Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Ai®a©ob®a

Newtown Ct Families File Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Bushmaster

Recommended Posts

AlienTwo

Owning a gun doesnt make you a suicidal maniac. They conveniently have the "quick way out" so they choose to shoot themselves

If the suicidal person did not have a gun, they would have simply resorted to another measure of suicide rather than give up attempts completely

 

Owning a gun in the house can increase the likelihood of a person using it for a crime, but its just as easy to grab a kitchen knife and kill all the occupants of the house in their sleep. Having the gun in the house is just another option to cause the harm.

 

If the criminal desperately wanted to kill their family for whatever reason it may be, simply not owning a gun isnt gonna stop them from doing it

 

Accidental deaths: Darwinism at work. Common sense should have kicked in to point a firearm away from any living creature (best pointed down) and to make sure that it is completely unloaded with the safety on (if it has one) before any maintenance, storage, or transport.

 

 

The toughest thing about this to me is that the vast majority of legal US gun owners are incredibly responsible with their guns. They aren't the problem, but their desire for easy access to guns causes problems for those who aren't responsible or want to inflict harm on others. The only way I can see for keeping guns out of their hands is to limit the access in general.

 

And yes, culture is the biggest element that needs to change, but also the hardest to affect change on.

And exactly why should we punish the responsible for the actions of the few?

 

why not target the few crazy individuals instead by imposing measures to make the chances of them legally owning a firearm next to impossible?

 

What you're saying is jsust like giving the entire class an F on an assignment because one student failed while the rest got A's

Oh boy, lots to address here;

 

No one ever claimed owning a gun makes you a suicidal maniac, but in a moment of deep, dark despair (all of us have been there) the access to a quick and easy way to end as opposed to having to hang yourself, which takes time to prepare, or slit your wrists, in which you can change your mind, or OD on drugs, still have some ability to change your mind, can be too much for people and can make a dark moment turn into the last moment unnecessarily.

 

That "Darwinism" comment is just cold and uncaring. We do many things in our society in an attempt to protect people from themselves and others, why should that stop there?

 

Not allowing people to buy guns isn't a "punishment" it's simply a proper reaction to the damage that they do to a society. The grade analogy fails, a better one is not allowing any of the kids in the class to have a gun because one of them is mentally unstable, un-diagnosed but known to the teacher, and five of the other kids are too wild to be trusted. You don't get to play with guns... boo-hoo.

 

I guess I don't get why it's so important to be able to own a gun. In the states we rank that right up with the freedom of speech, press, religion. Gun ownership just doesn't belong in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

I guess I don't get why it's so important to be able to own a gun.

Security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

 

I guess I don't get why it's so important to be able to own a gun.

Security.

 

........against other people who own guns. The per-capita gun-related death numbers in the US are staggering, compared to non-gun countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

guess I don't get why it's so important to be able to own a gun. In the states we rank that right up with the freedom of speech, press, religion. Gun ownership just doesn't belong in there.

Who makes you the decider there? I'm not some nut that thinks guns are going to protect us from the oppressive Obama, but for some people they are way up on that list. Who are you to tell a guy living in a sh*tty neighborhood raising his kids that he can't have a gun to protect his family? A woman who lives in a dangerous part of town and walks to work and carries a small 9mm? I'll bet you an arm and a leg a working guy or gal like that could give a flying sh*t about their right to free religion compared with their right to defend themselves.

 

As for people with firearms being able to more readily commit suicide, that I believe is curtailed with waiting periods somewhat. However if individual already has a gun in the house and wants to commit suicide, that's too bad. We don't need to legislate and ban firearms from everybody because sometimes people find it easy to eat their gun.

 

You are doing exactly what you claim conservatives do on drugs and morality. You're making decisions for people because you think you know better than everyone else. Let people have their guns if they register them, possess licenses after taking mandatory safety course, have character references (in NY you need 5) and pass a background check. Stop trying to dictate how responsible people live their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

guess I don't get why it's so important to be able to own a gun. In the states we rank that right up with the freedom of speech, press, religion. Gun ownership just doesn't belong in there.

Who makes you the decider there? I'm not some nut that thinks guns are going to protect us from the oppressive Obama, but for some people they are way up on that list. Who are you to tell a guy living in a sh*tty neighborhood raising his kids that he can't have a gun to protect his family? A woman who lives in a dangerous part of town and walks to work and carries a small 9mm? I'll bet you an arm and a leg a working guy or gal like that could give a flying sh*t about their right to free religion compared with their right to defend themselves.

 

As for people with firearms being able to more readily commit suicide, that I believe is curtailed with waiting periods somewhat. However if individual already has a gun in the house and wants to commit suicide, that's too bad. We don't need to legislate and ban firearms from everybody because sometimes people find it easy to eat their gun.

 

You are doing exactly what you claim conservatives do on drugs and morality. You're making decisions for people because you think you know better than everyone else. Let people have their guns if they register them, possess licenses after taking mandatory safety course, have character references (in NY you need 5) and pass a background check. Stop trying to dictate how responsible people live their lives.

 

I'm making no decisions, I'm just a dude. I never called you any sort of gun nut, nor said you had anything to do with Obama... I simply asked a question, gave my opinion and you freaked out. The statement you quoted is incredibly true and I stand by it, why do you think gun ownership should be exalted as much as it is? The freedom to own a gun is as important as the freedom to worship, or not, however you want? To say whatever you want? We don't have freedom to not get raked over the coals by price gouging and the media blatantly lying to us, but good lord, do not take our guns away.

 

Many states, including mine, don't require as much work as New York.

 

"From my cold dead hands"

 

Good lord, it's an inanimate object, how come it is so vital to your living a happy responsible life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

 

 

I guess I don't get why it's so important to be able to own a gun.

Security.

 

........against other people who own guns. The per-capita gun-related death numbers in the US are staggering, compared to non-gun countries.

 

 

Again, you're assuming guns won't be replaced by something else. If a home invader doesn't have access to a firearm and neither do you, but he has a knife, an axe, or some other type of weapon, who has the upper hand? What about places with long police response times?

 

I'm not a criminal, so maybe my opinion shouldn't matter, but if I was going to break into someone's home, I'd want them to be unarmed. I wouldn't break into a home for some petty cash if the man or woman occupying it has the ability to blow me away.

 

I'm also in favor of concealed carry. We can argue about the requirements for a permit, but if someone is well trained, has undergone a background check, etc., why shouldn't they be allowed to have one?

Edited by Frank Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

 

 

 

I guess I don't get why it's so important to be able to own a gun.

Security.

 

........against other people who own guns. The per-capita gun-related death numbers in the US are staggering, compared to non-gun countries.

The per-capita murder rate in the US is staggering compared to Europe, regardless of weapons used. Outside of the US, there's no correlation between firearm ownership rates and murder rates, or even firearm ownership rates and firearm specific murder rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LightningLord

Stupid. Really stupid. Whoever filed the lawsuit and/or agrees with it is an idiot. I do not mean to personally offend anyone, but think. Why would you sue the weapon manufacturer? So using their logic, I can sue Apple because people were using their phones while driving and ended up crashing and dying? NO. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. THAT LOGIC IS FLAWED. People should stop making silly assumptions and learn how to use common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

Stupid. Really stupid. Whoever filed the lawsuit and/or agrees with it is an idiot. I do not mean to personally offend anyone, but think. Why would you sue the weapon manufacturer? So using their logic, I can sue Apple because people were using their phones while driving and ended up crashing and dying? NO. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. THAT LOGIC IS FLAWED. People should stop making silly assumptions and learn how to use common sense.

 

Not at all. Bushmaster doesn't sell weapons for self-defense, they're specifically marketed, especially to children, for obliterating as many helpless innocents as possible. /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

 

guess I don't get why it's so important to be able to own a gun. In the states we rank that right up with the freedom of speech, press, religion. Gun ownership just doesn't belong in there.

Who makes you the decider there? I'm not some nut that thinks guns are going to protect us from the oppressive Obama, but for some people they are way up on that list. Who are you to tell a guy living in a sh*tty neighborhood raising his kids that he can't have a gun to protect his family? A woman who lives in a dangerous part of town and walks to work and carries a small 9mm? I'll bet you an arm and a leg a working guy or gal like that could give a flying sh*t about their right to free religion compared with their right to defend themselves.

 

As for people with firearms being able to more readily commit suicide, that I believe is curtailed with waiting periods somewhat. However if individual already has a gun in the house and wants to commit suicide, that's too bad. We don't need to legislate and ban firearms from everybody because sometimes people find it easy to eat their gun.

 

You are doing exactly what you claim conservatives do on drugs and morality. You're making decisions for people because you think you know better than everyone else. Let people have their guns if they register them, possess licenses after taking mandatory safety course, have character references (in NY you need 5) and pass a background check. Stop trying to dictate how responsible people live their lives.

 

 

I think in most places where guns are illegal, the citizens are fine with it. They realize that it's better to reduce the chance of you having to defend yourself from someone with a gun, than increasing that chance by allowing guns but also allowing you a gun to protect yourself. I would much rather not have to shoot someone and not have a gun, than having to shoot someone and having a gun.

 

I've never heard anybody complain here about not being allowed a gun for self-defence. It's a sacrifice you make to improve your safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

Also we are not forcing people to own gun's

We give them the choice to own one. If they feel that its unnecessary to own a gun, that's them. No one has the same opinions so some may feel like they need a gun and there's no need to shove your anti-gun talk down everyone's throats. There's also no need to shove the "Lets arm Americans" talk down people's throats since, like before, not all people need/want guns.

Just allow civilian weapons and move on. If you buy one great. If you don't, great. Its not gonna affect my day either way.

 

I feel like people are so anti-this and anti-that (in a practical sense) because they have their opinions on those subjects and feel that everyone else should abide by those principles without really considering the other views on it. The most impractical on the bunch will just downright reject the other side with no clear, legitimate reason and keep thinking to themselves that their way is best, even with no proof. This argument can be made in a lot of current debating topics today too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

Also we are not forcing people to own gun's

We give them the choice to own one. If they feel that its unnecessary to own a gun, that's them. No one has the same opinions so some may feel like they need a gun and there's no need to shove your anti-gun talk down everyone's throats. There's also no need to shove the "Lets arm Americans" talk down people's throats since, like before, not all people need/want guns.

Just allow civilian weapons and move on. If you buy one great. If you don't, great. Its not gonna affect my day either way.

 

I feel like people are so anti-this and anti-that (in a practical sense) because they have their opinions on those subjects and feel that everyone else should abide by those principles without really considering the other views on it. The most impractical on the bunch will just downright reject the other side with no clear, legitimate reason and keep thinking to themselves that their way is best, even with no proof. This argument can be made in a lot of current debating topics today too.

 

Societies are not just collections of individuals. Banning or allowing gun ownership does not only affect those who want to buy a gun, it also affects those who don't, because it influences how likely they are to encounter a situation where they are threatened or attacked with one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonesizzle

Also we are not forcing people to own gun's

We give them the choice to own one. If they feel that its unnecessary to own a gun, that's them. No one has the same opinions so some may feel like they need a gun and there's no need to shove your anti-gun talk down everyone's throats. There's also no need to shove the "Lets arm Americans" talk down people's throats since, like before, not all people need/want guns.

Just allow civilian weapons and move on. If you buy one great. If you don't, great. Its not gonna affect my day either way.

It seems people are pressured more than ever to get a gun with the violence that has broke out over the past decade... when people want school teachers to carry a gun at school, sh*ts f*cked up, and who's to say a teacher wouldn't snap and get trigger happy?

 

I like the comparisons of a gun to a iPhone, a number 2 pencil and a god damn ford taurus.. you folks are something else. We all know what purpose a gun serves and thats for taking something or someone down... but at the end of the day it's legal.

 

This is all an unfortunate slippery slope for the families... they won't win, nor will they change any minds on the subject. You either join the club or stand outside and bicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

I dont see this case going very far regardless of gun views

Its just seems silly to blame the manufacturer of an object because someone did not use that thing for it's intended purpose

 

I am going to compare it to a car because it is practically the same situation

If a group of people struck and killed by a crazy driver (or maybe a drunk driver) in Ford Taurus for example. You dont see the victim's families suing Ford because a Ford killed those people. It wasn't the car's fault for killing the person, its the persons fault who used a car to kill the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

I dont see this case going very far regardless of gun views

Its just seems silly to blame the manufacturer of an object because someone did not use that thing for it's intended purpose

Will wonders never cease. I agree 100%.

 

I am going to compare it to a car because it is practically the same situation

If a group of people struck and killed by a crazy driver (or maybe a drunk driver) in Ford Taurus for example. You dont see the victim's families suing Ford because a Ford killed those people. It wasn't the car's fault for killing the person, its the persons fault who used a car to kill the people.

It's just really not a good analogy unless you use a weapon, because the Ford Taurus was not designed to kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

And so are knives, but you don't see people suing Knife Manufacturers after a mass stabbing do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

And so are knives, but you don't see people suing Knife Manufacturers after a mass stabbing do you?

 

Who says knives are designed to kill people? I think the first caveman that discovered rocks can be sharp probably didn't kill anyone with it. At any rate, most knives are definately not designed to kill people. Any knife you use in the kitchen is not designed to kill people, it's designed to cut food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

And so are knives, but you don't see people suing Knife Manufacturers after a mass stabbing do you?

It's such a red herring to put knives in the same category as knives have countless other uses besides killing/defense. As soon as we start using guns for common dinner-time applications, or a "butter-gun" that's safe for kids is developed, then I can see your point. Pun intended.

 

Ninja'd by my Man, the Cen.

 

EDIT(again): we both said the same thing not because we are brilliant mad geniuses (we are, but that's besides the point) but because it's an obvious truth. No analogies for guns will ever be even slightly accurate or fair unless the comparative is a thing designed solely to kill.

Edited by Alien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

And so are knives, but you don't see people suing Knife Manufacturers after a mass stabbing do you?

 

Who says knives are designed to kill people? I think the first caveman that discovered rocks can be sharp probably didn't kill anyone with it. At any rate, most knives are definately not designed to kill people. Any knife you use in the kitchen is not designed to kill people, it's designed to cut food.

 

not talking about kitchen knives

talking about these

LHR_Combat_Knife2.jpg

I can go to the local auto parts store and pick one up for less than $15 right now and go commit a crime if i really wanted to (but I don't because thats crazy)

 

And this has nothing to do with cavemen

Edited by Winning001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

 

 

And so are knives, but you don't see people suing Knife Manufacturers after a mass stabbing do you?

 

Who says knives are designed to kill people? I think the first caveman that discovered rocks can be sharp probably didn't kill anyone with it. At any rate, most knives are definately not designed to kill people. Any knife you use in the kitchen is not designed to kill people, it's designed to cut food.

 

not talking about kitchen knives

talking about these

LHR_Combat_Knife2.jpg

I can go to the local auto parts store and pick one up for less than $15 right now and go commit a crime if i really wanted to (but I don't because thats crazy)

 

And this has nothing to do with cavemen

 

 

As far as I'm concerned those can be restricted too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

anything can be restricted, but it doesn't mean that it will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

As far as I'm concerned those can be restricted too.

 

Wouldn't people be completely defenseless and at the mercy of the biggest/strongest/muscle bound guy in the room?

 

That's what I don't like about banning/outlawing weapons.

Edited by mr toasterbutt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

As far as I'm concerned those can be restricted too.

 

Wouldn't people be completely defenseless and at the mercy of the biggest/strongest/muscle bound guy in the room?

 

That's what I don't like about banning/outlawing weapons.

 

see the cops can handle it :p

because everywhere in america, its like the LSPD with instant response times and cops in every convenient area imaginable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

 

As far as I'm concerned those can be restricted too.

 

Wouldn't people be completely defenseless and at the mercy of the biggest/strongest/muscle bound guy in the room?

 

That's what I don't like about banning/outlawing weapons.

 

 

I'd rather be at the mercy of the biggest guy's fists than at the mercy of anybody's trigger finger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

 

As far as I'm concerned those can be restricted too.

 

Wouldn't people be completely defenseless and at the mercy of the biggest/strongest/muscle bound guy in the room?

 

That's what I don't like about banning/outlawing weapons.

 

 

I'd rather be at the mercy of the biggest guy's fists than at the mercy of anybody's trigger finger.

 

and what if someone illegally obtains a firearm? and now you're screwed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned those can be restricted too.

 

Wouldn't people be completely defenseless and at the mercy of the biggest/strongest/muscle bound guy in the room?

 

That's what I don't like about banning/outlawing weapons.

 

 

I'd rather be at the mercy of the biggest guy's fists than at the mercy of anybody's trigger finger.

 

and what if someone illegally obtains a firearm? and now you're screwed

 

 

Well, where I'm from you really have to be pretty determined that you want to kill someone if you're going to bring a gun, because as soon as a sighting of a gun is reported half the police force will be after you with helicopters and everything. And if someone's really that determined to kill you, you're probably not going have a chance to shoot back anyway. Let's not pretend that guns are some sort of ultimate protection. But a drunk guy who gets violent in the heat of the moment is very unlikely to be carrying a gun, and is left to use his drunken fighting skills. I think guns usually escalate violence rather than preventing it.

 

edit: That is not to say that guns are ineffective as protection. I'm sure if somebody wants to kill you with a gun, you stand a better chance if you have a gun too. But the idea is to reduce the number of instances in which this happens. It basically follows the classic individualism/collectivism debate. Do we focus on individual protection (i.e. allowing everybody to own guns to defend themselves), or do we focus on collective protection (reducing the amount of guns, and therefore reducing the individual's need to own one)?

 

A lot of gun advocates use the following argument: criminals don't follow laws, so why would they follow gun laws? The fact is, criminals do follow laws. They follow the vast majority of them at all times. The reason is that the rewards of breaking most laws are less significant than the risks. The result is criminals resorting to less deadly weapons, and therefore fewer causalties.

Edited by CenMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

The only reason people in the US look at firearms as weapons of defence is because they live in what it, in comparison to the rest of the developed world, an extremely violent society.

 

Most countries don't see civilian ownership of firearms as a protective measure. That's a pretty uniquely American perspective. In fact, most Western nations with high firearm ownership rates explicitly forbid their use as defensive weapons. But I concede that violence rates in the US could be argued to justify this.

 

In this instance both sides being portrayed here are basically wrong. Outlawing firearms in the US or heavily restricting access to them and any other "lethal" weapons (so combat type knives, long and crossbows etc) isn't going to result in substantially less societal violence without extremely heavy-handed and likely impossible policing and enforcing of legislation, and you'd still be faced with a huge underground marketplace for clandestine weapons that would be effectively impossible to counter. But, by the same token, many Americans who oppose this view harp on about "protection from violence" and vaguely Darwinist concepts like "the physically strong subjugating the weak" which are every bit as absurd a response to the underlying problem as just banning them.

 

You have to be absurdly shortsighted to think that defensive ownership of firearms decreases societal violence in any meaningful way. At best, it acts as a partial individual-level deterrent; at worst it could actually increase the statistical likelihood of you coming to harm. A study in the British Medical Journal addressed purchasers of legal and liscenced handguns in California in 1998, concluding that there was a correlation between handgun ownership and violent death through homicide or suicide; that is, handgun owners are more likely to die violently than the baseline.

 

What's more, it totally ignores the underling issue. Saying "handguns give the weak a chance of defending themselves" tacitly acknowledges the problem- the significantly higher rates of violence in the US- but doesn't actually provide anything even resembling a solution to deal with the underlying issues that cause this violence.

 

Tl:Dr: banning firearms is stupid but so is trying to justify them as "defensive" solution to a societal problem they in no way address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

No you don't. It's easy to just point a gun at an unarmed individual just to score a couple bucks and maybe a sh*tty phone. The gun doesn't have to be loaded or even functional for that matter. The victim won't know that.

 

Some robbers use the gun to simply make sure you don't attack them. After Thy're done robbing, they will just run off, leaving the victim unharmed. I did say some since I cannot over generalize all gun wilding criminals. But some can be actually some, or most depending on actual data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

No you don't. It's easy to just point a gun at an unarmed individual just to score a couple bucks and maybe a sh*tty phone. The gun doesn't have to be loaded or even functional for that matter. The victim won't know that.

 

Some robbers use the gun to simply make sure you don't attack them. After Thy're done robbing, they will just run off, leaving the victim unharmed. I did say some since I cannot over generalize all gun wilding criminals. But some can be actually some, or most depending on actual data.

 

What I'm saying that is if you do that here, you will draw a LOT of attention from the police. If you're a robber, it's smarter to use something else.

 

Realistic-looking toy guns and bb guns are also illegal here, for the reason you just mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a20characterusername

Some robbers use the gun to simply make sure you don't attack them. After Thy're done robbing, they will just run off, leaving the victim unharmed. I did say some since I cannot over generalize all gun wilding criminals. But some can be actually some, or most depending on actual data.

Going a bit off-topic here, but I always find it funny when police bust some nut with enough hardware to arm their own private militia, yet they're never seen with supplies to actually clean and maintain the damn things.

 

It's actually kind of scary how clueless/careless some owners can be about their firearms, legal or not.

Edited by a20characterusername

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.