Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 745 of 1184 (850531)
04-10-2019 7:43 AM


Sanity Reigns in the Southern Hemisphere
New Zealand passes law banning most semiautomatic weapons, less than a month after mosque massacres, reports the Washington Post.
When you don't have an archaic and anachronistic Second Amendment, behaving rationally is simple.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 746 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2019 10:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 747 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 752 of 1184 (850588)
04-10-2019 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 747 by Faith
04-10-2019 2:16 PM


Re: Sanity Reigns in the Southern Hemisphere
Faith writes:
No American who speaks of any part of our Constitution as archaic and anachronistic deserves to be called rational or sane.
The Second Amendment is as archaic and anachronistic as muskets, slavery, defining slaves as 3/5 of a man, denying women the vote, denying the right to vote to those over 18 but under 21, requiring jury trials in civil suits involving amounts greater than $20, not having the power to tax, prohibiting liquor, and electing the Senate by state legislatures.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 7:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 756 of 1184 (850601)
04-10-2019 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by Faith
04-10-2019 7:39 PM


Re: Sanity Reigns in the Southern Hemisphere
Focusing just on the parts bearing on factual matters:
Faith writes:
...most people...see it [the 3/5 compromise] as a judgment on the humanity of slaves, but it wasn't.
The 3/5 compromise was rooted in the same belief that made whites feel it was okay to enslave blacks, that they were less than human.
Since they were property they were counted as 3/5 of a person having to do with representation in Congress or something like that.
That's correct - for calculating the number of representatives from a state.
And judging all those other historical facts as irrational just shows your basic ignorance and uninterest in history and cultural context.
I didn't judge those aspects of the original constitution irrational. I called them archaic and anachronistic (you quoted me saying that), which they are.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 7:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 758 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 8:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 759 of 1184 (850608)
04-10-2019 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 758 by Faith
04-10-2019 8:44 PM


Re: Sanity Reigns in the Southern Hemisphere
Still keeping the focus on factual matters and the topic, my original point was that the 2nd amendment, like other aspects of the constitution, and like the firearms of the day, is archaic and anachronistic today. The 2nd amendment was not written with modern firearms in mind, nor was it interpreted properly by the Supreme Court when they held that the initial clause about a well regulated militia did not modify the clause that followed about the right to keep and bear arms.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 8:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 760 by Faith, posted 04-11-2019 12:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(5)
Message 763 of 1184 (850658)
04-11-2019 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by Faith
04-11-2019 12:54 PM


Re: Sanity Reigns in the Southern Hemisphere
Faith writes:
You don't get to define the Second Amendment in any sense whatever.
I think you meant "interpret" rather than "define", but in any case, it would be helpful to understand your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Isn't this archaic and anachronistic because it was written when arms meant muskets, when the government didn't provide soldiers their firearms, and when militias actually still existed?
Also, its mention of militias makes clear it has a military context, not a hunting, home defense or any other context.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix misspeak: "the government provided" => "the government didn't provide'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by Faith, posted 04-11-2019 12:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by Faith, posted 04-12-2019 6:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 765 of 1184 (850717)
04-13-2019 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 764 by Faith
04-12-2019 6:54 PM


Re: Sanity Reigns in the Southern Hemisphere
From Faith's Message 57 in the Gun Control Again thread:
Faith in Message 57 of the Gun Control Again thread writes:
Actually I do know what the founders wanted...
Whether you do or don't, what you say they wanted is not what the 2nd Amendment says.
...and it was NOT an organized militia...
If 2nd Amendment authors were adding an amendment unrelated to "well regulated militias," then why did they mention well regulated militias right up front?
...for the very reason that such a body can be used against the people which is the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment.
If the 2nd Amendment author's intent was to provide an amendment to protect people from militias, then why do they talk about militias in the context of "the security of a free State", of which the people are citizens.
The concept of an armed citizenry goes back to England and possibly other sources long before the second amendment was written, which built on that history. The point was for individual citizens to have the means of self defense.
The 2nd Amendment authors did not see fit to include the self-defense concept in the amendment. What they did include was the need for a "well regulated militia" to defend "the security of the free State," and well regulated militias, given that governments did not provide firearms at the time, need to draw upon a population of men with firearms.
But regardless of how anyone interprets the 2nd Amendment, clearly it is archaic and anachronistic and doesn't serve the needs of today. Guns are more often used against family, friends and oneself than against criminals, and eliminating guns would reduce the overall firearm death rate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by Faith, posted 04-12-2019 6:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 766 of 1184 (851648)
04-30-2019 9:36 AM


Here's a Perfect Example Why People Should Not Have Guns
Eldon Mcinville has a 6-year old daughter, and he likes to "walk around his house with weapons." He keeps a handgun on a TV stand and a loaded shotgun in a bedroom closet. Last Thursday night, April 25, while cleaning his new double-barrel shotgun and teaching his daughter about "gun safety" he shot her in the hip/abdomen area. She's in critical but stable condition. Mr. Mcinville is in jail on prison-mandatory charges pending $50,000 bond.
Mr. Mcinville is why people shouldn't have guns in the absence of stringent regulations requiring that all guns be locked up, whether or not there are children in the house, but especially if there are. Most people are just average and haven't the motivation or interest to maintain for years an extremely high level of skill and respect for the dangers of firearms that would guarantee they're never a danger to anyone. Some, like Mr. Mcinville, appear to be significantly below average.
There should be regular unannounced home inspections financed by high fees on licensing and registration that make sure firearms and their ammunition are properly stored and secured. Somehow they have to figure out how to make certain that minors do not know the codes or the locations of keys to the secured firearms. This all seems impossible to me - we should take the guns away.
Source: A lesson on gun safety ended when a man accidentally shot his 6-year-old daughter, police say
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

Replies to this message:
 Message 767 by AZPaul3, posted 04-30-2019 6:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 770 of 1184 (852362)
05-09-2019 2:00 PM


We Need Fewer Guns
"America now has more guns than people," says Nicholas Kristof in his May 8th opinion piece (We Have 2 Dead Young Heroes. It’s Time to Stand Up to Guns.). But we knew this already. We didn't need to be reminded again that America has far too many guns.
But did we know that those who put themselves on the frontlines of keeping our society safe, the police, are killed less often than children under five? That "in a typical year, more American children ages 4 and younger die from firearms (110 in 2016) than police officers do in the line of duty (65 in 2016)." How could this be that those who purposefully place themselves in the line of fire die less often than young children?
Part of the answer is numbers. There are maybe abound 5 million children under 5 and only about a million police. But children aren't riding around in patrol cars packing guns with partners also packing guns and rushing to crime scenes and confronting dangerous armed men. Children are at home or at school or riding in a supermarket cart or at a park or at McDonalds. What could explain the deaths by firearm of so many young children?
I'm not aware of studies that have broken this down, but the answer doesn't take deep thought. Too many American homes have guns. Accidents, apathy, anger and angst happen, and if they happen when a gun is present then the result can be far more deadly.
We need to reduce the number of guns.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 771 by ringo, posted 05-09-2019 2:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 773 of 1184 (852669)
05-15-2019 11:37 AM


Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Speculating a bit, let's say you've been a gun enthusiast all your life. In your 20's and 30's and 40's you took training and retraining courses, you went to the practice range several times a week, you familiarized yourself with your firearms so intimately that you could disassemble and reassemble them in less than five minutes blindfolded. Sure, you ignored the part of the training about keeping your firearms and ammunition locked up separately, but that was out of necessity. What good is a gun for self defense if it's locked away?
But putting a gun in a nightstand or in your car was obviously dangerous, so you went with concealed carry, even around the house. It was inconvenient and hot to always wear enough clothes to keep the gun concealed, but self defense is essential, and so you did it.
But time goes by and you get older and less passionate about guns. You no longer take training courses or go to gun shows. Wearing extra clothing on hot days becomes more and more uncomfortable, even just a short sleeved vest. You begin slipping the gun into your nightstand or under the seat of your car. More time goes by, you get older and forgetful, and eventually you forget about the gun altogether. It winds up under the seat of your vintage World War II jeep.
Now let's get to the facts I know.
Now you're 76. One day for a widely attended baseball game in Millington, Tennessee, you display your jeep outside the stadium. A boy playing in the jeep finds the gun, thinks it's a toy, and shoots his mother, who is in the hospital in critical condition. You are arrested and charged with reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon.
Source: 8-year-old boy accidentally shoots mother at baseball game, gun owner charged
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 774 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2019 9:29 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 776 of 1184 (852716)
05-16-2019 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 774 by Hyroglyphx
05-15-2019 9:29 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:
Then you go to prison for Making Firearm Accessible To A Child. It is the gun owner's responsibility and if found grossly negligent, you will pay the price... on top of a stinging conscience for the rest of your life.
I'm sure this is a great comfort to the family of the critically injured mother.
But then, a similar question could also be posited...etc...
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, guns are more likely to be used against family, friends and others nearby than against criminals.
For every hypothetical scenario,...
That a mother was critically injured by her son with a gun hidden under the seat of a vintage World War II jeep is not hypothetical. Here's the news story again: 8-year-old boy accidentally shoots mother at baseball game, gun owner charged
But I guess your point is that we should all stop driving cars because its next to impossible to vigilant your entire life. That is what you're trying to say, right?
Oh, for sure, you're right on, that's exactly what I was trying to say. And we should stop using knives and nail guns and lawn mowers and paper shredders, too.
Here's how vehicle deaths per million vehicle traveled have declined year by year (red line):
Vehicle deaths will continue to decline as manufacturers, encouraged by government, continue to work hard at improving vehicle safety. Crash avoidance systems that are becoming increasingly available should make a big contribution.
By contrast gun manufacturers are working hard to make guns more and more deadly. Here's how gun deaths have increased year over year:
Today's news contained no updates about the mother's condition.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 774 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2019 9:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 778 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 10:59 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 788 of 1184 (852740)
05-16-2019 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 777 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 10:40 AM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:
My point, which was "quite obvious" if you read it, was that any good argument has a counter-argument.
I guess you have to believe that given your position. Obviously some people will argue for anything, no matter how absurd.
And we can "what-if" something to death.
The only person "what-if-ing" in this discussion is you.
The fundamental question is should an idiot's actions get to dictate mine? The answer is no.
But Mr. McFarland isn't an idiot - he's you, just 40 years older. He's Mr. Average Gun Owner.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 777 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 10:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 790 of 1184 (852754)
05-16-2019 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 778 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 10:59 AM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:
I'm sure this is a great comfort to the family of the critically injured mother.
Laws on murder are little consolation to family members affected by it. Seems like you just want a world where bad things never happen. A wonderful ideal, yes, but plausible? No.
You seem to prefer responding to arguments you make up yourself instead of arguments actually made.
The reality is that I would like a world where fewer bad things happen. That is well within our power.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, guns are more likely to be used against family, friends and others nearby than against criminals.
Correction. Guns are more likely to NEVER be used at all. But then, insurance is more likely to never be used at all... which is why being in the insurance business is profitable. But it sure is nice to have when its needed.
That's not correction, it's evasion. You can't escape the fact that guns place one in more danger, not less.
That a mother was critically injured by her son with a gun hidden under the seat of a vintage World War II jeep is not hypothetical. Here's the news story again: 8-year-old boy accidentally shoots mother at baseball game, gun owner charged
The hypothetical I'm referring to is the argument you're posing as a result of your real-world example. Because of X, Y happened as a result. Therefore get rid of X so that Y cannot happen. And I'm saying get rid of X and P becomes the new variable.
Now you're making no sense, which is made obvious by replacing your variables with the facts:
"Because the loaded gun was placed under the seat of the jeep, a boy found it and critically wounded his mother. Therefore get rid of the gun under the seat so that the boy shooting his mother cannot happen."
There is no "variable P."
The point being that your real enemy is the human itself with a mind for malice. That's always been and always will be the actual issue that needs to be addressed. You think that changing externalities will change internalities. I don't.
We agree that people are the real threat, and the better lethally armed the person the more mayhem. That's why we don't allow people to have tanks and bazookas, and why we shouldn't let them have guns, either.
Guns are designed to be lethal so, yeah, go figure that the aim is to increase their lethality.
Why? So someone's more likely to be killed if there's an accident with your gun? So that more people can be killed more quickly in a mass shooting?
Cars are not designed to be dangerous and there is an incentive to make them less dangerous... but they still are dangerous, is the point. Its one giant argument of utility. Is the risk worth the reward?
You're arguing against yourself. Many things in life are dangerous, but except for guns we try to increase their safety. And except in certain circumstances (rare except for hunting), guns have no utility. Cars have high utilit but are especially dangerous, but look one more time at what all the effort on car safety has accomplished. Again, it is the red line:
I do find it ironic that you choose to live in a state that probably sets the gold standard for gun ownership rights.
Not only does New Hampshire have lax gun laws, people aren't often held responsible for gun accidents. I've told the story before of the man cleaning his rifle at the kitchen table of his 2nd floor apartment when it went off, killing a man sleeping on his sofa in the apartment above. The New Hampshire Attorney General declined to press charges, deeming it an unfortunate accident.
I think maybe you should move to Illinois which is heavily restrictive... its obvious their laws are working. New Hampshire is just too dangerous with all of their lax gun laws. I hear Chicago is lovely, especially this time of year.
This false argument has already been made in this thread (or perhaps one of the predecessor threads). Adjacent regions have much more lax gun laws, rendering the laws in Chicago and Illinois ineffectual.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 778 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 10:59 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 797 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 2:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 793 of 1184 (852758)
05-16-2019 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 782 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 12:17 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:
The point Percy is trying to ultimately make is that guns are too dangerous to have.
Yes, that's the point, or most of it anyway. More precisely, most people do not have the necessary skills and discipline to own guns. The few who do do not possess the inhuman determination and motivation required to maintain those skills and discipline over a lifetime. Gradually the skills and discipline diminish and dissipate. Almost no one should own guns. Eventually everyone becomes a menace.
He states that it is more likely that they be used maliciously against a family member or one involved in an accidental shooting versus being used to defend a home/person.
Yes, that's correct.
I actually agree that it is more likely given the statistics.
That's gratifying to hear, but over time it's become clear that you don't understand statistics, and you emphasize this by what you say next:
But there's another statistic, and that is far more likely that a gun never hurts anyone ever. And we can know this rather definitively by noting that there are more guns in the United States than there are citizens. He's rather selective by using an outlier and pretending that its a norm.
The statistics on firearm deaths are not about outlier events.
Just as it is very likely that a gun will never hurt anyone, it is also very likely that a car will never hurt anyone, or that a riding mower will never hurt anyone, or that electric wiring will never hurt anyone. Yet we still have air bags and seat belts and anti-lock brakes for cars, and we still have cut-offs for riding mowers, and we still have circuit breakers and ground wires for electric circuits. The conclusion you desire doesn't follow from your argument.
But we can not require gun owners to have liability insurance? Kind of hurting your own argument with that statement.
I think you misunderstand my premise. The gun itself is the insurance policy, safeguarding against people that would try to hurt them. Its like insurance in the sense that you hope to god you never have to use it, but are glad its there in the event you do.
You're again revealing your lack of understanding of statistics, the very ones you just said you accepted. Guns are more likely to be used against yourself, family, friends, or others nearby than against criminals. A gun makes you less safe, not more. It isn't much of an insurance policy, even as an analogy, that increases the risk of injury or death.
That your argument has no validity is shown by the continuing trotting out of this widely debunked and discredited argument. The gun laws in IL are not prohibitively restrictive. State lines do not stop guns. WI and IN have very lax gun laws. Comparing Chicago to New Hampshire is never a legitimate argument.
https://www.npr.org/...hicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
I appreciate you making the point for me... that gun laws have no impact on criminals or criminality that use them.
The actual point is that gun laws need to be national, not state or local.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 782 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 12:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 798 of 1184 (852769)
05-16-2019 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 783 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 12:34 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyglyphx writes:
My point, which was "quite obvious" if you read it, was that any good argument has a counter-argument.
This is from an earlier post, but you just addressed it with PaulK again, so I wanted to reemphasize what a poor argument this is. Every good argument does not have a good counterargument. Let's say someone argues that oxygen is essential to human life. It's a fact, there's no counterargument. Lots of arguments are irrefutable that way.
Do you honestly believe I've never heard of a story where a kid shoots himself with a gun? You're missing the entire point... which is by that fact, alone, should it dictate the fate of gun ownership. That's Percy's ENTIRE premise, is it not?
No, it is not my entire premise, and the recent story was about a boy shooting his mother, not himself. Incidents like these, as well as incidents where guns are successfully used for self defense, are the facts upon which the statistics are built. And the statistics tell us that a gun makes one less safe, significantly so, not more. There just aren't enough murderers out there to make up the difference.
Do I need to pull up a random article of someone using a gun to kill an intruder in order to justify the logic of it? That's an incredibly cowardly way to debate, Paul... instead of attacking the substance of an argument, you set off looking for strawmen to set on fire.
We likely all agree that we should be focusing on the substance, but from where the rest of us sit you seem to be having trouble recognizing substance when you see it. You say you accept the statistics and then fail to comprehend what a proper rebuttal would require (hint: statistics and facts). Accusing people of making what-if arguments (when they haven't) and asserting that all arguments have valid counterarguments (when they obviously don't) and just generally making invalid arguments is the opposite of focusing on substance.
Oh, its not a hypothetical, its a real story!!! Uh, yeah, I am aware, just as some people who aren't armed are murdered have real stories attached to a theoretical philosophy stemming from it.
And armed people are also murdered. Back in the good old days mafioso were murdered all the time, and every one of them was likely armed, not to mention on their guard. The fact remains that your odds (or those of someone you know) of dying by firearm increase when you purchase a gun.
The underlying argument based on that story IS hypothetical. Because of this happening, that ought to happen in response.
You're again being illogical, and you're also not capturing what other people are arguing. No one is arguing that anything *ought* to happen in response to purchasing a gun or being a careless with a gun. Your use of the word *ought* is completely out of place. What is being argued is that it increases your chances of being hurt or killed by a firearm, and this is what the statistics show.
what benefits does gun ownership offer society to offset the cost. I don’t see that we lost anything worth having here.
Why don't you ask the military that question?
A more fundamental question is why you think the military is relevant in this discussion. Do you see anyone here advocating for disarming the military?
A law or a fundamental right without any teeth is useless. At some point force will have to be applied some of the time. That's just the way life is.
This is expressed so generally that I don't think anyone would take much issue if any with it, but it doesn't address points anyone is making.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 783 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 799 of 1184 (852805)
05-17-2019 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 791 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 2:05 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:
Haha, yeah, okay... So a gun has no use?
I have a slightly different answer than Ringo. Yes, sometimes a gun is useful. Hunting is one example.
I imagine the efficacy of an army armed with only flower power.
There you go again. Why do you say stuff like this? What does the military have to do with civilian gun control? If Congress were to pass a complete ban on all guns tomorrow how would that affect the military, which operates under its own rules.
By the way, the military has very tight gun control. Training is required, not optional as it is for civilians. Guns when not in use are always locked up. Ammunition is strictly inventoried.
I'm thinking it is needed when people are trying to kill you. What exactly is your plan if you face such a scenario?
Well, yes, what exactly is your plan? Thugs have just broken down your front door and are pointing guns at you while shouting "You gonna die, sucka" (happens all the time, I'm sure). Your gun is in a lockbox in the bedroom. Your ammunition is in a lockbox in the home office. What, exactly, is your plan?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 2:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024