Lebron James doesn't like people owning guns...has 10 armed security guards for his family...

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yes I am a member of NAAGA. Its a Black gun club.

LA? I thought I heard that was one of the easy ones.

Well if you're Sean Penn yeah, but not for people like me.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Security guards are trained. Dumbasses like you are not.

I can guarantee you, those are not security guards

 

[grainbely]

Another anti-gun extremist who has guards, with guns, protecting his family....

Gun Control Proponent LeBron James Has Armed Guards on Security Detail

NBA star and gun control proponent LeBron James is critical of private citizens carrying guns for self-defense, but employs “at least 10 armed security personnel” at his home for defense of himself and his family.
Following the October 1, 2015, attack on gun-free Umpqua Community College Associate Press reporter Tom Withers quoted LeBron saying, “There’s no room for guns.”

He told the AP that there need to be greater penalties for carrying a gun, “legal or illegal,” to make people think twice about doing it.

After the February 14, 2018, attack on gun-free Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School the Bleacher Report indicated LeBron criticized laws allowing 19-year-old “minors” to buy a gun and called for the passage of more gun control.

But LeBron is fine with being surrounded by guns for defense of himself and his family. TMZ reports that news of a burglaries of “more than 24 homes of the rich and famous” in Los Angeles has led LeBron to fortify his dwelling. This fortification includes “at least 10 armed security personnel at the home — including off-duty police officers.”

Hey dummy, theres a huge difference between trained professional security having guns as part of their job and one eyed aggresive cletus from the bog getting guns with no background check and no training. Another awful post and waste of time, dude. Maybe get a better hobby.

 

[james bond]

He could've just hired unarmed security.

So they could get shot while his home was being robbed?

Obviously, one doesn't want this. So you agree that the right thing to do is have a gun to protect your possessions and well-being?

I have several weapons at home. I dont feel the need to bring any of them to the mall or when I am going shopping. I think thats just creating trouble and frankly I am not that terrified of the outside world.

So you agree that guns protect both people and possessions in the home.

At the mall, I would prefer that they have armed security. Then they would be able to stop and prevent escalation of armed violence from criminals or mentally ill. Instead in California, I get stores like IKEA, where I eat, that advertise that it's a gun-free zone. There is the state DMV that promotes itself as a gun-free zone. I'd feel safer if there was armed security instead. On the other hand, all the state buildings and personnel are protected by armed police. I suppose it's to advertise that they are a liberal establishment or state. It's also hypocrisy by the state. LeBron James subscribes to the same hypocrisy.

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Let's just agree to disagree. I acknowledged you have guns and believe in protecting your family in your home. That's excellent. My point was I didn't like places advertising they are a gun-free zone. It right at the front doors. I'm not paranoid about it, but question why stores like that do it. It could give the mentally ill the wrong ideas.

 

[2aguy]

Another anti-gun extremist who has guards, with guns, protecting his family....

Gun Control Proponent LeBron James Has Armed Guards on Security Detail

NBA star and gun control proponent LeBron James is critical of private citizens carrying guns for self-defense, but employs “at least 10 armed security personnel” at his home for defense of himself and his family.
Following the October 1, 2015, attack on gun-free Umpqua Community College Associate Press reporter Tom Withers quoted LeBron saying, “There’s no room for guns.”

He told the AP that there need to be greater penalties for carrying a gun, “legal or illegal,” to make people think twice about doing it.

After the February 14, 2018, attack on gun-free Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School the Bleacher Report indicated LeBron criticized laws allowing 19-year-old “minors” to buy a gun and called for the passage of more gun control.

But LeBron is fine with being surrounded by guns for defense of himself and his family. TMZ reports that news of a burglaries of “more than 24 homes of the rich and famous” in Los Angeles has led LeBron to fortify his dwelling. This fortification includes “at least 10 armed security personnel at the home — including off-duty police officers.”

Hey dummy, theres a huge difference between trained professional security having guns as part of their job and one eyed aggresive cletus from the bog getting guns with no background check and no training. Another awful post and waste of time, dude. Maybe get a better hobby.

Hey, shit stain...... as more Americans carry guns, our gun crime rate has gone down, not up...showing that you don't know anything about the issue. We have more Americans carrying guns and the crime rates go down, that means, moron, that those normal American handle their legal guns responsibly.

Guns are not complicated or difficult to use...only morons like you believe they are......you are an idiot.

 

[2aguy]

He could've just hired unarmed security.

So they could get shot while his home was being robbed?

Obviously, one doesn't want this. So you agree that the right thing to do is have a gun to protect your possessions and well-being?

I have several weapons at home. I dont feel the need to bring any of them to the mall or when I am going shopping. I think thats just creating trouble and frankly I am not that terrified of the outside world.

So you agree that guns protect both people and possessions in the home.

At the mall, I would prefer that they have armed security. Then they would be able to stop and prevent escalation of armed violence from criminals or mentally ill. Instead in California, I get stores like IKEA, where I eat, that advertise that it's a gun-free zone. There is the state DMV that promotes itself as a gun-free zone. I'd feel safer if there was armed security instead. On the other hand, all the state buildings and personnel are protected by armed police. I suppose it's to advertise that they are a liberal establishment or state. It's also hypocrisy by the state. LeBron James subscribes to the same hypocrisy.

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Boy, you really are stupid..... Again, you think that criminals do not exist...that if they do exist, they only bother you at your home.....you are a silly human being.

We have 17.25 million Americans with permits to carry guns, and each year Americans use those guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder......so you don't know what you are talking about......

 

[2aguy]

So they could get shot while his home was being robbed?

Obviously, one doesn't want this. So you agree that the right thing to do is have a gun to protect your possessions and well-being?

I have several weapons at home. I dont feel the need to bring any of them to the mall or when I am going shopping. I think thats just creating trouble and frankly I am not that terrified of the outside world.

So you agree that guns protect both people and possessions in the home.

At the mall, I would prefer that they have armed security. Then they would be able to stop and prevent escalation of armed violence from criminals or mentally ill. Instead in California, I get stores like IKEA, where I eat, that advertise that it's a gun-free zone. There is the state DMV that promotes itself as a gun-free zone. I'd feel safer if there was armed security instead. On the other hand, all the state buildings and personnel are protected by armed police. I suppose it's to advertise that they are a liberal establishment or state. It's also hypocrisy by the state. LeBron James subscribes to the same hypocrisy.

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Let's just agree to disagree. I acknowledged you have guns and believe in protecting your family in your home. That's excellent. My point was I didn't like places advertising they are a gun-free zone. It right at the front doors. I'm not paranoid about it, but question why stores like that do it. It could give the mentally ill the wrong ideas.

From the research into mass public shooters, we know that they target gun free zones. That is a fact. So by advertising a gun free zone, they are making their business more likely to be targeted.....as well as by actual criminals who know that no one in the store will be armed......

 

[Asclepias]

So they could get shot while his home was being robbed?

Obviously, one doesn't want this. So you agree that the right thing to do is have a gun to protect your possessions and well-being?

I have several weapons at home. I dont feel the need to bring any of them to the mall or when I am going shopping. I think thats just creating trouble and frankly I am not that terrified of the outside world.

So you agree that guns protect both people and possessions in the home.

At the mall, I would prefer that they have armed security. Then they would be able to stop and prevent escalation of armed violence from criminals or mentally ill. Instead in California, I get stores like IKEA, where I eat, that advertise that it's a gun-free zone. There is the state DMV that promotes itself as a gun-free zone. I'd feel safer if there was armed security instead. On the other hand, all the state buildings and personnel are protected by armed police. I suppose it's to advertise that they are a liberal establishment or state. It's also hypocrisy by the state. LeBron James subscribes to the same hypocrisy.

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Let's just agree to disagree. I acknowledged you have guns and believe in protecting your family in your home. That's excellent. My point was I didn't like places advertising they are a gun-free zone. It right at the front doors. I'm not paranoid about it, but question why stores like that do it. It could give the mentally ill the wrong ideas.

I think the point in advertising that a place is gun free is to warn criminals, protect themselves from being sued by gun owners and make the public feel safe. Criminals know they will get more severe sentencing if caught in a gun free zone. Take for instance the court house. Its a gun free zone. Everyone knows it. People feel safe there. Criminals know prison is right around the corner. Starbucks can ask you to leave if you have a weapon and the sign covers them from any liability. If they didnt have to worry about gun owners suing them then they probably wouldnt protect themselves by using the sign on the door. The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac. Business pay big money to firms that weigh the probability of an event occurring so they can protect themselves against liability and increase profit..

 

[Asclepias]

So they could get shot while his home was being robbed?

Obviously, one doesn't want this. So you agree that the right thing to do is have a gun to protect your possessions and well-being?

I have several weapons at home. I dont feel the need to bring any of them to the mall or when I am going shopping. I think thats just creating trouble and frankly I am not that terrified of the outside world.

So you agree that guns protect both people and possessions in the home.

At the mall, I would prefer that they have armed security. Then they would be able to stop and prevent escalation of armed violence from criminals or mentally ill. Instead in California, I get stores like IKEA, where I eat, that advertise that it's a gun-free zone. There is the state DMV that promotes itself as a gun-free zone. I'd feel safer if there was armed security instead. On the other hand, all the state buildings and personnel are protected by armed police. I suppose it's to advertise that they are a liberal establishment or state. It's also hypocrisy by the state. LeBron James subscribes to the same hypocrisy.

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Boy, you really are stupid..... Again, you think that criminals do not exist...that if they do exist, they only bother you at your home.....you are a silly human being.

We have 17.25 million Americans with permits to carry guns, and each year Americans use those guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder......so you don't know what you are talking about......

Youre just afraid of your own shadow. Dont get mad at me because you walk around in fear.

 

[2aguy]

Obviously, one doesn't want this. So you agree that the right thing to do is have a gun to protect your possessions and well-being?

I have several weapons at home. I dont feel the need to bring any of them to the mall or when I am going shopping. I think thats just creating trouble and frankly I am not that terrified of the outside world.

So you agree that guns protect both people and possessions in the home.

At the mall, I would prefer that they have armed security. Then they would be able to stop and prevent escalation of armed violence from criminals or mentally ill. Instead in California, I get stores like IKEA, where I eat, that advertise that it's a gun-free zone. There is the state DMV that promotes itself as a gun-free zone. I'd feel safer if there was armed security instead. On the other hand, all the state buildings and personnel are protected by armed police. I suppose it's to advertise that they are a liberal establishment or state. It's also hypocrisy by the state. LeBron James subscribes to the same hypocrisy.

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Let's just agree to disagree. I acknowledged you have guns and believe in protecting your family in your home. That's excellent. My point was I didn't like places advertising they are a gun-free zone. It right at the front doors. I'm not paranoid about it, but question why stores like that do it. It could give the mentally ill the wrong ideas.

I think the point in advertising that a place is gun free is to warn criminals, protect themselves from being sued by gun owners and make the public feel safe. Criminals know they will get more severe sentencing if caught in a gun free zone. Take for instance the court house. Its a gun free zone. Everyone knows it. People feel safe there. Criminals know prison is right around the corner. Starbucks can ask you to leave if you have a weapon and the sign covers them from any liability. If they didnt have to worry about gun owners suing them then they probably wouldnt protect themselves by using the sign on the door. The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac. Business pay big money to firms that weigh the probability of an event occurring so they can protect themselves against liability and increase profit..

The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac.

17.25 million people with concealed carry permits in the United States.....the actual number of people who carry a gun for self defense is even higher because some states don't require a permit.....

And yet, nothing you posted is happening....

 

[Asclepias]

I have several weapons at home. I dont feel the need to bring any of them to the mall or when I am going shopping. I think thats just creating trouble and frankly I am not that terrified of the outside world.

So you agree that guns protect both people and possessions in the home.

At the mall, I would prefer that they have armed security. Then they would be able to stop and prevent escalation of armed violence from criminals or mentally ill. Instead in California, I get stores like IKEA, where I eat, that advertise that it's a gun-free zone. There is the state DMV that promotes itself as a gun-free zone. I'd feel safer if there was armed security instead. On the other hand, all the state buildings and personnel are protected by armed police. I suppose it's to advertise that they are a liberal establishment or state. It's also hypocrisy by the state. LeBron James subscribes to the same hypocrisy.

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Let's just agree to disagree. I acknowledged you have guns and believe in protecting your family in your home. That's excellent. My point was I didn't like places advertising they are a gun-free zone. It right at the front doors. I'm not paranoid about it, but question why stores like that do it. It could give the mentally ill the wrong ideas.

I think the point in advertising that a place is gun free is to warn criminals, protect themselves from being sued by gun owners and make the public feel safe. Criminals know they will get more severe sentencing if caught in a gun free zone. Take for instance the court house. Its a gun free zone. Everyone knows it. People feel safe there. Criminals know prison is right around the corner. Starbucks can ask you to leave if you have a weapon and the sign covers them from any liability. If they didnt have to worry about gun owners suing them then they probably wouldnt protect themselves by using the sign on the door. The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac. Business pay big money to firms that weigh the probability of an event occurring so they can protect themselves against liability and increase profit..

The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac.

17.25 million people with concealed carry permits in the United States.....the actual number of people who carry a gun for self defense is even higher because some states don't require a permit.....

And yet, nothing you posted is happening....

You are idiot. It happens all the time.

Mom killed when son grabs gun from her purse in Walmart - CNN

 

[2aguy]

So you agree that guns protect both people and possessions in the home.

At the mall, I would prefer that they have armed security. Then they would be able to stop and prevent escalation of armed violence from criminals or mentally ill. Instead in California, I get stores like IKEA, where I eat, that advertise that it's a gun-free zone. There is the state DMV that promotes itself as a gun-free zone. I'd feel safer if there was armed security instead. On the other hand, all the state buildings and personnel are protected by armed police. I suppose it's to advertise that they are a liberal establishment or state. It's also hypocrisy by the state. LeBron James subscribes to the same hypocrisy.

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Let's just agree to disagree. I acknowledged you have guns and believe in protecting your family in your home. That's excellent. My point was I didn't like places advertising they are a gun-free zone. It right at the front doors. I'm not paranoid about it, but question why stores like that do it. It could give the mentally ill the wrong ideas.

I think the point in advertising that a place is gun free is to warn criminals, protect themselves from being sued by gun owners and make the public feel safe. Criminals know they will get more severe sentencing if caught in a gun free zone. Take for instance the court house. Its a gun free zone. Everyone knows it. People feel safe there. Criminals know prison is right around the corner. Starbucks can ask you to leave if you have a weapon and the sign covers them from any liability. If they didnt have to worry about gun owners suing them then they probably wouldnt protect themselves by using the sign on the door. The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac. Business pay big money to firms that weigh the probability of an event occurring so they can protect themselves against liability and increase profit..

The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac.

17.25 million people with concealed carry permits in the United States.....the actual number of people who carry a gun for self defense is even higher because some states don't require a permit.....

And yet, nothing you posted is happening....

You are idiot. It happens all the time.

Mom killed when son grabs gun from her purse in Walmart - CNN

Over 17.25 million people have permits to carry guns for self defense.....get back to me when the accidents surpass the 1.1 million times a year that Americans use their legal guns to stop rapes, robberies and murders.....

 

[2aguy]

So you agree that guns protect both people and possessions in the home.

At the mall, I would prefer that they have armed security. Then they would be able to stop and prevent escalation of armed violence from criminals or mentally ill. Instead in California, I get stores like IKEA, where I eat, that advertise that it's a gun-free zone. There is the state DMV that promotes itself as a gun-free zone. I'd feel safer if there was armed security instead. On the other hand, all the state buildings and personnel are protected by armed police. I suppose it's to advertise that they are a liberal establishment or state. It's also hypocrisy by the state. LeBron James subscribes to the same hypocrisy.

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Let's just agree to disagree. I acknowledged you have guns and believe in protecting your family in your home. That's excellent. My point was I didn't like places advertising they are a gun-free zone. It right at the front doors. I'm not paranoid about it, but question why stores like that do it. It could give the mentally ill the wrong ideas.

I think the point in advertising that a place is gun free is to warn criminals, protect themselves from being sued by gun owners and make the public feel safe. Criminals know they will get more severe sentencing if caught in a gun free zone. Take for instance the court house. Its a gun free zone. Everyone knows it. People feel safe there. Criminals know prison is right around the corner. Starbucks can ask you to leave if you have a weapon and the sign covers them from any liability. If they didnt have to worry about gun owners suing them then they probably wouldnt protect themselves by using the sign on the door. The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac. Business pay big money to firms that weigh the probability of an event occurring so they can protect themselves against liability and increase profit..

The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac.

17.25 million people with concealed carry permits in the United States.....the actual number of people who carry a gun for self defense is even higher because some states don't require a permit.....

And yet, nothing you posted is happening....

You are idiot. It happens all the time.

Mom killed when son grabs gun from her purse in Walmart - CNN

Accidental gun death in 2016 according to the CDC.... notice that as more people carry guns, the accidental gun death number went down, not up...

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html


2016 495
2015...489http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

 

[Asclepias]

Of course I agree or I wouldnt have weapons in my home.

You dont need armed security at stores like IKEA or the mall. DMV should have them due to the environment and potential for violence. I dont see it as hypocrisy. Whats hypocritical about having armed security instead of relying on some yahoo that is more likely to shoot himself in the foot or shoot a bystander? Whats hypocritical about Lebron protecting his family from documented threats?

Let's just agree to disagree. I acknowledged you have guns and believe in protecting your family in your home. That's excellent. My point was I didn't like places advertising they are a gun-free zone. It right at the front doors. I'm not paranoid about it, but question why stores like that do it. It could give the mentally ill the wrong ideas.

I think the point in advertising that a place is gun free is to warn criminals, protect themselves from being sued by gun owners and make the public feel safe. Criminals know they will get more severe sentencing if caught in a gun free zone. Take for instance the court house. Its a gun free zone. Everyone knows it. People feel safe there. Criminals know prison is right around the corner. Starbucks can ask you to leave if you have a weapon and the sign covers them from any liability. If they didnt have to worry about gun owners suing them then they probably wouldnt protect themselves by using the sign on the door. The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac. Business pay big money to firms that weigh the probability of an event occurring so they can protect themselves against liability and increase profit..

The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac.

17.25 million people with concealed carry permits in the United States.....the actual number of people who carry a gun for self defense is even higher because some states don't require a permit.....

And yet, nothing you posted is happening....

You are idiot. It happens all the time.

Mom killed when son grabs gun from her purse in Walmart - CNN

Over 17.25 million people have permits to carry guns for self defense.....get back to me when the accidents surpass the 1.1 million times a year that Americans use their legal guns to stop rapes, robberies and murders.....

I dont need to get back to you. I already proved that yahoos carrying guns in public harm or kill people all the time.

 

[james bond]

I think the point in advertising that a place is gun free is to warn criminals, protect themselves from being sued by gun owners and make the public feel safe.

This isn't what I found. It's the opposite. If a store advertises it, then a person can sue for being shot there. Arizona is considering a law to hold businesses responsible if they post a no guns allowed sign.

"A Republican Congressman from Kentucky has introduced legislation that would roll back a federal ban on guns in schools. In Arizona, lawmakers are debating a bill that seeks to hold businesses liable if they post a no-guns-allowed sign, and someone is subsequently shot on the premises. In Wyoming, the state Senate approved a measure in February that would lift restrictions on carrying guns to government meetings."

What Is a ‘Gun-Free Zone,’ and What's Behind the Movement to Get Rid of Them?

Criminals know they will get more severe sentencing if caught in a gun free zone. Take for instance the court house. Its a gun free zone. Everyone knows it. People feel safe there. Criminals know prison is right around the corner.

Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work, but criminals just ignore it. To the contrary, they think gun free zones are easy pickings.

I'm not sure what state you live in, but every courthouse has armed police and metal detectors one has to pass through to get inside in California.

Starbucks can ask you to leave if you have a weapon and the sign covers them from any liability. If they didnt have to worry about gun owners suing them then they probably wouldnt protect themselves by using the sign on the door. The chances of some yahoo dropping his gun and accidentally killing someone are probably higher than the place being shot up by some maniac. Business pay big money to firms that weigh the probability of an event occurring so they can protect themselves against liability and increase profit..

Where is this?

 

[BS Filter]

Lebron tosses a ball through a hoop. I've seen trained seals do the same. Piss on him.

 

[Resnic]