Page 44 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3442434445 LastLast
Results 1,291 to 1,320 of 1344

Thread: Guns

  1. #1291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pelagius View Post
    Sorry, the survey seems fine overall. I think the paper should be more transparent about the journals it drew from gifs its list of economists.

    That's not my main concern. My main concern is survey participants know Lott is the author. His research is controversial so his far from an ideal person to author surveys. His identity by itself can create response bias.
    What's really interesting is that this is a peer reviewed research article and you only know of the possible bias if you know the reputation of the author. In that light it's hard to trust anything the media report. Everyone has a bias, one way or another, and the media aren't accountable to anyone but viewers...who likely listen to the bias they want to hear.

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  2. #1292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    What's really interesting is that this is a peer reviewed research article and you only know of the possible bias if you know the reputation of the author. In that light it's hard to trust anything the media report. Everyone has a bias, one way or another, and the media aren't accountable to anyone but viewers...who likely listen to the bias they want to hear.

    Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
    I still generally think the big picture takeaways are probably fine. I just wouldn't push the numbers too much. I suspect it's overall kind of a weird sample of economists (not just because of a response bias because Lott is controversial). It's a non-mainstream publishing area so that makes it a non-typical group of researchers who publish in the area.

    I think it actually would have been quite interesting if they surveyed economists who are part of say the NBER. It would be interesting to see the differences with the group that publishes in the area (particularly if they added questions that got more directly at hypothetical policy changes that actually affected the stock of guns).
    Last edited by pelagius; 04-19-2018 at 02:02 PM.

  3. #1293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pelagius View Post
    I still generally think the big picture takeaways are probably fine. I just wouldn't push the numbers too much. I suspect it's overall kind of a weird sample of economists (not just because of a response bias because Lott is controversial). It's a non-mainstream publishing area so that makes it a non-typical group of researchers who publish in the area.

    I think it actually would have been quite interesting if they surveyed economists who are part of say the NBER. It would be interesting to see the differences with the group that publishes in the area (particularly if they added questions that got more directly at hypothetical policy changes that actually affected the stock of guns).
    I finally had time to read the article thoroughly, and I didn't like the way the questions were worded. Also, the final paragraph, which I quoted, was somewhat misleading in it's description of the results. There was really more people on the fence than anything.

    I've said before that the problem with new laws is that there are too many guns in circulation for the existing proposals to have any effect on mass murders, especially in schools. Interestingly, I talked to a security guy at the airport the other day who moved to Cody from Orange County when he retired from the force there. He supports arming qualified teachers who train regularly with law enforcement. The Cody school district passed such a proposal last month He made the point that the most important thing to learn is when to draw and weapon and when to fire. He also said teachers who carry should be required to take basic martial arts classes.

    Our district may move that direction, and let the sheriff's department select and train qualified volunteer teachers. We have several people in each building with law-enforcement or military backgrounds, which may help them qualify. I would envision it as an assigned status that carries a stipend, so it's worth their time. It's cheaper than hiring another half-dozen SROs, and if they have the same training I think I'm okay with it. In the end, if I thought it wouldn't decrease the likelihood of a shooter targeting our school, I'd be less supportive, but I look at the move more as a way to deter shooters rather than just having more bullets fly.

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  4. #1294

    Default

    You'll be happy to know that Oliver North has found a new solution for gun violence:


  5. #1295
    вот так штука CardiacCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The SLC
    Posts
    10,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    I've said before that the problem with new laws is that there are too many guns in circulation for the existing proposals to have any effect on mass murders, especially in schools. Interestingly, I talked to a security guy at the airport the other day who moved to Cody from Orange County when he retired from the force there. He supports arming qualified teachers who train regularly with law enforcement. The Cody school district passed such a proposal last month He made the point that the most important thing to learn is when to draw and weapon and when to fire. He also said teachers who carry should be required to take basic martial arts classes.
    OK so I think all thinking people can agree is that part of the problem is that there are way way too many guns “in circulation” in the United States. When you get a kid who is troubled and capable of killing in a “one in a million” type of way, in the USA that kid is likely be able to get his hands on guns fairly easily. If it takes an overlap between a troubled kid and a gun to cause this issue then that overlap exists in the USA more than other countries because there are so damn many guns.

    So what’s the solution? Definitely one approach is like the Lieutenant Governor of Texas this morning to just say we will never have less guns so let’s focus on arming teachers, making all schools more like federal building with a ton of security and limited access. Let’s just give up on ever having less guns.

    But in my mind it still makes sense to get as many guns as possible off the street. These school shootings are a disease and a necessary component of the disease is guns so let’s get rid of as many guns as possible.

  6. #1296
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CardiacCoug View Post
    OK so I think all thinking people can agree is that part of the problem is that there are way way too many guns “in circulation” in the United States. When you get a kid who is troubled and capable of killing in a “one in a million” type of way, in the USA that kid is likely be able to get his hands on guns fairly easily. If it takes an overlap between a troubled kid and a gun to cause this issue then that overlap exists in the USA more than other countries because there are so damn many guns.

    So what’s the solution? Definitely one approach is like the Lieutenant Governor of Texas this morning to just say we will never have less guns so let’s focus on arming teachers, making all schools more like federal building with a ton of security and limited access. Let’s just give up on ever having less guns.

    But in my mind it still makes sense to get as many guns as possible off the street. These school shootings are a disease and a necessary component of the disease is guns so let’s get rid of as many guns as possible.
    Another necessary component of the school shootings are schoolchildren. Should we be getting rid of as many of them as possible too?
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  7. #1297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    Another necessary component of the school shootings are schoolchildren. Should we be getting rid of as many of them as possible too?
    That probably solves the problem. But before doing something so drastic, maybe we should consider decreasing the amount of guns in the US.

    And Ritalin.

  8. #1298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    Another necessary component of the school shootings are schoolchildren. Should we be getting rid of as many of them as possible too?
    School shooters are doing their best to help you with your proposed solution.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  9. #1299
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    School shooters are doing their best to help you with your proposed solution.
    You must be sad that a semi-automatic wasn't used to fit your narrative. What will happen when a car or bomb is used?
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  10. #1300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    You must be sad that a semi-automatic wasn't used to fit your narrative. What will happen when a car or bomb is used?
    the fuck are you talking about?
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  11. #1301
    вот так штука CardiacCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The SLC
    Posts
    10,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    Another necessary component of the school shootings are schoolchildren. Should we be getting rid of as many of them as possible too?
    Oh brother.

  12. #1302
    вот так штука CardiacCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The SLC
    Posts
    10,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    You must be sad that a semi-automatic wasn't used to fit your narrative. What will happen when a car or bomb is used?
    I love the attitude that because we don’t have a perfect solution that will work to prevent every single killing that we shouldn’t work on solving the problem of the intersection of crazy kids and guns at all. I don’t get it.

  13. #1303
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CardiacCoug View Post
    I love the attitude that because we don’t have a perfect solution that will work to prevent every single killing that we shouldn’t work on solving the problem of the intersection of crazy kids and guns at all. I don’t get it.
    My beef is priorities.

    Alcohol kills more than guns and obesity but people focus solely upon guns. And most of the recent tragedies have been fuck ups by government not using the remedies already in place.

    Australia had a recent mass murder despite very harsh and oppressive gun laws. I despise the simplistic approach to solving complex problems of violence in the US. Progressive statists want to placate their constituents without regard if the laws will be successful but in order to exact more control and to reduce liberties on a gradual basis.

    If complex approaches were suggested attacking the root cauaes one might listen to nuanced based restrictions but the progressives use a sledge hanmer in a china shop.
    Last edited by Topper; 05-20-2018 at 09:04 PM.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  14. #1304
    lollygagger hostile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CardiacCoug View Post
    I love the attitude that because we don’t have a perfect solution that will work to prevent every single killing that we shouldn’t work on solving the problem of the intersection of crazy kids and guns at all. I don’t get it.
    You know you could stop heart attacks by eliminating hearts.
    "You interns are like swallows. You shit all over my patients for six weeks and then fly off."

    "Don't be sorry, it's not your fault. It's my fault for overestimating your competence."

  15. #1305
    Senior Member originalsocal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Fullerton, CA
    Posts
    822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    My beef is priorities.

    Alcohol kills more than guns and obesity but people focus solely upon guns. And most of the recent tragedies have been fuck ups by government not using the remedies already in place.

    Australia had a recent mass murder despite very harsh and oppressive gun laws. I despise the simplistic approach to solving complex problems of violence in the US. Progressive statists want to placate their constituents without regard if the laws will be successful but in order to exact more control and to reduce liberties on a gradual basis.

    If complex approaches were suggested attacking the root cauaes one might listen to nuanced based restrictions but the progressives use a sledge hanmer in a china shop.


    Yeah, lets only tackle one problem at the same time. That's all we can handle.

    And...yes, obesity and alcohol kill, but they don't indiscriminately kill an entire class room of kids in a 30 second time period. So there's that.

  16. #1306
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by originalsocal View Post


    Yeah, lets only tackle one problem at the same time. That's all we can handle.

    And...yes, obesity and alcohol kill, but they don't indiscriminately kill an entire class room of kids in a 30 second time period. So there's that.
    Why are those lives more precious than those killed by DUIs, kidney disease or heart disease or diabetes?

    We have limited resources and the costs of eliminating all guns, even if legal would be cost prohibitive. We have so many more pressing problems without the money to tackle them all. This is simply on TV; that is why you care. If I showed DUI death after DUI death you would care about that and sue beverage makers. This is emotional, not rational approach to public policy.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  17. #1307
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    You must be sad that a semi-automatic wasn't used to fit your narrative. What will happen when a car or bomb is used?
    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    the fuck are you talking about?
    Yeah, what are you talking about Top? Don't you know that AR-15's were use in every major mass shooting since Aurora? You need to check Snopes:

    CLAIM

    AR-15 rifles were used to commit every major mass shooting in the United States since a 2012 attack in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater.

    RATING

    MOSTLY TRUE
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/we...ooting-aurora/

    Nevermind the other mass shootings.... They don't count.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  18. #1308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CardiacCoug View Post
    OK so I think all thinking people can agree is that part of the problem is that there are way way too many guns “in circulation” in the United States. When you get a kid who is troubled and capable of killing in a “one in a million” type of way, in the USA that kid is likely be able to get his hands on guns fairly easily. If it takes an overlap between a troubled kid and a gun to cause this issue then that overlap exists in the USA more than other countries because there are so damn many guns.

    So what’s the solution? Definitely one approach is like the Lieutenant Governor of Texas this morning to just say we will never have less guns so let’s focus on arming teachers, making all schools more like federal building with a ton of security and limited access. Let’s just give up on ever having less guns.

    But in my mind it still makes sense to get as many guns as possible off the street. These school shootings are a disease and a necessary component of the disease is guns so let’s get rid of as many guns as possible.
    Just briefly, I agree it would be nice to keep guns out of crazy people's hands, but I don't know of any proposal that would effectively accomplish that. Some laws might make it slightly more difficult, but at a substantial cost to the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and with a negligible benefit. I know 'negligible benefit' is arguable, but my point with that phrase is that people who are crazy enough to commit mass murder will find ways to do it. Given the number of guns owned by the public, it will likely be with a gun, and virtually no law short of an Australian solution would substantially reduce these events. I believe that the last guns we will confiscate are the guns that would potentially be used in a crime. Guns used for recreation and protection would be the guns coming "off the street" in most scenarios short of outright confiscation, leaving plenty of legal and illegal guns available for people who still want to commit crimes.

    People are using the "if it saves one child" card to promote laws that will do very little, if anything, to stop these events. I think that's an intellectually lazy argument. We can pass a lot of crazy laws to "save one child," but we don't because it doesn't make sense. No law comes without unintended consequences, so I am reticent to support any law unless it clearly offers a solution to the problem addressed. Passing laws banning bump stocks, assault weapons, etc., are nothing more than feel good measures that will have little, if any, effect on the current rash of school shootings. When people want to kill, they will find a way to do it.

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  19. #1309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    Just briefly, I agree it would be nice to keep guns out of crazy people's hands, but I don't know of any proposal that would effectively accomplish that. Some laws might make it slightly more difficult, but at a substantial cost to the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and with a negligible benefit. I know 'negligible benefit' is arguable, but my point with that phrase is that people who are crazy enough to commit mass murder will find ways to do it. Given the number of guns owned by the public, it will likely be with a gun, and virtually no law short of an Australian solution would substantially reduce these events. I believe that the last guns we will confiscate are the guns that would potentially be used in a crime. Guns used for recreation and protection would be the guns coming "off the street" in most scenarios short of outright confiscation, leaving plenty of legal and illegal guns available for people who still want to commit crimes.

    People are using the "if it saves one child" card to promote laws that will do very little, if anything, to stop these events. I think that's an intellectually lazy argument. We can pass a lot of crazy laws to "save one child," but we don't because it doesn't make sense. No law comes without unintended consequences, so I am reticent to support any law unless it clearly offers a solution to the problem addressed. Passing laws banning bump stocks, assault weapons, etc., are nothing more than feel good measures that will have little, if any, effect on the current rash of school shootings. When people want to kill, they will find a way to do it.
    I'm generally in agreement with this argument and have made the same. Yet there is a difference between a rifle and a bomb, or a truck. And there is a difference between a rifle and and handgun. A rifle allows discriminate killing from a distance, a choice of targets. A handgun (or shotgun) allows the same discrimination, but not from distance. Not all of the mass murderers are motivated by the same hatred or contempt. Some specifically want to discriminate against those they have perceived as having done the most harm to them personally. They will also discriminate and refrain in behalf of those perceived as granting them kindness. Distance or short range will depend to some degree on if they expect or want to live through it or want to revel in the fear of their victims. For these types, the gun (rifle for distance, handgun/shotgun for close range) is the weapon of choice because what they desire is to target specific individuals.

    However, removing guns won't necessarily change the outcome, and in some cases in could be worse. If the desire is the most mayhem possible in the shortest amount of time, guns aren't actually the best choice, they are simply the easy choice. If you take them away some will be forced to find other avenues of destruction which could be worse. When deciding what to do, don't underestimate the deviousness of the malevolent mind bent on retribution. You also must deal with the practicality of removing guns. They can be easily manufactured and/or imported. The writings of some of these school shooters reveal that they are already aware of how to attain weapons on the dark web. It's not likely you can actually legislate and be effective in the short run, and the long run effects are not so simple as many believe. Society is way more complicated than we can understand such that accurate long term predictions are impossible.

  20. #1310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    A rifle allows discriminate killing from a distance, a choice of targets. A handgun (or shotgun) allows the same discrimination, but not from distance.
    Why do you suppose that people have been selecting the wrong weapon to match the distance from which they choose kill? The typical scenario is a rifle used in close quarters. I think the psychology of terrorism is a factor at play.

  21. #1311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bo Diddley View Post
    Why do you suppose that people have been selecting the wrong weapon to match the distance from which they choose kill? The typical scenario is a rifle used in close quarters. I think the psychology of terrorism is a factor at play.
    Probably it's just factor of the distances we're talking about, rifles can still be used relatively close, just not as effectively really close relative to a handgun, which is why most of them go in armed with both. They are not referred to as assault rifles for no reason. My point was mostly about the ability to discriminate--this is something that is made clear in the journals and testimony of the perpetrators, there is a hierarchy of specific people they want dead. And I agree that psychology is at play, they want the greatest amount of physical and psychological damage and deliberate target selection or non-selection accomplishes that better than bombs.

  22. #1312
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    I'm generally in agreement with this argument and have made the same. Yet there is a difference between a rifle and a bomb, or a truck. And there is a difference between a rifle and and handgun. A rifle allows discriminate killing from a distance, a choice of targets. A handgun (or shotgun) allows the same discrimination, but not from distance. Not all of the mass murderers are motivated by the same hatred or contempt. Some specifically want to discriminate against those they have perceived as having done the most harm to them personally. They will also discriminate and refrain in behalf of those perceived as granting them kindness. Distance or short range will depend to some degree on if they expect or want to live through it or want to revel in the fear of their victims. For these types, the gun (rifle for distance, handgun/shotgun for close range) is the weapon of choice because what they desire is to target specific individuals.

    However, removing guns won't necessarily change the outcome, and in some cases in could be worse. If the desire is the most mayhem possible in the shortest amount of time, guns aren't actually the best choice, they are simply the easy choice. If you take them away some will be forced to find other avenues of destruction which could be worse. When deciding what to do, don't underestimate the deviousness of the malevolent mind bent on retribution. You also must deal with the practicality of removing guns. They can be easily manufactured and/or imported. The writings of some of these school shooters reveal that they are already aware of how to attain weapons on the dark web. It's not likely you can actually legislate and be effective in the short run, and the long run effects are not so simple as many believe. Society is way more complicated than we can understand such that accurate long term predictions are impossible.
    I agree with much of what you write.

    The costs of removing guns are easily dismissed without an examination.

    The Australian solution involved several factors not at play in the US. First, if I understand it correctly, Australian guns were already registered, so identifying and retrieving them in a small community was a rather easy affair. Most US weapons are not registered. Recovery of these weapons would be a Herculean effort. Second, Australia had no equivalent to the Second Amendment. Third, the damage to the liberties of the lawful gunowners is dismissed out of hand. If one drunk driver kills a child, should we ban alcohol for all people?
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  23. #1313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    Probably it's just factor of the distances we're talking about, rifles can still be used relatively close, just not as effectively really close relative to a handgun, which is why most of them go in armed with both. They are not referred to as assault rifles for no reason. My point was mostly about the ability to discriminate--this is something that is made clear in the journals and testimony of the perpetrators, there is a hierarchy of specific people they want dead. And I agree that psychology is at play, they want the greatest amount of physical and psychological damage and deliberate target selection or non-selection accomplishes that better than bombs.
    In the broader definition of mass shootings (I think 4 or more?) I can see where discrimination is a large factor. But when it comes to the larger body count shootings like what we're finding in our schools, it seems like the goal is just to rack-up as high a body count as possible. Is my intuition here counter to what the journals and testimony of perpetrators are saying?

    As for distances, I agree that a rifle can be quite effective at close range. I misspoke; the weapon of choice in close quarters combat is a sub-machine gun. Depending on your goals and tactics, I could see making a case for either a rifle or a hand-guns, and any desire for discrimination would likely inform those.

  24. #1314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bo Diddley View Post
    In the broader definition of mass shootings (I think 4 or more?) I can see where discrimination is a large factor. But when it comes to the larger body count shootings like what we're finding in our schools, it seems like the goal is just to rack-up as high a body count as possible. Is my intuition here counter to what the journals and testimony of perpetrators are saying?
    There are both, shooters that just want mayhem plain and simple, others which want to discriminate. If you included domestic shootings then obviously the level of discrimination is high, they want their family dead. I'm looking for an entry I remember reading about a prevented shooting where names were listed in a journal. Many still target a specific high school where events occurred and identify targets in general terms. I don't think the goals of all shooters are the same.

    I would agree that most just want a high body count from what I can find. Will look some more later.
    Last edited by swampfrog; 05-21-2018 at 06:22 PM.

  25. #1315

    Default

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ooting/433527/

    It’s important to point out that the young people who become shooters vary. Some, Langman would classify as psychopathic. These shooters lack empathy and are sometimes sadistic. Psychotic shooters, like the Virginia Tech shooter, may have schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions. They often have trouble functioning socially and emotionally. Finally, traumatized shooters are those who may have grown up in dysfunctional families and suffered physical, mental, or sexual abuse. Some choose to go on a shooting spree at college, others in middle or high school. Some target specific people they feel have wronged them, while others want to inflict as much harm as possible on random victims.

  26. #1316

    Default

    The Texas leuitenant governor knows where to focus efforts to reduce mass shootings:

    “We have 50 million abortions,” he said, according to CNN. “We have families that are broken apart, no fathers at home. We have incredible heinous violence as a game, two hours a day in front of their eyes. And we stand here and we wonder why this happens to certain students.”
    I assume fake news deleted the paragraph where he places the main blame on the number of guns in the US

  27. #1317

    Default

    Also found this reference from the Santa Fe shooting:

    Dimitrios told an investigator he acted alone and spared people he liked because he wanted his story told, according to a probable cause affidavit.
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/22/us/te...ing/index.html

  28. #1318

    Default

    How School Shootings Changed Their Classrooms
    By BARBARA MARCOLINI and NEETI UPADHYE

    https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100...ion=title-area

  29. #1319
    Members Only Dwight Schr-ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    4,717

    Default Guns

    I get falling for a well disguised prank, but good hell.


    https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I told him he was a goddamn Nazi Stormtrooper.

  30. #1320
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Land of the Morning Calm
    Posts
    14,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwight Schr-ute View Post
    I get falling for a well disguised prank, but good hell.


    https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    No, good fucking hell.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •