CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[Hiryuu]

you're more likely to have a gun taken from you than use it to defend your family.

and you're certainly statistically more likely to shoot a family member or friend or have one of them shoot themselves or you.

Try answering the question next time. I didn't ask you for a dissertation on who you think is likely to get shot with who's weapon.

I simply asked you how many rounds should a person be allowed to defend their family with?

 

[FA_Q2]

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

How many rounds should someone be allowed to defend their family with?

you're more likely to have a gun taken from you than use it to defend your family.

and you're certainly statistically more likely to shoot a family member or friend or have one of them shoot themselves or you.

That is false.

 

[westwall]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Howey, as we have seen in France. These laws don't work. The political leaders of the police are indeed in favor of these gun bans. But the rank and file officers are overwhelmingly AGAINST these bans.

 

[Howey]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Howey, as we have seen in France. These laws don't work. The political leaders of the police are indeed in favor of these gun bans. But the rank and file officers are overwhelmingly AGAINST these bans.

Thank you for participating.

Obviously, our laws today don't work. What is your suggestion, keeping in mind the OP?

 

[westwall]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Howey, as we have seen in France. These laws don't work. The political leaders of the police are indeed in favor of these gun bans. But the rank and file officers are overwhelmingly AGAINST these bans.

Thank you for participating.

Obviously, our laws today don't work. What is your suggestion, keeping in mind the OP?

The reality is that gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding. Period end of story. Mexico has some of the harshest laws in the world and every drug thug has a machinegun. Clearly they don't work. So, what does? Putting violent criminals behind bars forever. In Chicago they have 150,000 KNOWN gangbangers. There is a fairly small percentage of those (around 10%) that are incredibly violent. They KNOW who these guys are, and they continuously let them out to prey on their victims.

Let's do one thing that we know works. If you murder someone you go to jail FOREVER.

 

[Howey]

The reality is that gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding. Period end of story. Mexico has some of the harshest laws in the world and every drug thug has a machinegun. Clearly they don't work. So, what does? Putting violent criminals behind bars forever. In Chicago they have 150,000 KNOWN gangbangers. There is a fairly small percentage of those (around 10%) that are incredibly violent. the KNOW who these guys are, and they continuously let them out to prey on their victims.

Let's do one thing that we know works. If you murder someone you go to jail FOREVER.

I thought I'd like to remind all the posters in this thread of the OP.

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

As far as your post, I'll start a new CDZ thread to discuss it.

 

[Hiryuu]

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Trying to understand the reason why you keep suggesting nothing answers your question in the OP.

If people keep telling you why they don't support what you call common sense legislation, while they support law enforcement, then how does that not answer your question? Common sense would dictate referring back to the previous Assault Weapons Ban and how it addressed weapon types and clip size.

Neither were effective and for reasons no one likes talking about. The main reason nothing worked, is because it did nothing about the weapons and magazines manufactured prior to the ban. You could still buy anything manufactured prior to ban, and all the ban did was ensure all the back stock of both were sold at a slightly marked-up price.

Now if you would like to see that the firearms manufactures receive another windfall from less than effective legislation, then it is hard to see where you think the legislation would be common sense to start with.

That is always the problem we are going to face as new legislation/regulations come around. There has been a constant drum beat of people saying, "we are not taking your rights away, no one is coming to confiscate your weapons". Well guess what, nothing you ever do with legislation will ever make a dent in the problem you see until they take away the 40 million plus assault weapons and the countless 30 round magazines already in the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

Yes...only people with no brains seem to think that that matters....actual research shows that it doesn't matter how many rounds a mass shooter has....they have plenty of time, lots of unarmed victims....and they can change magazines at a rate that doesn't help the victims....

The only thing a limit on magazine size does is ban certain types of rifle...but especially pistol......in a way that doesn't require anti gunners to say they are banning guns...they are simply banning the amount of bullets...and then the uninformed go along with the dumb magazine limit....and lose their pistols and rifles.....

For absolutely no reason.......

 

[2aguy]

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

How many rounds should someone be allowed to defend their family with?

you're more likely to have a gun taken from you than use it to defend your family.

and you're certainly statistically more likely to shoot a family member or friend or have one of them shoot themselves or you.

Both of those are lies.......they are not based in actual reality.....and you guys keep saying them without backing them up....

murder is committed in this country by people with long histories of violence and criminal records....90% of the gun murderers have criminal records, felonies and long histories of violence....

The studies of domestic shootings.......concentrated on neighborhoods with vast problems involving crime and drugs....and then they said that applied to normal people who owned guns....

The actual factors that contribute to murder by actual family members......criminal past, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, current criminal behavior, history of violence......

Normal people who don't have any of those things are not shooting people over dinner, a fight over the t.v. remote, or a fender bender.....

it is simply an anti gun lie.....

As to being easily disarmed.....another lie......pulled out of the asses of anti gunners to frighten the uninformed.......

If you guys aren't lying...you have nothing to say about guns....

 

[2aguy]

I really don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say "citizens (should) give up their rights to assist the police"?

I know exactly what I am talking about. If you don't think citizens need to give up their rights to something, then why would ask them to?

Again, and please forgive me if English isn't your primary language, but where have I "ask(ed) them to"?

I really don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say "citizens (should) give up their rights to assist the police"?

well, they'd rather pretend you're asking them to give up their guns then have an actual discussion. they only know how to repeat what the NRA tells them.

I have yet to see anyone here use anything from the NRA other than "The Armed Citizen" which simply collects news stories of defensive gun uses...but thanks for lying....most of the time we use the Centers for Disease Control or the FBI homicide tables.......again, thanks for lying....

 

[2aguy]

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

How many rounds should someone be allowed to defend their family with?

you're more likely to have a gun taken from you than use it to defend your family.

and you're certainly statistically more likely to shoot a family member or friend or have one of them shoot themselves or you.

And the lie that you will just have the gun taken from you......you see that in movies...the more likely outcome is you disarm the robber or the murderer....since you have more on the line than they do.....you can read about this for yourself....

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

“A Criminal Will Just Take the Gun Away from You”

For a very long time, gun control proponents would insist that having a gun was a mistake, because many people (especially women) would not be willing to shoot a person who was attacking them—and the criminal would then take away the victim’s gun and use it on the victim.


Oddly enough, while the authors have recorded a large number of incidents where someone has their gun taken away from them, it is usually the other way around. In 227 incidents, a criminal’s gun was taken away from him by the victim.

This does not necessarily mean that the victim shot the criminal, but it does mean that the victim successfully disarmed the criminal and then threatened the criminal with it in order to make him leave, or make him remain on the scene until the police could arrive. Often, these were situations where the victim, at the start of the attack, did not have a gun.

On May 14, 2010, police arrested Major Lee Barnes, 19. Barnes is alleged to have first solicited an act of prostitution from a woman, and when she declined, he threatened her with a handgun, ordering her to, as the newspaper described it, “get on her knees and perform a sex act on him.” Barnes apparently put the handgun back in his pocket, “put his arms back in an apparent relaxed gesture,” at which point the victim grabbed the handgun, and shot him.55


On March 13, 2010, three men, at least one of them masked, walked into a store in Romulus, Michigan, and attempted to rob it at gunpoint. A customer walked into the store, saw what was going on, and “successfully fought the gunman for control of the weapon and fired two rounds,” killing the gunman. The other suspects left, having failed to rob the store—short at least one handgun.56

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

Here....this is your answer for those with no brains......read this, and you will learn why you had to pull that answer out of your ass...........because it didn't come from anywhere based in reality....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?


The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Howey, as we have seen in France. These laws don't work. The political leaders of the police are indeed in favor of these gun bans. But the rank and file officers are overwhelmingly AGAINST these bans.

Thank you for participating.

Obviously, our laws today don't work. What is your suggestion, keeping in mind the OP?

What we have advocated over and over again.....first, enforce the laws we have...they already deal with everything you care about...

Second....require judges and prosecutors to take gun crime and gun murder seriously, and to not plea bargain the gun charge away....

third.....increase the sentence for gun crimes, and for felons caught with illegal guns.......Japan puts a 30 years sentence on gun crime...and this has dried up almost all of the gun violence in their country......

 

[2aguy]

I NEED my semi-automatic AR-15 with a 30 round clip to protect myself in case a bad guy tries to rob me in the dairy section of Safeway.

You may need it for that....good for you....others need it for home defense since the weapon can be used by all body types and sizes, has a round that will not over penetrate walls, sparing neighbors from getting shot, allows lights and targeting lasers to make it easier to hit bad guys when they are in your home....is light enough to hold one handed if you have to, to use the phone, has a 30 round capacity magazine which means if you are injured you don't have to reload when adrenaline is making your small motor movement extremely difficult.....

So you carry your rifle in safeway......others will use it for home defense....or to stop looters and rioters as they were used in Ferguson and in the various black lies murder riots.......

 

[2aguy]

I NEED my semi-automatic AR-15 with a 30 round clip to protect myself in case a bad guy tries to rob me in the dairy section of Safeway.

And of course....according to Research by Mother Jones......they listed all mass public shootings from 1982-2016.....rifles with detachable magaizines were used to murder 157 people.....in 34 years....

157 people in 34 years......

knives murdered 1,567 in just 2014......and every year knives murder more people than all rifles combined....murdering over 1,500 people every year.....

These rifles are not an issue....you guys hate them because you have un addressed mental health issues....

 

[2aguy]

The reality is that gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding. Period end of story. Mexico has some of the harshest laws in the world and every drug thug has a machinegun. Clearly they don't work. So, what does? Putting violent criminals behind bars forever. In Chicago they have 150,000 KNOWN gangbangers. There is a fairly small percentage of those (around 10%) that are incredibly violent. the KNOW who these guys are, and they continuously let them out to prey on their victims.

Let's do one thing that we know works. If you murder someone you go to jail FOREVER.

I thought I'd like to remind all the posters in this thread of the OP.

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

As far as your post, I'll start a new CDZ thread to discuss it.

No...police officers do not support bans of any kind......a police chiefs survey was just released.....


You are just wrong......

Gun Control Is Not the Answer to Shootings that Kill Police Officers

Take the survey just released last week by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. After polling more than 20,000 sheriffs and chiefs of police, the NACOP found that 86.4 percent “support nationwide recognition of state issued concealed weapon permits” and 76 percent believe that “qualified, law-abiding armed citizens help law enforcement reduce violent criminal activity.”

Rank-and file-police show even stronger support for private gun ownership.

PoliceOne, an organization of about 380,000 active and 70,000 retired officers, surveyed 16,000 members on the subject in 2013. Virtually all of the survey’s respondents said the “assault-weapons” ban, “a federal ban on ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds,” background checks on private transfers of guns, and “a national database tracking all legal gun sales” would either do no good or actually cause harm.

Seventy-one percent of officers said that an assault-weapons ban would have no effect, while 20.5 percent said that it would make things worse.

Seventy-six percent of officers said that legally armed citizens are either extremely important or very important in reducing crime.



Eighty-six percent of officers said that abolishing gun-free zones would reduce or eliminate casualties from mass shootings.


Police are informed by what they see on the street every day. They know how important having a gun is to their own safety, and they know the help that private citizens can provide them if properly armed and trained.

 

[M14 Shooter]

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

Aside form the nonsensical idea that this will make any difference....
What good will this do given the millions upon millions of standard capacity MAGAZINES already in circulation?

 

[M14 Shooter]

you're more likely to have a gun taken from you than use it to defend your family.

This is a lie.

and you're certainly statistically more likely to shoot a family member or friend or have one of them shoot themselves or you.

This is also a lie.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I'm worried guys. Last night I was cleaning some of my guns and heard one of the AR15s telling another that he was considering killing someone...........

LOL stupid anti gun people,

Hey speeders speed, so we should ban all cars capable of speeding.

 

[2aguy]

I'm worried guys. Last night I was cleaning some of my guns and heard one of the AR15s telling another that he was considering killing someone...........

LOL stupid anti gun people,

Hey speeders speed, so we should ban all cars capable of speeding.

See......guns are pretty devious.......I am surprised they were so careless in letting you over hear their private conversations...........