Mass Shootings Thread (2 Viewers)

Bottomfeeder Sports · Mar 26, 2021

unckeyherb said:
Their schools have single means of ingress and an armed security guard. They never have mass shootings and certainly not school shootings, as you've stated.

I have been inside very few schools in the USA (at least 6 states worth, drove by many more) where a single entry point would be possible as except for elementary schools most have been campuses with a main building and then external wings for things such as PE or music or art or whatever. And most of the handful that I can think of where this would be possible all have had temporary external buildings used as classrooms. The others were inner city schools where this was largely already in place.

So absent some significant expenditures this from my anecdotal experiences really isn't practical as a first step in many places. Oddly my elementary school and high school from way back when would be "possible" "as is" but still largely infeasible without some additional construction.

timschochet · Mar 26, 2021

Opie said:
You tell me...

WHY did the Democrats filibuster the Grassley/Cruz bill in 2013?

This was one law that just may have done something that you want done....oh wait....you, and people like you, don't want an answer....you just want to preach your agenda.

This bill was aimed at those who may do things like this and actually prosecute anyone who falsifies a background check and/or illegally buy guns. It passed with bipartisan results in the Harry Reid, Democratic Senate. Nine Democrats voted for it but it was filibustered by the Dems who demanded at least 60 votes.
If this bill would have passed into law, Southerland Springs most likely would not have happened because that shooter had a conviction in the Air Force that they failed to report to the background check system. The Grassley/Cruz Bill mandated an audit to ensure things like that would have been included.

No...you don't want results....you want to preach about your political objective.

This article explains in some detail why your claim about the Grassley/Cruz bill is highly misleading:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/25/ted-cruzs-misleading-memories-his-2013-gun-proposal/%3foutputType=amp

Essentially while that amendment offered criminal prosecutions for those who falsify background checks, it gutted the removal of the loopholes, which is why Democrats wouldn’t agree to it. Democrats want all loopholes removed, period. So do I. So does the vast majority of the public. I also want criminal prosecutions for those who falsify. I don’t understand why it has to be a trade off. I want both.

KarmaPolice · Mar 26, 2021

So after 19 pages we are to the point that we won't budge on guns, mental is important but probably won't help much, and armed guards probably won't work? Awesome!

GordonGekko · Mar 26, 2021

Stealthycat said:
and while I understand that train of thought ......... have we as gun owners not given up enough already?

.....

the exceptionally small % of people who are just evil/bad/deranged ...... if we actually targeted THOSE people, none of the rest of the 330 million in the USA would have to give up anything

The general (though understandable) mistake that Pro 2A folks make when discussing guns is they talk to non gun owners with the same train of reasoning as they do with others who are Pro 2A.

And it doesn't work. It just doesn't.

There are simply more non gun owners in America than gun owners and Pro 2A have to recognize that this large group simply doesn't truly understand the culture, the laws, the conflicts, the cost, the legal questions and the struggle. And that's fair. People struggle to manage their day to day lives, they don't focus on what's not in front of them.

It's not going to work for Pro 2A to ask non gun owners to behave out of their own self interests or perceived self interests. What's going to work is for Pro 2A to start talking to non gun owners in a manner that leads towards their self interests.

You can do that two ways, you can increase the number of new/first time gun owners period, making all gun related issues immediately relevant, or you can find a logistical pathway to get more people into a track towards gun ownership when they are young.

1) The NRA should develop, build and give away extremely basic "break open" single barreled shotguns. While this won't be extremely cheap, nor will it be massively expensive if you consider what's spent on lobbying/advertising, etc, etc. This also will allow simple insert adapters to be made, to be given away or sold, that convert the single barreled shotgun into a 22 caliber or 9mm or etc, etc.

You want deep background checks done internally, classes and training given and these weapons issued out to law abiding citizens, you especially want small business owners.

Journalist Tim Pool made a good point. When he wasn't a gun owner, he simply didn't have the time or inclination to pay attention to go on with what happened with gun laws and gun regulation. Once he became a gun owner, in response to all the 2020 rioting, he said he became very invested in the new issue that "something was going to be taken away from him"

New gun owners are votes. Votes change everything.

2) The NRA should promote paintball. I've discussed this before many times. Paintball is seen as a "sport". It's not aggressive or threatening. It can be framed as getting exercise and learning to work as a team. But it's a natural pathway to get young people towards becoming firearm owners. It's a progressive "ramp in" that helps someone see the possible interest in using something that fires a projectile to hit a target.

Paintball is not cheap, but it doesn't have to be expensive on a large scale. You do need some open land. Lots of Pro 2A owners with land who would share it on weekends for the cause. Yes the NRA would have to invest in buying paintball gear in bulk, but no true optics campaign is cost free.

This is also an opportunity to create bridge programs like mentoring, job internships, tutoring, life skills, etc, etc that look like positive outreach from the gun community to the overall larger community.

If existing gun manufacturers see the natural pathway towards creating embryo customers, they will also support it.

New gun owners are customers. Money spent by customers means profit. Profits mean cash on hand for political leverage. Political leverage means winning fights in Congress.

I've said this for 15 years here on FBG - Success means needing a practical logistical pathway towards your end goal. It's not enough to say society needs to do this or people need to understand that, there needs to be a real plan that has progressive steps towards what you want. Something concrete that's scalable and framed to get your narrative out there.

If you want more favorable gun laws in the future, you need the American population to have more new gun owners coming into the market at an exponential rate.

No one can stop mass shootings. That's the reality. Part of the problem with mental health around the world is the overgrowth of the population without natural checks and balances. Human beings were meant to work in much smaller tribes and those who could not coexist in a functional tribal setting were cast out or left behind or perished naturally. There is no way to fix a problem that spans across multiple generations and is a function of modern society and the development of the nation state.

Are my solutions the best ideas? Maybe. Maybe not. But they are dynamic and looking for logistical success first. My thinking is naturally "out of the box" but this is clearly an out of the box problem at hand.

You cannot change people without appealing to their self interests first. This is a reality of human behavior that will always be true.

GordonGekko · Mar 26, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
....

I am still working through my thoughts on this, just trying to put in simple words (probably more for myself) where I think a large portion of one side is coming from. I get the sense they don't feel they are infringing on your rights.

Parents Versus Non Parents as a counter example.

Most of my life, I didn't have much interest or investment in the quality of schools in my area or if my living situation was conducive towards raising kids ( safe, good schools nearby, good libraries, good potential sports programs, etc, etc) I had businesses to run and clients to deal with and employees to protect and my life was full of other matters. My view on teacher pay and taxation to increase funding for schools was very different than currently.

But once I had to raise my godson on my own, and I was his only lifeline to a future in this life, I had to look at everything differently. I had to think about what my local schools were doing and how they were spending their money. I had to think about scandals regarding schools and education. I had to think about where we would live and what would give him the best opportunity.

I didn't understanding parenting. I didn't understand what it meant to love someone more than you could even love yourself. I didn't understand what it meant that you would gladly give up your life to keep someone safe. I didn't understand the lengths that people would go to keep their kids fed or to get them into college or get them in a good school district or to see they got good health care. I didn't understand the pain and struggle and sacrifice of many parents out there until I had to do it. And I had the benefit of a vast resource base without many other financial obligations tearing at me. Many people had to take care of their elderly parents, try to protect their kids and keep a job they hated but were not sure would be outsourced tomorrow or not. I can see now how frightening that would be to endure for the average person.

I was invested. I spent an ungodly sum, not just in money, but in sweat equity, to keep my godson safe and educated and to have every last piece of opportunity in life I never had growing up. And it was worth every last damn penny and every last damn minute given. When you are invested, now you have something to lose.

Non gun owners don't understand gun owners/Pro 2A in the same manner that I didn't really understand the price and pain and joy of parenting until I had to become one.

Here is the real lesson for Pro 2A, you can't win any arguments by trying to pin down some statistics or minutiae in some distinction on a chart. You can't win by citing some article when parents who don't understand guns just want their kids safe at school. You can't win by giving in to baiting and traps set by some leftists ( just like some are baiting [icon] now to get him banned )

You "win" as Pro 2A when you live your best life. You are an example to your own family and community and above reproach. When those around you can only say you are a good honest person and you treat people fairly and your kids are healthy and balanced and you do your part to be a positive force in your community, your church, your neighborhood, your schools, your workplace, everywhere. Then people will see you and want to know what you are doing and why. They will see your "success" and will be drawn to it and will want to emulate you and what you are doing to get those same results. Then and only then can you talk about something like 2A, that they don't understand, and have them see it in a possibly positive light. To give it a chance. To step out of their own shoes and into yours.

Pro 2A supporters need to start by expecting nothing from non gun owners. They are not invested and it's not a crime that they are not invested. It wasn't a crime that I didn't focus on the needs of parents when I wasn't responsible for parenting someone.

Being an example is the best argument you can make. As a parent, as a gun owner, as a Conservative, as Republican, and as a person.

This is how you "win"

dkp993 · Mar 26, 2021

GordonGekko said:
The general (though understandable) mistake that Pro 2A folks make when discussing guns is they talk to non gun owners with the same train of reasoning as they do with others who are Pro 2A.

And it doesn't work. It just doesn't.

There are simply more non gun owners in America than gun owners and Pro 2A have to recognize that this large group simply doesn't truly understand the culture, the laws, the conflicts, the cost, the legal questions and the struggle. And that's fair. People struggle to manage their day to day lives, they don't focus on what's not in front of them.

It's not going to work for Pro 2A to ask non gun owners to behave out of their own self interests or perceived self interests. What's going to work is for Pro 2A to start talking to non gun owners in a manner that leads towards their self interests.

You can do that two ways, you can increase the number of new/first time gun owners period, making all gun related issues immediately relevant, or you can find a logistical pathway to get more people into a track towards gun ownership when they are young.

1) The NRA should develop, build and give away extremely basic "break open" single barreled shotguns. While this won't be extremely cheap, nor will it be massively expensive if you consider what's spent on lobbying/advertising, etc, etc. This also will allow simple insert adapters to be made, to be given away or sold, that convert the single barreled shotgun into a 22 caliber or 9mm or etc, etc.

You want deep background checks done internally, classes and training given and these weapons issued out to law abiding citizens, you especially want small business owners.

Journalist Tim Pool made a good point. When he wasn't a gun owner, he simply didn't have the time or inclination to pay attention to go on with what happened with gun laws and gun regulation. Once he became a gun owner, in response to all the 2020 rioting, he said he became very invested in the new issue that "something was going to be taken away from him"

New gun owners are votes. Votes change everything.

2) The NRA should promote paintball. I've discussed this before many times. Paintball is seen as a "sport". It's not aggressive or threatening. It can be framed as getting exercise and learning to work as a team. But it's a natural pathway to get young people towards becoming firearm owners. It's a progressive "ramp in" that helps someone see the possible interest in using something that fires a projectile to hit a target.

Paintball is not cheap, but it doesn't have to be expensive on a large scale. You do need some open land. Lots of Pro 2A owners with land who would share it on weekends for the cause. Yes the NRA would have to invest in buying paintball gear in bulk, but no true optics campaign is cost free.

This is also an opportunity to create bridge programs like mentoring, job internships, tutoring, life skills, etc, etc that look like positive outreach from the gun community to the overall larger community.

If existing gun manufacturers see the natural pathway towards creating embryo customers, they will also support it.

New gun owners are customers. Money spent by customers means profit. Profits mean cash on hand for political leverage. Political leverage means winning fights in Congress.

I've said this for 15 years here on FBG - Success means needing a practical logistical pathway towards your end goal. It's not enough to say society needs to do this or people need to understand that, there needs to be a real plan that has progressive steps towards what you want. Something concrete that's scalable and framed to get your narrative out there.

If you want more favorable gun laws in the future, you need the American population to have more new gun owners coming into the market at an exponential rate.

No one can stop mass shootings. That's the reality. Part of the problem with mental health around the world is the overgrowth of the population without natural checks and balances. Human beings were meant to work in much smaller tribes and those who could not coexist in a functional tribal setting were cast out or left behind or perished naturally. There is no way to fix a problem that spans across multiple generations and is a function of modern society and the development of the nation state.

Are my solutions the best ideas? Maybe. Maybe not. But they are dynamic and looking for logistical success first. My thinking is naturally "out of the box" but this is clearly an out of the box problem at hand.

You cannot change people without appealing to their self interests first. This is a reality of human behavior that will always be true.

While I don’t often agree with your viewpoints (and I’m undecided on these here though they are interesting) your posts are far more engaging when you’re not bragging about what an alpha you are.

*though I will say they aren’t as funny either.

GordonGekko · Mar 26, 2021

[icon] said:
.....

I'm now of the option you're either insane ....

#1496 and #1106 - Colion Noir

The Joe Rogan Experience

https://www.mixcloud.com/TheJoeRoganExperience/1496-colion-noir/

https://www.mixcloud.com/TheJoeRoganExperience/1106-colion-noir/

*******

VIDEO: Joe Rogan - The Problem with Mass Shooting Debates •Apr 18, 2018

Joe Rogan and Colion Noir on the problem with gun control debates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUUf7N6J9u8

VIDEO: Joe Rogan - Are Mass Shootings More Common? •Apr 18, 2018

Joe Rogan and Colion Noir on complexities of school shootings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ3YzVmODoo

*******

I understand Colion Noir's passion and also his rage about the gun debate/Pro 2A/larger issue of firearms in American society. But he does not acquit himself well with Joe Rogan, or in general. I don't think he's a great spokesman for 2A but I recognize he has positive intent and is trying his best. At several points, during the podcasts, you can immediately pick up on that Joe Rogan, who is Pro 2A but has to frame himself as "moderate" based on his platform/podcast, is becoming frustrated with Noir because what Noir saying won't sell to the average non gun owning American or the people who represent the 200 million downloads of Rogan's podcast each month.

Noir makes the mistake that many Pro 2A make and that you have been making in this thread -

You are trying to appeal to non gun owners by talking to them like you would talk to someone who was Pro 2A. That just doesn't work.

In the Court Of Public Opinion, where the gun debate rages, it's not just if you are right. It's not just if you have a point. It's not just if you are passionate about it all. It's if it will sell to the public, many of whom don't understand because they aren't invested and no one can blame them for not being invested.

You are raging, in part from passion, based on how you feel and what you want. What you feel and what you want doesn't sell to the public at large.

Taking pot shots at me doesn't change this reality. I could hammer you down in return, but you are a fellow Pro 2A and that achieves nothing. ( i.e. back to what works over what we feel and what we want)

I urge you to really dig deeply into these Rogan and Noir podcasts and take the hypothetical position that you've never owned a gun before and ask yourself if Noir is helping or hurting the cause. You are being baited by leftists here who want to see you banned. I don't want to see you banned. You are taking their bait. Your passion cannot become rage. Pro 2A cannot afford that narrative, not from a single one of us.

Your audience here is NOT those leftists posting to bait you. They are trolling you on purpose and their minds won't be changed. Your audience will be those who never post, who never register, who never engage, but watch and listen and are undecided or moderate and are willing to give your ideas a real chance.

Focus your passion on what works, not on what you feel or what you want.

[icon] · Mar 26, 2021

parrot said:
It's probably a good ruling as the law is written.

Bump stocks demonstrate how little the difference in capability actually is between a full-auto weapon and a semi-auto version when you get down to brass tacks, which is why it would be perfectly reasonable to legally treat semi-autos the same way we treat full-autos.

Honest question... have you ever fired a full auto weapon.

I only ask because if you've done so I'll be surprised, as the gap is much much wider than most folks realize.

GordonGekko · Mar 27, 2021

parrot said:
It's probably a good ruling as the law is written.

Bump stocks demonstrate how little the difference in capability actually is between a full-auto weapon and a semi-auto version when you get down to brass tacks, which is why it would be perfectly reasonable to legally treat semi-autos the same way we treat full-autos.

OK, I'll use this post as an example.

Many Pro 2A people will get into a technical debate or try to parse/split hairs on the minutiae of the claim made. Is parrot's claim accurate? No. Should anyone try to change parrot's mind? On this specifically? No. It's pointless.

What would help?

If parrot was amenable and passed a deep background, and if I ran the NRA, as stated before, give him a single barreled shotgun. Literally give him one. Now he's a gun owner. The hope is he will investigate and learn more and see many of the distinctions and complications and benefits of being a gun owner.

And if parrot didn't want to be a gun owner? Then the next solution is to make all his neighbors gun owners. And all his coworkers. Everyone he went to college with and everyone working at the restaurants he frequents.

You don't need to convert every person, you just need to dramatically outnumber non gun owners with gun owners, and when you do that, you get the votes and money you need to protect 2A rights.

On an aside, do I think civilians should have bump stocks? No. I don't see much utility for them for military/law enforcement, but if they want them, then sure, an exemption for them. For those who train law enforcement and military and are competitive shooters like a Chris Costa (Magpul Dynamics) or a Jerry Miculek or a Taran Tactical, then sure, an exemption for them. But for rank and file civilians? No. I say this even recognizing part of the issue of 59 people dying and over 500 injured at a concert was more from "plunging fire" as a concept from an elevated position than just from a bump stock. But that's a distinction that won't sell to the general public. The general public won't accept that distinction.

Those who are Pro 2A need to pick and choose their battles carefully. Bump stocks are not the hill to die on. Kyle Rittenhouse is not the hill to die on.

If I created 1000 new gun owners tomorrow, that does more for 2A rights than arguing with 1000 people who won't change their mind about bump stocks. Or even just arguing with 100. Or even 10. Or even merely one.

Don't argue. Don't try to change anyone's mind if it's not through life example. Don't give the anti 2A crowd any reason, not one inch, in finding a claim that Pro 2A are some kind of stereotypical xenophobic wannabe killers. Do your part to create new gun owners in a positive and practical manner.

"Being right" in minutiae has limited utility in actually protecting our guns. That's the deal. You don't have to like how the world works, but you do have to live in it.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

Gekko is actually on fire in this thread with his assessment of things. But I take exception to his claim that you can't convince non-gun owners of the efficacy of 2A. Don't get bogged down in the minutiae of bump stocks is correct, but there are also debate tactics that are more effective than not. I'd begin by assessing and professing my own fears about a gunless society. Appeal to their own sense of vulnerability and life and limb. Because personally, I hate guns. The only things that make me want to own a gun are thoughts that begin with "If I don't have a gun" and they end like this:

If I don't have a gun, other people have guns and might use them on me. I don't want to die.
If I don't have a gun, then a mob can tear me limb from limb if it wants. I don't want to die.
If I don't have a gun, then a disinterested police force can stand by while my property burns. I don't want to lose my property. Then, if you'll permit me a slippery slope, I'll have no income or house, and I might be essentially naked in protection from the elements, and I don't want to die.
If I don't have a gun, then a corrupt government can excommunicate or kill people that they don't like and that I do (namely my friends and family) without any skin in the game. I want to make it very difficult for that to happen. I feel like the father in Red Dawn that tells his sons "Avenge Me!" I want my deterrent (an Ar-15 or the like) from something like a takeover or rank corruption happening -- or at least my pound of flesh from the violent and corrupt -- because, I don't want to die.

You can convert more people that are gun owners to 2A positions than you can people for whom 2A is an abstract thing. Nobody really believes you could overthrow the U.S. Military with an AR-15, so why have them around when their only use seems to be slaughtering innocent civilians at the hands of psychotic or crazy former citizens? When the above is pointed out, objections to the contrary seem wrong-headed and callous to the sentiment of "If I don't have a gun, I don't want to die, and I might if I don't." Arguing abstract political rights will get one nowhere, arguing from a position where these rights originate is the important thing to do.

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Gekko is actually on fire in this thread with his assessment of things. But I take exception to his claim that you can't convince non-gun owners of the efficacy of 2A. Don't get bogged down in the minutiae of bump stocks is correct, but there are also debate tactics that are more effective than not. I'd begin by assessing and professing my own fears about a gunless society. Appeal to their own sense of vulnerability and life and limb. Because personally, I hate guns. The only things that make me want to own a gun are thoughts that begin with "If I don't have a gun" and they end like this:

If I don't have a gun, other people have guns and might use them on me. I don't want to die.

If I don't have a gun, then a mob can tear me limb from limb if it wants. I don't want to die.

If I don't have a gun, then a disinterested police force can stand by while my property burns. I don't want to lose my property. Then, if you'll permit me a slippery slope, I'll have no income or house, and I might be essentially naked in protection from the elements, and I don't want to die.

If I don't have a gun, then a corrupt government can excommunicate or kill people that they don't like and that I do (namely my friends and family) without any skin in the game. I want to make it very difficult for that to happen. I feel like the father in Red Dawn that tells his sons "Avenge Me!" I want my deterrent (an Ar-15 or the like) from something like a takeover or rank corruption happening -- or at least my pound of flesh from the violent and corrupt -- because, I don't want to die.

You can convert more people that are gun owners to 2A positions than you can people for whom 2A is an abstract thing. Nobody really believes you could overthrow the U.S. Military with an AR-15, so why have them around when their only use seems to be slaughtering innocent civilians at the hands of psychotic or crazy former citizens? When the above is pointed out, objections to the contrary seem wrong-headed and callous to the sentiment of "If I don't have a gun, I don't want to die, and I might if I don't." Arguing abstract political rights will get one nowhere, arguing from a position where these rights originate is the important thing to do.

The problem is, all those hypothetical scenarios are less likely than killing yourself or loved ones with a gun in your home.

Also, no one is advocating a gunless society. We just want our firearm bearers well regulated.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
The problem is, all those hypothetical scenarios are less likely than killing yourself or loved ones with a gun in your home.

Also, no one is advocating a gunless society. We just want our firearm bearers well regulated.

I'm not talking statistical probabilities, I'm talking about how to debate non-gun owning advocates of gun control. The probability of me killing myself or others in my immediate control based on population studies, most believe, is less than the probability of being done in by others. I'd also love to see these studies that control for proper storage and intent. It's taken as shibboleth around here, but I'd like to see it. I've never seen a citation to one. I don't necessarily doubt it or consider it bad faith, but I doubt that you can possibly control for proper storage. That seems a bridge too far.

FairWarning · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
So after 19 pages we are to the point that we won't budge on guns, mental is important but probably won't help much, and armed guards probably won't work? Awesome!

We are just like congress.

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
I'm not talking statistical probabilities, I'm talking about how to debate a non-gun owning advocates. The probability of me killing myself or others in my immediate control based on population studies, most believe, is less than the probability of being done in by others. I'd also love to see these studies that control for proper storage and intent. It's taken as shibboleth around here, but I'd like to see it. I've never seen a citation to one. I don't necessarily doubt it or consider it bad faith, but I doubt that you can possibly control for proper storage. That seems a bridge too far.

I’m not interested in appealing to emotions or erroneous beliefs. I’m talking about statistical reality: If I do have a gun, I might kill myself or loved ones. I don’t want to die, nor do the people I love.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies that compared the odds of suicide or homicide victimization between persons with and without reported firearm access. All but 1 of the 16 studies identified in this review reported significantly increased odds of death associated with firearm access. We found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access (OR, 3.24 [CI, 2.41 to 4.40]) and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared (OR, 2.00 [CI, 1.56 to 3.02]).

Here is a good summary, including some references which looked at gun storage (Nos. 6,7 and 8). The studies aren’t perfect (the NRA has played a big part in limiting funding for gun safety studies) , but they’re a lot better than data supporting arguments to the contrary.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
I’m not interested in appealing to emotions or erroneous beliefs. I’m talking about statistical reality: If I do have a gun, I might kill myself or loved ones. I don’t want to die, nor do the people I love.

Here is a good summary, including some references which looked at gun storage (Nos. 6,7 and 8). The studies aren’t perfect (the NRA has played a big part in limiting funding for gun safety studies) , but they’re a lot better than data supporting arguments to the contrary.

Then you missed the point of why I was writing and what I was writing about. Nobody thinks that way. They either think that if they have a gun they'll be safe or if they have a gun they'll kill someone or themselves. Nobody looks at dispassionate clinical studies and yes, "Oh, yes. If I have a gun I'm statistically more likely to kill somebody or myself. Better not own one." Of course they're more statistically likely to kill someone or themselves with it. But they're not looking at it in the aggregate. That's the fallacy of division you and whatever study you're extrapolating from is making. That from the characteristics or likelihood of the whole, we can determine the characteristics or the likelihood that pertains to the one, or the part.

And that's important because you're quoting ones that look at homicide and suicides rather than gun safety when accounting for that. That's what I meant by "intent." Homicide or suicide. I did my own digging after because I suspect it's simply become a repeated talking point on this board with no backup, and I can't find any -- any -- studies that confirm you're more safe being without a gun when storage and intent are both taken into account. The study's own conclusion states:

Conclusion:

Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

So, basically, nothing about unintentional actions from properly stored firearm accidents leading to deaths and more safety. I'd bet dollars to donuts you're more safe with properly stored weapons where there is no homicide or suicide. That you're likely to commit those doesn't dispel the notion to the individual gun owner that, on the whole, people are generally safer -- absent intent and storage -- with guns than without.

And falling back on the NRA for the lack of that which you assert further raises my Spidey Senses and lets me almost know there are no studies or you'd be able to produce them. Stuff and debating tactics like these, in general, are why people don't trust reforms in the name of public health. They're almost always based on sketchy social science where reality can't be replicated without a million assumptions or the holding constant of things that can't be held constant.

And I don't own guns nor am a I 2A nut or absolutist. It's just that I suspected this was bunk for so long and so obviously on this board that I finally questioned it. And was met with nothing. Typical for the political board and typically bad science reporting from the would-be zealots regarding public health and safety.

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Then you missed the point of why I was writing and what I was writing about. Nobody thinks that way. They either think that if they have a gun they'll be safe or if they have a gun they'll kill someone or themself. Nobody looks at dispassionate clinical studies and yes, "Oh, yes. If I have a gun I'm statistically more likely to kill somebody or myself." Of course they're more statistically likely. They're not looking at it in the aggregate. That's the fallacy of division you and whatever study you're extrapolating from is making. That from the characteristics or likelihood of the whole, we can determine the characteristics or the likelihood that pertains to the one.

And that's important because you're quoting ones that look at homicide and suicides rather than gun safety when accounting for that. That's what I meant by "intent." Homicide or suicide. I did my own digging after because I suspect it's simply become a repeated talking point on this board with no backup, and I can't find any -- any -- studies that confirm you're more safe being gunless when storage and intent are both taken into account. The study's own conclusion states:

Conclusion:

Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

So, basically, nothing about unintentional, properly stored firearm accidents. I'd bet dollars to donuts you're more safe with properly stored weapons where there is no homicide or suicide. That you're likely to commit those doesn't dispel the notion that, on the whole, people are generally safer -- absent intent and storage -- with guns than without.

And falling back on the NRA for the lack of that which you assert further raises my Spidey Senses and lets me almost know there are no studies or you'd be able to produce them. Stuff and debating tactics like these, in general, are why people don't trust reforms in the name of public health. They're almost always based on sketchy social science where reality can't be replicated without a million assumptions or the holding constant of things that can't be held constant.

And I don't own guns nor am a 2A nut. It's just that I suspected this was bunk for so long and so obviously on this board that I finally questioned it. And was met with nothing. Typical for the political board and typically bad science reporting from the zealots of public health and safety.

Incorrect. I know at least one person who thinks that way

And I’m willing to bet many others with scientific minds do as well.

Also, I welcome you to peruse the studies cited in the meta analysis, rather than rely upon whatever superpowers you’ve used to derive your stubborn conclusion.

Better yet, find data to the contrary.

unckeyherb · Mar 27, 2021

Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I have been inside very few schools in the USA (at least 6 states worth, drove by many more) where a single entry point would be possible as except for elementary schools most have been campuses with a main building and then external wings for things such as PE or music or art or whatever. And most of the handful that I can think of where this would be possible all have had temporary external buildings used as classrooms. The others were inner city schools where this was largely already in place.

So absent some significant expenditures this from my anecdotal experiences really isn't practical as a first step in many places. Oddly my elementary school and high school from way back when would be "possible" "as is" but still largely infeasible without some additional construction.

I’m an architect and I can tell you that new school designs are already being designed to address active shooter situations, limiting shooting angles, hiding spots and beefing up securability. There’s no doubt that the modifications required would be costly to existing infrastructure but like I said, this would have a much bigger impact on school shootings than banning rifles with pistol-grips.

I know that most are against this but removing the “No Gun Zone” designation from school property would be a net benefit. I’m not suggesting you require teachers to carry. If they want to and are trained/have experience they may. The fact that there would be a non-zero number of people inside the school that can shoot back may deter targeting the school. I’m less convinced of this but think there is possible positivity from it.

squistion · Mar 27, 2021

GordonGekko said:
And if parrot didn't want to be a gun owner? Then the next solution is to make all his neighbors gun owners. And all his coworkers. Everyone he went to college with and everyone working at the restaurants he frequents.

Polly doesn't always want a cracker.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
Incorrect. I know at least one person who thinks that way

And I’m willing to bet many others with scientific minds do as well.

Also, I welcome you to peruse the studies cited in the meta analysis, rather than rely upon whatever superpowers you’ve used to derive your stubborn conclusion.

Better yet, find data to the contrary.

The meta-analysis draws no conclusion other than about gun deaths due to homicides and suicides. I'd already covered that in my very first post. Intent crimes. Pretty basic stuff to think about.

It's not stubborn superpowers I'm divining here for my argument. There aren't any studies that control for proper storage and criminality. You're asking me to look at studies the meta-analysis admitted were lacking. You have nothing. Before banning or regulating something that is a constitutional right, it would seem the impetus is on the reformer to provide facts and studies rather than letting emotion and anecdotal experience lead the way. All you've said is that people are less safe with guns in the home because of suicides and homicides per the literature. I'm telling you not only is that intuitive (we don't need studies telling us that, really) it's already been considered in our gun laws. All you've given me is essentially another tautology as backup to your argument.

And this all stemmed from talking about how gun owners should talk to non-gun owners. You've missed context and provided no substance to back up claims that were tangents to the issue at hand.

Take care.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

Sometimes I wish I could understand more than 5% of what RA is writing.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
Sometimes I wish I could understand more than 5% of what RA is writing.

Terminalxylem says you're less safe with a gun in the home. I agree, but I think, if you assume there are no criminal acts committed by the gun owner, and proper storage of guns is undertaken, you're probably more safe with guns in the home than without because of perpetrators and people wishing you ill.

That's all. How one gets to each conclusion there is the issue. It's muddled because gun owners do commit criminal acts with them.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

Oh yeah - GG: much better posts without the youtube links and the like. I just read those and RAs posts again with some coffee in my system.

squistion · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
Sometimes I wish I could understand more than 5% of what RA is writing.

He has started several threads that I have no idea what he is talking about or what the subject matter is - and he won't explain when asked (usually just makes some insult about my intelligence for even having the audacity to inquire).

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

To piggy back on GG and pair up with some one of the podcasts I was listening to said yesterday that I thought was a fantastic point was that a big part of this issues is that:

1. what I believe GG is getting at is that for a lack of better word, this is a way of life for gun owners. To a big degree you either get that or you don't, and it would be hard to convince people who don't get it.

2. This is an "emotional" issue, but for one group that emotion probably goes from a 4 normally to a 10 when there is a mass shooting and for the other group this is a 9 or a 10 at all times. One group probably votes primarily on this, the other group it's probably further down the list. One group gets mad, tries to do something the other group says no, and then that first group goes on focuses on their other items on their list until another incident makes them mad.

About # 1. I honestly don't have a clue how to bridge that gap. More education about guns? Having "open" sessions where people could go hold one, shoot one - maybe see what the gun safes look like? Dunno. The answer is probably none of the above and it stays pretty much as is. I personally don't think it's a "fear" of guns thing like some around here try to claim. Speaking for myself it's more of a combo of just flat out not understanding the desire with being tired of the ease of which we can off each other en masse.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

I am still working through my thoughts and ideas of the topic. I will be completely honest - probably 3 to 4 years ago I was pretty much in the camp of what Dickies was joking about - #### you guys, let's just get rid of the guns. Now I am more in line with slightly understanding the 2nd more, understanding the importance of having the right to protect your home how you see fit, and how the rulings on handguns stand. Now what I am battling with how we handle regristration/tracking, if that right means you can walk around with them, if that right mean an unlimited number, and and if that right means we have to allow all the types of guns we currently do.

But, I am in that group I described in #2 above - I am in these threads a lot trying to work through my thoughts, but if I am honest I am not sure this cracks the top 5 for me in issues that I think are important right now in the US, so it's not top of mind when I vote.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Terminalxylem says you're less safe with a gun in the home. I agree, but I think, if you assume there are no criminal acts committed by the gun owner, and proper storage of guns is undertaken, you're probably more safe with guns in the home than without because of perpetrators and people wishing you ill.

That's all. How one gets to each conclusion there is the issue. It's muddled because gun owners do commit criminal acts with them.

I wonder if stats coming out that a lot of these shooters are getting their guns legally is hurting gun owner's case in the public eye a bit.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
I wonder if stats coming out that a lot of these shooters are getting their guns legally is hurting gun owner's case in the public eye a bit.

I think it more than hurts gun owners and 2A guys. I think it's the motivating factor behind the calls for gun control of the actual weapons rather than beefing up the calls for background checks and mental health screens. The public seems to be saying that the background checks and mental health screening aren't working, let's try something different.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Terminalxylem says you're less safe with a gun in the home. I agree, but I think, if you assume there are no criminal acts committed by the gun owner, and proper storage of guns is undertaken, you're probably more safe with guns in the home than without because of perpetrators and people wishing you ill.

That's all. How one gets to each conclusion there is the issue. It's muddled because gun owners do commit criminal acts with them.

It is SO hard to weed through the stats. You have a good point and question about if these studies include looking at rates with properly stored guns. I would guess a lot of those accidents and stats are tied into improper store and use, and of that I would also guess a bit of that is tied into drug and alcohol use and abuse. Maybe not though, but I am always trying to dig through stats.

Just like my back and forth with EK - on the flip side, IMO the threat of that home invasion is a bit overblown too. Muddled in the stats of burglaries are break ins to stores, trains, motel rooms, etc.. Start weeding through the stats and look at most regions, by race, lack of drug connection, own the home, and those odds plummet. Now slap on an alarm or dog. Hell, you probably would deter a decent % of people coming in by just having a couple NRA stickers on windows.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
I think it more than hurts gun owners and 2A guys. I think it's the motivating factor behind the calls for gun control of the actual weapons rather than beefing up the calls for background checks and mental health screens. The public seems to be saying that the background checks and mental health screening aren't working, let's try something different.

That's how I see it too. Seems like we can point to a large number of people wanting background checks, but yeah - if it didn't stop this guy in Colorado... SC keeps saying that, but not sure he realizes how much that hurts his cause. Better for that group if they were classic psychopaths that got their guns illegally.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
It is SO hard to weed through the stats. You have a good point and question about if these studies include looking at rates with properly stored guns. I would guess a lot of those accidents and stats are tied into improper store and use, and of that I would also guess a bit of that is tied into drug and alcohol use and abuse. Maybe not though, but I am always trying to dig through stats.

Just like my back and forth with EK - on the flip side, IMO the threat of that home invasion is a bit overblown too. Muddled in the stats of burglaries are break ins to stores, trains, motel rooms, etc.. Start weeding through the stats and look at most regions, by race, lack of drug connection, own the home, and those odds plummet. Now slap on an alarm or dog. Hell, you probably would deter a decent % of people coming in by just having a couple NRA stickers on windows.

Yeah, I'd venture to say this is largely correct. Thoughts of home invasion are overblown for your average gun owner. And I think you're right you could deter people with simply an ADT sign outside your house and an NRA sticker in the window.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
Better for that group if they were classic psychopaths that got their guns illegally.

For sure. That a bunch of these guys aren't obviously mentally ill to the point of debilitation and got the guns legally muddies the waters tremendously for 2A supporters and people that want these guns to be legal.

I should point out that I'm neither a strong 2A guy nor a gun owner. I know that my own fear of gun violence is more pronounced when I'm in an arena or amphitheater than in other places because of these shootings, even though that's irrational. It's not statistically sound thinking, but it's colored my thinking nonetheless. Nobody wants to be a fish in a barrel. I think that is driving a lot of this newly zealous gun control sentiment. People are tired of being afraid in public places.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Yeah, I'd venture to say this is largely correct. Thoughts of home invasion are overblown for your average gun owner. And I think you're right you could deter people with simply an ADT sign outside your house and an NRA sticker in the window.

I will admit that if I lived a bit farther out in the woods I could be persuaded to have something in case of big animals running in the backyard or something, but just my thinking the chances of me being the victim of a home invasion, AND that person not getting spooked somebody was awake and running, AND not getting to me in my sleep (if they are there to kill me), AND me having the wherewithal to get my locked gun out and effectively use it - yeah, that's some tiny odds.

NorvilleBarnes · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Thoughts of home invasion are overblown for your average gun owner.

This is another example of why I dislike taking topics like this backwards. Usually it's with the distraction of hunting and all the irrelevant discussion about which guns are used for hunting and whether people are hunting for sport or for food. But protection from home invasion, personal protection, hunting, sport, collecting, target practice, protection from monarchies, zombies, just because, and pound sand are all perfectly valid reasons for owning a gun and no valid reason are needed because it's a right confirmed (not established) in the Constitution.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
For sure. That a bunch of these guys aren't obviously mentally ill to the point of debilitation and got the guns legally muddies the waters tremendously for 2A supporters and people that want these guns to be legal.

I should point out that I'm neither a strong 2A guy nor a gun owner. I know that my own fear of gun violence is more pronounced when I'm in an arena or amphitheater than in other places because of these shootings, even though that's irrational. It's not statistically sound thinking, but it's colored my thinking nonetheless. Nobody wants to be a fish in a barrel. I think that is driving a lot of this newly zealous gun control sentiment. People are tired of being afraid in public places.

Hey, we a agree on something non-music related!!

I think this is a large part, yes. I think people are tired of it being a statistical chance you can be shot and killed at school or at the concert. Like you said, not likely and not rational - I will admit that as well. But it's now spilled over to places where we didn't or shouldn't be expecting that violence to be a risk. What I mean by that is yeah, we could be honest and say if you are at a dive bar at 2am there is a chance that a fight could break out and something bad happens. We don't expect 10 people to die out of the blue at a grocery or at an elementary school.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
Hey, we a agree on something non-music related!!

We don't expect 10 people to die out of the blue at a grocery or at an elementary school.

Heh.

As for the latter comment, we find it appalling. That one can't go about one's daily life without the threat of gun violence surely colors our view of gun control. There is something to be said for the argument that if the guns available today were available to the Framers, they would have thought twice about the Second Amendment. My reading of the Amendment is textual. In order for a well-regulated militia, people may arm themselves. It seems like an awfully important qualifier.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

This is a tangent...but its a Saturday. There's this whole argument about part of the purpose of 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow government when necessary. I don't want to define when that is.

What I want to ask is folks say "well you can't overthrow the government with an AR-15". Like an individual can't? You can't overthrow the US government with an ICBM either.

However, an armed citizenry with AR-15's is surely going to be more effective than with handguns? I mean if we're really talking about going Red Dawn Wolverine on the government...why would 10MM citizens with AR-15's not be effective? And of course the point would not be to kill everyone but to force a peaceful transition back to the government the people want.

I don't own an AR-15 and honestly not looking to defend all the negatives they come with (because they do and I'm not saying I'm a proponent)...what I'm focusing on is the specific reasoning of the objection to them based on their lack of effectiveness to support a stated reason for 2A

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

djmich said:
This is a tangent...but its a Saturday. There's this whole argument about part of the purpose of 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow government when necessary. I don't want to define when that is.

What I want to ask is folks say "well you can't overthrow the government with an AR-15". Like an individual can't? You can't overthrow the US government with an ICBM either.

However, an armed citizenry with AR-15's is surely going to be more effective than with handguns? I mean if we're really talking about going Red Dawn Wolverine on the government...why would 10MM citizens with AR-15's not be effective? And of course the point would not be to kill everyone but to force a peaceful transition back to the government the people want.

I don't own an AR-15 and honestly not looking to defend all the negatives they come with (because they do and I'm not saying I'm a proponent)...what I'm focusing on is the specific reasoning of the objection to them based on their lack of effectiveness to supported a stated reason for 2A

I guess I would say that:

Of those 10M, how many would be effective enough in combat and have the metal fortitude for the task?

Could they concentrate in an area quickly enough to matter?

How effective would those AR-15s be vs. the vastly superior fire power of the tyrannical government? Drones, tanks, etc.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
I guess I would say that:

Of those 10M, how many would be effective enough in combat and have the metal fortitude for the task?

Could they concentrate in an area quickly enough to matter?

How effective would those AR-15s be vs. the vastly superior fire power of the tyrannical government? Drones, tanks, etc.

My over-arching presumption is that at the point that tens of millions of citizens were aligned in purpose (and 10MM of them armed with AR-15's)...thats the point where whatever governmental coup or other ill gotten control occurred, presumably with military backing...would assess that they cannot win.

The point isn't to pit citizens in a fire fight with the government but to present overwhelming opposition (armed and unarmed) which forces a peaceful transition.

I have no idea what the scenarios really are and frankly this is hopefully silly hypothetical...but I do know that for the past 4yrs I read a lot about the "threat to democracy" and the history of people and governments on this planet is not super encouraging for stability ad infinitum

timschochet · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Gekko is actually on fire in this thread with his assessment of things. But I take exception to his claim that you can't convince non-gun owners of the efficacy of 2A. Don't get bogged down in the minutiae of bump stocks is correct, but there are also debate tactics that are more effective than not. I'd begin by assessing and professing my own fears about a gunless society. Appeal to their own sense of vulnerability and life and limb. Because personally, I hate guns. The only things that make me want to own a gun are thoughts that begin with "If I don't have a gun" and they end like this:

If I don't have a gun, other people have guns and might use them on me. I don't want to die.

If I don't have a gun, then a mob can tear me limb from limb if it wants. I don't want to die.

If I don't have a gun, then a disinterested police force can stand by while my property burns. I don't want to lose my property. Then, if you'll permit me a slippery slope, I'll have no income or house, and I might be essentially naked in protection from the elements, and I don't want to die.

If I don't have a gun, then a corrupt government can excommunicate or kill people that they don't like and that I do (namely my friends and family) without any skin in the game. I want to make it very difficult for that to happen. I feel like the father in Red Dawn that tells his sons "Avenge Me!" I want my deterrent (an Ar-15 or the like) from something like a takeover or rank corruption happening -- or at least my pound of flesh from the violent and corrupt -- because, I don't want to die.

You can convert more people that are gun owners to 2A positions than you can people for whom 2A is an abstract thing. Nobody really believes you could overthrow the U.S. Military with an AR-15, so why have them around when their only use seems to be slaughtering innocent civilians at the hands of psychotic or crazy former citizens? When the above is pointed out, objections to the contrary seem wrong-headed and callous to the sentiment of "If I don't have a gun, I don't want to die, and I might if I don't." Arguing abstract political rights will get one nowhere, arguing from a position where these rights originate is the important thing to do.

The two gun control proposals that have been under discussion are universal background checks and banning AR-15s. Neither of them have anything to do with the Second Amendment. So this entire discussion is irrelevant.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

timschochet said:
The two gun control proposals that have been under discussion are universal background checks and banning AR-15s. Neither of them have anything to do with the Second Amendment. So this entire discussion is irrelevant.

Any gun restriction implicates the Second. Gun restrictions can only go as far as the Court is willing to curtail natural rights to property under the Constitution. In this case, it falls under the rubric of the Second Amendment.

What you've done is essentially saying that school prayer doesn't implicate the First Amendment jurisprudence because we have separation of church and state.

timschochet · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Any gun restriction implicates the Second. Gun restrictions can only go as far as the Court is willing to curtail natural rights to property under the Constitution. In this case, it falls under the rubric of the Second Amendment.

What you've done is essentially saying that school prayer doesn't implicate the First Amendment jurisprudence because we have separation of church and state.

No I’m not. The SC has already ruled on school prayer,, and they’ve already ruled on these sorts of restrictions. It’s a non issue.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

timschochet said:
No I’m not. The SC has already ruled on school prayer,, and they’ve already ruled on these sorts of restrictions. It’s a non issue.

Dude, you're just wrong and I'll leave it at that. It's no use.

[icon] · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
I wonder if stats coming out that a lot of these shooters are getting their guns legally is hurting gun owner's case in the public eye a bit.

Roughly 6% of gun come convicts in state and federal prison acquired the gun through the proper channels.

The vast majority are bypassing any gun regulation that has been in place.

Posted the source earlier in this thread.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

[icon] said:
Roughly 6% of gun come convicts in state and federal prison acquired the gun through the proper channels.

The vast majority are bypassing any gun regulation that has been in place.

Posted the source earlier in this thread.

So, is part of the offset the stats of "gun crime" vs "mass shooting", or more accurately the mass shootings we commonly think of (ie grocery store vs. drug deal).

ekbeats · Mar 27, 2021

timschochet said:
The two gun control proposals that have been under discussion are universal background checks and banning AR-15s. Neither of them have anything to do with the Second Amendment. So this entire discussion is irrelevant.

Banning assault weapons doesn’t have anything to do with the 2nd amendment?? Not going to argue that because, well, it’s like arguing that the sky is blue. I will argue on the AR-15 piece. The crux of this thread has been about facts and statistics rather than emotion and news bites. According to the 2019 FBI Crime Report only 364 people were killed by rifles in 2019, regardless of whether they were assault weapons or not. And in 2018 that number was only 297. More people were killed by bare hands - 600. And 1,476 were killed by knives. Banning assault weapons is a lark.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

I am not trying to dodge stats, I am just saying that was a really frustrating part of the debate in the the other thread. Mass shooting vs. gun crime vs. gun deaths. They all have different stats, rates, and then people come in an out the thread dropping different stats. I just want to be clear what I am talking about.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

ekbeats said:
Banning assault weapons doesn’t have anything to do with the 2nd amendment?? Not going to argue that because, well, it’s like arguing that the sky is blue. I will argue on the AR-15 piece. The crux of this thread has been about facts and statistics rather than emotion and news bites. According to the 2019 FBI Crime Report only 364 people were killed by rifles in 2019, regardless of whether they were assault weapons or not. More people were killed by bare hands - 600. And 1,476 were killed by knives. Banning assault weapons is a lark.

wow...interesting datapoints and provides context

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

djmich said:
wow...interesting datapoints and provides context

It is important to look at, but we are also talking about mass shootings and the fear that RA and I were talking about. I get more people die that way statistically but we are also not concerned about somebody going to a theater and killing 10 people with their bare hands.

.

FairWarning · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
I

But, I am in that group I described in #2 above - I am in these threads a lot trying to work through my thoughts, but if I am honest I am not sure this cracks the top 5 for me in issues that I think are important right now in the US, so it's not top of mind when I vote.

It may not be yours but for a very high percentage of republicans, its first or second.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

FairWarning said:
It may not be yours but for a very high percentage of republicans, its first or second.

Yeah, that was my point above. For gun owners it's probably #1, and for many R's that or abortion are at the top of the list I would imagine.

Mass Shootings Thread (2 Viewers)

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Insoxicated

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Insoxicated

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread