America's Gun Violence

1166167169171172542

Comments

  • dudemandudeman Posts: 2,006

    dudeman said:

    For the most part.

    And the part that isn't most?
    In the context appropriate to this thread: most police officers are likely trustworthy and willing to protect civilians. The problem is that they are not always present when crimes are committed.

    It's unlikely that a criminal is going to stop robbing, stabbing, beating, raping or killing someone while they wait for the police to be called, respond, arrive on the scene and begin their protection duties.

    I'm of the opinion that law abiding, responsible citizens should be able to use firearms for protection, especially in their own homes.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    For the most part.

    And the part that isn't most?
    In the context appropriate to this thread: most police officers are likely trustworthy and willing to protect civilians. The problem is that they are not always present when crimes are committed.

    It's unlikely that a criminal is going to stop robbing, stabbing, beating, raping or killing someone while they wait for the police to be called, respond, arrive on the scene and begin their protection duties.

    I'm of the opinion that law abiding, responsible citizens should be able to use firearms for protection, especially in their own homes.
    And I agree with you.

    I just disagree with you on what might be necessary to defend yourself with.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 2,006
    Fair enough.

    I feel that everyone has different physical capabilities, living arrangements and potential risks to their safety. Therefore, I think people should be able to decide for themselves what is right for them.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,187
    dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    For the most part.

    And the part that isn't most?
    In the context appropriate to this thread: most police officers are likely trustworthy and willing to protect civilians. The problem is that they are not always present when crimes are committed.

    It's unlikely that a criminal is going to stop robbing, stabbing, beating, raping or killing someone while they wait for the police to be called, respond, arrive on the scene and begin their protection duties.

    I'm of the opinion that law abiding, responsible citizens should be able to use firearms for protection, especially in their own homes.
    I wasn't necessarily talking about the cops, but citizens. Your comment suggests the trust is a given, but that's not the case with everyone, so the advice of 'do what you're told and everything will be fine' doesn't always hold up.
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 2,006
    edited April 2017

    dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    For the most part.

    And the part that isn't most?
    In the context appropriate to this thread: most police officers are likely trustworthy and willing to protect civilians. The problem is that they are not always present when crimes are committed.

    It's unlikely that a criminal is going to stop robbing, stabbing, beating, raping or killing someone while they wait for the police to be called, respond, arrive on the scene and begin their protection duties.

    I'm of the opinion that law abiding, responsible citizens should be able to use firearms for protection, especially in their own homes.
    I wasn't necessarily talking about the cops, but citizens. Your comment suggests the trust is a given, but that's not the case with everyone, so the advice of 'do what you're told and everything will be fine' doesn't always hold up.
    Your words, not mine.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487

    unsung said:

    dudeman said:

    For the most part.

    And the part that isn't most?

    What about the fourth type?

    The person that goes to work, does their best, doesn't witness any corruption, and goes home after his shift?

    You're outrageous, man. Like... whack.
    When you realize that corrupt people make liberty destroying laws and these are the strongarm to enforce those laws....
  • dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    For the most part.

    And the part that isn't most?
    In the context appropriate to this thread: most police officers are likely trustworthy and willing to protect civilians. The problem is that they are not always present when crimes are committed.

    It's unlikely that a criminal is going to stop robbing, stabbing, beating, raping or killing someone while they wait for the police to be called, respond, arrive on the scene and begin their protection duties.

    I'm of the opinion that law abiding, responsible citizens should be able to use firearms for protection, especially in their own homes.
    I wasn't necessarily talking about the cops, but citizens. Your comment suggests the trust is a given, but that's not the case with everyone, so the advice of 'do what you're told and everything will be fine' doesn't always hold up.
    The videos are pretty scarce of people that have been shot by cops while they were in complete compliance are scarce. Nearly every one I have seen is at the tail end of some wild ride or scuffle. The ones such as Rice demand justice, but the majority of videos place criminals- the same variety Unsung says should be shot by the victim's of crime while engaged in their crime- at the heart of the problem.

    You're advice should be: "As soon as you've done all you can to escape detainment and your mentality shifts from fugitive to cooperative... things might not work out the way they would have if you had not tested officers." It's more accurate.

    Some people judge police officers with an iron gavel, while at the same time make a 1000 excuses for the idiot that not only commits a crime, but resists arrest as well.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 12,165

    unsung said:

    dudeman said:

    For the most part.

    And the part that isn't most?

    What about the fourth type?

    The person that goes to work, does their best, doesn't witness any corruption, and goes home after his shift?

    You're outrageous, man. Like... whack.
    Holy crap, were you born yesterday?
    Talk about whack. Entire departments found to be acting outside the law all across the country, and you are dying to believe that they are all just Barney Fifes that don't hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

    It's "One bad apple spoils the bunch", not "One bad apple is a bummer, nothing to be done about it".
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487

  • Lol

    Okay you guys win. Cops suck. They're basically criminals with a license to operate with impunity.

    Do I got it right? I think I do according to your published perspectives.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,369
    unsung said:


    Someone is mixing up "literally" and "figuratively" again.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 4,555
    unsung said:


    I'm so confused
    Personal liberties are good
    Statism is bad
    Nationalism is good
    Globalism is bad
    What are your thoughts on the galaxy?
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487

    Lol

    Okay you guys win. Cops suck. They're basically criminals with a license to operate with impunity.

    Do I got it right? I think I do according to your published perspectives.

    You're getting there.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,187

    Lol

    Okay you guys win. Cops suck. They're basically criminals with a license to operate with impunity.

    Do I got it right? I think I do according to your published perspectives.

    I'm not really talking about deciding how many "bad cops" are out there. I'm talking about the perspective and beliefs people have about the police. A large group view the police as trustworthy and they are there to protect us. Another group are distrustful of police, with very good reason. I just ask that people understand the perspective of the population that doesn't trust the cops and where that comes from.
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 2,006
    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487

    Lol

    Okay you guys win. Cops suck. They're basically criminals with a license to operate with impunity.

    Do I got it right? I think I do according to your published perspectives.

    I'm not really talking about deciding how many "bad cops" are out there. I'm talking about the perspective and beliefs people have about the police. A large group view the police as trustworthy and they are there to protect us. Another group are distrustful of police, with very good reason. I just ask that people understand the perspective of the population that doesn't trust the cops and where that comes from.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

    Police have no duty to protect the individual, therefore I must do it myself with whatever means I deem necessary.
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 6,554
    unsung said:


    That is some seriously ignorant sad conspiracy theorist shit right there.
    Good for you
    But be careful the U.N. is always watching and listening.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,187
    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
  • dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 19,869

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    I think if you are properly trained and experienced either through hunting or your profession that the risk goes way down. Dirty you and I would never leave a loaded gun around our kids because we have common sense and are experienced with firearms.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10 said:

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    I think if you are properly trained and experienced either through hunting or your profession that the risk goes way down. Dirty you and I would never leave a loaded gun around our kids because we have common sense and are experienced with firearms.
    I agree.

    The problem is that the amount of fools that aren't gun savvy and consistently fail to exercise common sense is significant.

    On one hand, we likely shouldn't concern ourselves with the fools I speak of. If they're negligence only results in them getting hurt... then whatever.

    On the other hand, often is the case where such foolishness impacts others and we need to be somewhat concerned for these people. When some fool's negligence results in other people getting harmed as a result... then that's a problem.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 2,006

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    So, you think that people should be able to own guns for self defense but those who choose to exercise their right are idiots?
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    So, you think that people should be able to own guns for self defense but those who choose to exercise their right are idiots?
    No. I don't think that.

    I'm saying having a gun in your house exponentially increases your odds of a firearm related accident for you or anyone in your house.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 5,248

    dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    So, you think that people should be able to own guns for self defense but those who choose to exercise their right are idiots?
    No. I don't think that.

    I'm saying having a gun in your house exponentially increases your odds of a firearm related accident for you or anyone in your house.
    I always found this to be an interesting argument. Having a child in the house increases the odds of a child peeing on the floor. Having drain cleaner in the house increases the odds of someone poisoning themselves with drain cleaner. Having sleeping pills in the house increases the odds of a sleeping pill overdose. How do you decrease the odds? Lock shit up! Do not leave your drain cleaner accessible to children, etc. The only way a gun will harm someone unintentionally is due to negligence, as with the sleeping pills, drain cleaner, etc.
    I would also argue that having a firearm in the house exponentially increases the odds of your own survival if drugged up armed intruders break in while you are there. Or a few teens armed with knives and brass knuckles as in a recent incident.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 12,165
    PJPOWER said:

    dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    So, you think that people should be able to own guns for self defense but those who choose to exercise their right are idiots?
    No. I don't think that.

    I'm saying having a gun in your house exponentially increases your odds of a firearm related accident for you or anyone in your house.
    I always found this to be an interesting argument. Having a child in the house increases the odds of a child peeing on the floor. Having drain cleaner in the house increases the odds of someone poisoning themselves with drain cleaner. Having sleeping pills in the house increases the odds of a sleeping pill overdose. How do you decrease the odds? Lock shit up! Do not leave your drain cleaner accessible to children, etc. The only way a gun will harm someone unintentionally is due to negligence, as with the sleeping pills, drain cleaner, etc.
    I would also argue that having a firearm in the house exponentially increases the odds of your own survival if drugged up armed intruders break in while you are there. Or a few teens armed with knives and brass knuckles as in a recent incident.
    Who actually has the capability to secure their guns from children yet still have them quickly accessible for protection from a home invasion.
    NOBODY!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 5,248
    edited April 2017
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    So, you think that people should be able to own guns for self defense but those who choose to exercise their right are idiots?
    No. I don't think that.

    I'm saying having a gun in your house exponentially increases your odds of a firearm related accident for you or anyone in your house.
    I always found this to be an interesting argument. Having a child in the house increases the odds of a child peeing on the floor. Having drain cleaner in the house increases the odds of someone poisoning themselves with drain cleaner. Having sleeping pills in the house increases the odds of a sleeping pill overdose. How do you decrease the odds? Lock shit up! Do not leave your drain cleaner accessible to children, etc. The only way a gun will harm someone unintentionally is due to negligence, as with the sleeping pills, drain cleaner, etc.
    I would also argue that having a firearm in the house exponentially increases the odds of your own survival if drugged up armed intruders break in while you are there. Or a few teens armed with knives and brass knuckles as in a recent incident.
    Who actually has the capability to secure their guns from children yet still have them quickly accessible for protection from a home invasion.
    NOBODY!
    Bullshit, there are plenty of quickly accessible biometric or quick release combination safe options out there for just this thing.
    https://thegunsafes.net/biometric-gun-safe-reviews/
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 12,165
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    So, you think that people should be able to own guns for self defense but those who choose to exercise their right are idiots?
    No. I don't think that.

    I'm saying having a gun in your house exponentially increases your odds of a firearm related accident for you or anyone in your house.
    I always found this to be an interesting argument. Having a child in the house increases the odds of a child peeing on the floor. Having drain cleaner in the house increases the odds of someone poisoning themselves with drain cleaner. Having sleeping pills in the house increases the odds of a sleeping pill overdose. How do you decrease the odds? Lock shit up! Do not leave your drain cleaner accessible to children, etc. The only way a gun will harm someone unintentionally is due to negligence, as with the sleeping pills, drain cleaner, etc.
    I would also argue that having a firearm in the house exponentially increases the odds of your own survival if drugged up armed intruders break in while you are there. Or a few teens armed with knives and brass knuckles as in a recent incident.
    Who actually has the capability to secure their guns from children yet still have them quickly accessible for protection from a home invasion.
    NOBODY!
    Bullshit, there are plenty of quickly accessible biometric or quick release combination safe options out there for just this thing.
    https://thegunsafes.net/biometric-gun-safe-reviews/
    Yeah, there are.
    Too bad NOBODY has one.
    Maybe you do. Maybe.

    Probably more than 90% of guy owners don't. You know it in your heart even if you won't admit it.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 5,248
    edited April 2017
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    So, you think that people should be able to own guns for self defense but those who choose to exercise their right are idiots?
    No. I don't think that.

    I'm saying having a gun in your house exponentially increases your odds of a firearm related accident for you or anyone in your house.
    I always found this to be an interesting argument. Having a child in the house increases the odds of a child peeing on the floor. Having drain cleaner in the house increases the odds of someone poisoning themselves with drain cleaner. Having sleeping pills in the house increases the odds of a sleeping pill overdose. How do you decrease the odds? Lock shit up! Do not leave your drain cleaner accessible to children, etc. The only way a gun will harm someone unintentionally is due to negligence, as with the sleeping pills, drain cleaner, etc.
    I would also argue that having a firearm in the house exponentially increases the odds of your own survival if drugged up armed intruders break in while you are there. Or a few teens armed with knives and brass knuckles as in a recent incident.
    Who actually has the capability to secure their guns from children yet still have them quickly accessible for protection from a home invasion.
    NOBODY!
    Bullshit, there are plenty of quickly accessible biometric or quick release combination safe options out there for just this thing.
    https://thegunsafes.net/biometric-gun-safe-reviews/
    Yeah, there are.
    Too bad NOBODY has one.
    Maybe you do. Maybe.

    Probably more than 90% of guy owners don't. You know it in your heart even if you won't admit it.
    You are completely full of shit! Most people I know that have children have something similar. You are totally uneducated on the subject. Go back to a topic you have a glimmer of intelligence on...seriously. I have actually received and given these mini-vaults many times as Christmas presents...I'm from Texas and I know a hell of a lot of gun owners that use these, if for nothing else so they do not get their firearms stolen.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJPOWER said:

    dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    So, you think that people should be able to own guns for self defense but those who choose to exercise their right are idiots?
    No. I don't think that.

    I'm saying having a gun in your house exponentially increases your odds of a firearm related accident for you or anyone in your house.
    I always found this to be an interesting argument. Having a child in the house increases the odds of a child peeing on the floor. Having drain cleaner in the house increases the odds of someone poisoning themselves with drain cleaner. Having sleeping pills in the house increases the odds of a sleeping pill overdose. How do you decrease the odds? Lock shit up! Do not leave your drain cleaner accessible to children, etc. The only way a gun will harm someone unintentionally is due to negligence, as with the sleeping pills, drain cleaner, etc.
    I would also argue that having a firearm in the house exponentially increases the odds of your own survival if drugged up armed intruders break in while you are there. Or a few teens armed with knives and brass knuckles as in a recent incident.
    So you concede my point then: having a gun in the house increases the chances that someone inside that house will get harmed by it. If it is a risk you wish to assume then that's your prerogative- your country offers you that freeedom.

    I'm not saying don't prepare for it, but home invasions are of the spectacular variety of crimes. It's not very likely you will be the victim of one. Here's where I'd concede your point: having a gun in that situation would be useful (unless, of course, the home intruder takes your gun, sticks it up your ass, and pulls the trigger until it goes 'click click').

    And also... many gun owners here have freely admitted they do not keep their guns locked in a safe separate from their ammunition. So, don't try to sell the idea that all gun owners are responsible gun owners. This is far from accurate.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 12,165
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    dudeman said:

    dudeman said:

    So, would you recommend that those people who are distrustful of police purchase guns so that they can protect themselves?

    I don't recommend purchasing a gun for protection, but the logic of many of pro-gun folks says yes, people should buy guns to protect themselves from any perceived threat.
    For the life of me... I can't understand how people do not understand that the risk of getting killed or injured by a gun increases dramatically after a gun is introduced to a home.

    Home invaders are a threat, but nowhere near the threat the gun itself is.
    So, you think that people should be able to own guns for self defense but those who choose to exercise their right are idiots?
    No. I don't think that.

    I'm saying having a gun in your house exponentially increases your odds of a firearm related accident for you or anyone in your house.
    I always found this to be an interesting argument. Having a child in the house increases the odds of a child peeing on the floor. Having drain cleaner in the house increases the odds of someone poisoning themselves with drain cleaner. Having sleeping pills in the house increases the odds of a sleeping pill overdose. How do you decrease the odds? Lock shit up! Do not leave your drain cleaner accessible to children, etc. The only way a gun will harm someone unintentionally is due to negligence, as with the sleeping pills, drain cleaner, etc.
    I would also argue that having a firearm in the house exponentially increases the odds of your own survival if drugged up armed intruders break in while you are there. Or a few teens armed with knives and brass knuckles as in a recent incident.
    Who actually has the capability to secure their guns from children yet still have them quickly accessible for protection from a home invasion.
    NOBODY!
    Bullshit, there are plenty of quickly accessible biometric or quick release combination safe options out there for just this thing.
    https://thegunsafes.net/biometric-gun-safe-reviews/
    Yeah, there are.
    Too bad NOBODY has one.
    Maybe you do. Maybe.

    Probably more than 90% of guy owners don't. You know it in your heart even if you won't admit it.
    You are completely full of shit! Most people I know that have children have something similar. You are totally uneducated on the subject. Go back to a topic you have a glimmer of intelligence on...seriously. I have actually received and given these mini-vaults many times as Christmas presents...I'm from Texas and I know a hell of a lot of gun owners that use these, if for nothing else so they do not get their firearms stolen.
    Bullshit. I don't know a single gun owner who has anything but a plain old gun safe.
    You want everyone to believe a fantasy, people aren't gonna buy it.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
Sign In or Register to comment.