is just overkill and big boys toys, mines bigger than yours bravado.

Ill say it again cos theres that ooo the criminals will have all the guns ... rubbish....There will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. It is much more difficult for petty criminals to obtain guns when this happens. ergo gun crime comes DOWN not up.

I can walk even the worst streets and areas here with little fear and a simple understanding of self defence is all ive ever needed in all countries ive lived or spent a large amount of time in. Europe, South America, Oceania and Asia included. Perhaps North America is exceptionally paranoid, dangerous or both. It's unlikely to improve unless you start doing something about the mentality of firearms there... sok as it dosn't bother me none now but it did enough not to take a job there a long time ago and boy am I glad i didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top