[QUOTE=phygon;53149111]Alcohol is not a tool that can be used to inflict injury on other people in a normal use case.[/QUOTE]
If taking a range toy solely intended for recreational use and employing it to kill people is a 'normal use case', then downing a bottle of vodka before plowing your SUV through a crowd is a 'normal use case'.
You can't special plead to say that deliberate misuse of one product is the result of the product but deliberate misuse of another product is the result of the user.
[QUOTE=phygon;53149111]Yeah, and an anecdote is still an anecdote. I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of incidents involving bumpfire stocks involve inflicting injury on someone other than the user, since they're designed for rifles and wouldn't function any longer should the weapon somehow fall out of your grip (unless you were so comically under prepared to handle it that you somehow dropped it flat on the stock with the tip aimed at your face).
Alcohol is not a tool that can be used to inflict injury on other people in a normal use case.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics[/url]
yes all very anecdotal yes alcohol is very safe yes
if you're concerned about ppl hurting others
[quote]In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.[/quote]
[url]https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html[/url]
not a problem lol all anecdotal
[QUOTE=Tudd;53148968]You mean the law that even the ACLU ruled was far too broad, infringed on other’s rights, and wasn’t driven on any “common-sense” data? And then the media completely mischaracterized it.
[url]https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair[/url][/QUOTE]
Selling a firearm to someone who would have fallen under this rule is already illegal. The rule just requires the Social Security Administration to send recipient info to NICS. It's funny that you say the media mischaracterizes it when one of the first results on Google is a [B]Vox [/B]article defending Trumps decision :v:
Overall though attacking Trump based on repealing that one rule is kind of weak. A much more effective criticism is the fact that Trumps 2019 budget request cuts NICS funding and one of his chief objectives has been to make healthcare in general (including mental healthcare) more expensive and less accessible.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53149138]So, there you go, that's an argument for banning bump fire stocks that isn't 'there's no functional reason to own one', which is clearly not an argument consistent with how the rest of our society works.
Now that the argument has shifted from 'there's no functional reason' to 'bump fire stocks can be used in rare cases to kill a lot of people', I'm still going to have to disagree on the basis that extremely rare misuse is insufficient grounds for a ban. The Vegas shooting is literally the only documented crime [i]ever[/i] committed with the use of a bump-fire stock, and there are what I think are credible arguments claiming that it may have reduced the lethality of the attack due to the inherent inaccuracy of such a platform.
[/QUOTE]
You can't simultaneously argue the "safe, controlled use of weaponry" narrative and also be in favor of bump stocks. Misuse may be insufficient for a ban, but misuse + also literally 0 value beyond recreation is absolutely a reason to ban it seeing as they are weapons and not toys or things designed for novelty. Guns are not fucking toys, and people that argue in favor of not restricting gun control should be [I]100% with that narrative.[/I]
[QUOTE=awcmon;53149144][url]https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics[/url]
yes all very anecdotal yes alcohol is very safe yes
if you're concerned about ppl hurting others
[url]https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html[/url]
not a problem lol all anecdotal[/QUOTE]
I've actually argued in favor of banning alcohol once better, safer substances are available to the public but that is not at all the topic being discussed.
Your examples [I]by definition[/I] are not an anecdote, while his example [I]was[/I]. Please look up what an anecdote it.s
[editline]21st February 2018[/editline]
The amount of cognitive dissonance being presented here is kind of astounding. Guns are legal for self defense and purposes of protecting liberties, not as toys. If their only valid use was recreational then they'd be rightfully banned in a microsecond.
I'm now for all out ban of guns over nothing, but at least something between
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53149163]I'm now for all out ban of guns over nothing, but at least something between[/QUOTE]
I see you completely glossed over everything everybody in that other thread tried to tell you.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;53149172]I see you completely glossed over everything everybody in that other thread tried to tell you.[/QUOTE]
No, it just didn't change my mind on it. Less guns would still cause less gun deaths
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53149163]I'm now for all out ban of guns over nothing, but at least something between[/QUOTE]
Sirius pls
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Low effort post" - Kiwi))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53149179]No, it just didn't change my mind on it. Less guns would still cause less gun deaths[/QUOTE]
To be frank it sound like you dont actually care about any viable solution being found, you just want to keep harping on how much you really wish guns didnt exist.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53149179]No, it just didn't change my mind on it. Less guns would still cause less gun deaths[/QUOTE]
The focus should be on reducing homicides and suicides across the board, not just those committed with guns.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53149179]Less guns would still cause less gun deaths[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-states-with-higher-gun-ownership-dont-have-more-gun-murders/article/2573353"]Ugh[/URL]
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.457c9bcbb2c6"]no[/URL]
[URL="https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#38d7933f3f7c"]stop parroting that[/URL] [URL="http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/"]misinformation[/URL]
And I don't see why someone killed with a gun is worse than someone stabbed or beaten to death. You'd only be trading means to an end.
[QUOTE=phygon;53149154]
Your examples [I]by definition[/I] are not an anecdote, while his example [I]was[/I]. Please look up what an anecdote it.s
[/QUOTE]
please have better reading comprehension? i never said that his anecdotes weren't anecdotes-- it's just that it's dumb to nitpick on his examples for being anecdotal when there's pretty clear evidence that it's a widespread problem. sure his argumentation could have been better, but it's pointless to dismiss it as just anecdotal when you seem to already know the numbers
[quote]Alcohol can't also be used in rare cases to kill a lot of people. In the overwhelming majority of cases, harm from alcohol is largely inflicted on the user. [/quote]
as a whole, drunk driving has harmed and will harm more people (who aren't the user) than bump stocks ever will
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53149186]Which is just moving the tool of violence without addressing the causes. I mean I guess if you want meaningless legislation then by all means, but I have a problem with "oh we took the number of guns down, but didn't actually reduce the crimes being committed".[/QUOTE]
Once again, i still think effort should be put towards mental healthcare and fixing bullying problems in schools. As well as gun control. I'd rather it simply be more regulation on guns, but if I had to choose no regulation or a full ban, I'd go for full ban
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53149211]Once again, i still think effort should be put towards mental healthcare and fixing bullying problems in schools. As well as gun control. I'd rather it simply be more regulation on guns, but if I had to choose no regulation or a full ban, I'd go for full ban[/QUOTE]
And [i]again[/i] you're glossing over things explained to you before.
[QUOTE=awcmon;53149206]please have better reading comprehension? i never said that his anecdotes weren't anecdotes-- it's just that it's dumb to nitpick on his examples for being anecdotal when there's pretty clear evidence that it's a widespread problem. sure his argumentation could have been better, but it's pointless to dismiss it as just anecdotal when you seem to already know the numbers
[/QUOTE]
Saying "I've seen plenty of incidents" is literally an anecdote. That is what it is. I'm not dismissing it, I'm pointing it out. I then went on further to address the point, I didn't write it off.
[QUOTE]
as a whole, drunk driving has harmed and will harm more people (who aren't the user) than bump stocks ever will[/QUOTE]
I agree, and I think that in due time once acceptable alternatives exist it should be more tightly regulated and taxed highly (I used the term "ban" before but that's not accurate to my beliefs tbh, it was just the ~active term~), like I said in the part of my post that you cut out. But that is not the point of the thread.
The sad thing is at the end of the day there's no political will at least from the current government to tackle either gun regulation or the underlying cause of these attacks. It doesn't matter which way you go all you're going to get is thoughts and prayers until the next attack when we can have this debate all over again.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53149202][URL="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-states-with-higher-gun-ownership-dont-have-more-gun-murders/article/2573353"]Ugh[/URL]
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.457c9bcbb2c6"]no[/URL]
[URL="https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#38d7933f3f7c"]stop parroting that[/URL] [URL="http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/"]misinformation[/URL]
And I don't see why someone killed with a gun is worse than someone stabbed or beaten to death. You'd only be trading means to an end.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it seems to be less misinformation and more the fact that due to how hard it is to measure gun ownership is causing a massive inconstancy with results.
For example there's studies that have found a correlation:
[URL]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/322833[/URL]
[quote]This paper uses a unique data set to demonstrate that increases in gun ownership lead to substantial increases in the overall homicide rate. This is driven entirely by a relationship between firearms and homicides in which a gun is used, implying that the results are not driven by reverse causation or by omitted variables.[/quote]
[URL]http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305[/URL]
[quote]In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms (a reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25 percent) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23 percent). No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were substituted for handguns.[/quote]
[URL]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795369710051X[/URL]
[quote]We tested the strength of the associations between gun availability and firearm suicide and homicide rates by computing the Spearman correlation coefficients. To help elucidate the role of method substitution, we conducted similar analyses on non-firearm suicide and homicide. The results show that gun ownership has a stronger impact on firearm suicides than homicides. These findings held up after stratifying by gender and race. The study suggests that reducing the aggregate level of gun availability may decrease the risk of firearm-related deaths.[/quote]
However, as I mentioned in my first post, the US currently lacks a proper method for 100% confidence in gun ownership levels. So while it's certainly not conclusive that gun ownership increases violence/deaths, calling it misinformation is false.
Also your last source is a conservative think tank so idk if that really counts as an acceptable source.
[QUOTE=Sumap;53149427]Actually, it seems to be less misinformation and more the fact that due to how hard it is to measure gun ownership is causing a massive inconstancy with results.
For example there's studies that have found a correlation:
[URL]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/322833[/URL]
[URL]http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305[/URL]
[URL]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795369710051X[/URL]
However, as I mentioned in my first post, the US currently lacks a proper method for 100% confidence in gun ownership levels. So while it's certainly not conclusive that gun ownership increases violence/deaths, calling it misinformation is false.
Also your last source is a conservative think tank so idk if that really counts as an acceptable source.[/QUOTE]
that "conservative think tank" sources washington post which is a liberal leaning news site with high factual reporting according to mediabiasfactcheck
it also says something that I've been saying for years but in a much better way
[quote]Ehrenfreund says that “Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place. Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift.” He then points to factors explaining the decline in violent crime in general and gun homicides in particular, [B]including more police officers on the beat making greater use of computers, a decline in alcohol consumption, less lead exposure, and an improving economy.[/B][/quote]
that's better enforcement of existing laws, better mental health, better mental health again, and less poverty, respectively.
that right there is every single thing I've been saying for over a decade would do a lot more for our country's crime problem than some jackboot stealing my target rifle because its scary and black
[QUOTE=AaronM202;53149213]And [i]again[/i] you're glossing over things explained to you before.[/QUOTE]
I’m convinced they’re just flame baiting now. Let’s just move on.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147465]“I havent done anything wrong with it” is the stupidest argument Ive ever heard.
“What!? Youre taking away my mustard gas!? But I havent done anything wrong with it yet!”[/QUOTE]
God I'm pro gun-control but this is the most feotid turd of a post I've seen all year. Well done on scoring your brownie points, mate, because you certainly deserve some kind of vindication for that feat of mental fucking gymnastics. Shit I'm not even against this ban and that's such a fucking stupid statement. How can you even remotely compare mustard gas to a gun accessory that makes rapid fire easier?
[editline]fuk[/editline]
Let's take this to the logical conclusion, shall we? Mustard gas, a [url=http://www.cwc.gov/]substance prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention[/url] of 1993 is an already-illegal substance that is innately dangerous. It has no use in private ownership but to be use for mass-scale area denial and genocide with no other purpose. No civilian should be in possession of Mustard Gas as its use, alone, is a war crime, and its proliferation is [B]illegal[/B] on an international scale, [B]even for a nation's military.[/B] Therefore your comparison is so farcical you might have compared it to having a goddamn ICBM in your backyard pool, or a Metal Gear in your garage, because that's about how much sense your stupid argument made. Not only did you make yourself out to be a shrieking mimsy with no idea about the subject you're talking about, but you also tar other anti-gun members with this brush just by sheer [B]volume[/B] of how stupid your argument was.
Up until now, bump stocks have been a legal, if irresponsible, device purchaseable for one's firearm. They are not innately dangerous. Without an attached weapon platform and a homicidal wielder, they are no more dangerous than a fucking foregrip. Just like all weapons it does not become a weapon of crime until it is overtly used as such. Now, am I going to say that bump stocks should be unregulated? No, infact although I disagree with banning them outright, I do believe they should be restricted under the same mechanisms that high firerate weaponry is restricted across the continental United States. Merely making this point requires me to sift through the [B]garbage[/B] you just posted, however, which chronically reduces the time I have to make my point [B]and[/B] makes it harder for me to be heard above your utter inanity and misinformation. You are [B]only harming yourself and other people that agree with your argument.[/B]
Regularly I engage in debates such as this and regularly I am met with an immediate expectation of hyperbole and misunderstanding purely because people like [B]you[/B], with no education.
If you're going to argue about this kind of thing, Funktastic Dog, then can you actually learn about what you're talking about rather than just being a juddering hyperbolic arse?
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53150195]God I'm pro gun-control but this is the most feotid turd of a post I've seen all year. Well done on scoring your brownie points, mate, because you certainly deserve some kind of vindication for that feat of mental fucking gymnastics. Shit I'm not even against this ban and that's such a fucking stupid statement. How can you even remotely compare mustard gas to a gun accessory that makes rapid fire easier?
[editline]fuk[/editline]
Let's take this to the logical conclusion, shall we? Mustard gas, a [url=http://www.cwc.gov/]substance prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention[/url] of 1993 is an already-illegal substance used for mass-scale area denial and genocide with no other purpose. No civilian should be in possession of Mustard Gas as its use, alone, is a war crime, and its proliferation is [B]illegal[/B] on an international scale, [B]even for a nation's military.[/B] Therefore your comparison is so farcical you might have compared it to having a goddamn ICBM in your backyard pool, or a Metal Gear in your garage, because that's about how much sense your stupid argument made. Not only did you make yourself out to be a shrieking mimsy with no idea about the subject you're talking about, but you also tar other anti-gun members with this brush just by sheer [B]volume[/B] of how stupid your argument was.
Up until now, bump stocks have been a legal, if irresponsible, device purchaseable for one's firearm. They are not innately dangerous. Without an attached weapon platform and a homicidal wielder, they are no more dangerous than a fucking foregrip. Just like all weapons it does not become a weapon of crime until it is overtly used as such. Now, am I going to say that bump stocks should be unregulated? No, infact although I disagree with banning them outright, I do believe they should be restricted under the same mechanisms that high firerate weaponry is restricted across the continental United States. Merely making this point requires me to sift through the [B]garbage[/B] you just posted, however, which chronically reduces the time I have to make my point [B]and[/B] makes it harder for me to be heard above your utter inanity and misinformation. You are [B]only harming yourself and other people that agree with your argument.[/B]
Regularly I engage in debates such as this and regularly I am met with an immediate expectation of hyperbole and misunderstanding purely because people like [B]you[/B], with no education.
If you're going to argue about this kind of thing, Funktastic Dog, then can you actually learn about what you're talking about rather than just being a juddering hyperbolic arse?[/QUOTE]
Oh my fucking god, this is the funniest ''''criticism'''' I've ever received. How can you be this dense?
Just so y'all get it, I wasn't saying bump stocks and mustard gas were at [b]all[/b] comparable. I was saying his justification for owning one was stupid in the extreme.
And thanks for writing out three paragraphs to tell me that mustard gas is illegal and bump stocks aren't yet, lol.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - GunFox))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53150232]Oh my fucking god, this is the funniest argument I've ever had lobbed at me. How can you be this dense?
Just so y'all get it, I wasn't saying bump stocks and mustard gas were at [b]all[/b] comparable. I was saying his justification for owning one was stupid in the extreme.
And thanks for writing out three paragraphs to tell me that mustard gas is illegal and bump stocks aren't yet, lol.[/QUOTE]
So instead of actually coming up with a decent counterpoint to me bringing up that you tank not only your own argument, but the points of others, you just take the first line of my post, re-word it a bit, and spit it back at me as some sort of hot zinger? Thank you for proving that your participation in this entire debate is nothing but socioideological point scoring for yourself.
Can you mount an actual response instead of "Y'all, I was just pretendin' to be stupid an' goin' over the top an ahm' just a southern boy with nothin' wrong, y'all"? Because I clearly brought up the very real topic of your ignorant attitude causing misinformation and misrepresentation in the real world, rather than the dream world you seem to inhabit where you can make utterly brain-devoid statements and get away with it scot-free rather than being taken to task for your stupendously hyperbolic comparison.
[quote]Just so y'all get it, I wasn't saying bump stocks and mustard gas were at [b]all[/b] comparable. I was saying his justification for owning one was stupid in the extreme.[/quote]
No, you made a pretty clear comparison-by-implication. Just because you didn't overtly state it in block capitals doesn't mean the intent isn't there. Don't try and be snidey and double-back because you realized you fucked up. Be a man and admit your fault, or fight your corner and die on the hill you planted your flag on.
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53150245]So instead of actually coming up with a decent counterpoint to me bringing up that you tank not only your own argument, but the points of others, you just take the first line of my post, re-word it a bit, and spit it back at me as some sort of hot zinger? Thank you for proving that your participation in this entire debate is nothing but socioideological point scoring for yourself.
Can you mount an actual response instead of "Y'all, I was just pretendin' to be stupid an' goin' over the top an ahm' just a southern boy with nothin' wrong, y'all"? Because I clearly brought up the very real topic of your ignorant attitude causing misinformation and misrepresentation in the real world, rather than the dream world you seem to inhabit where you can make utterly brain-devoid statements and get away with it scot-free rather than being taken to task for your stupendously hyperbolic comparison.
No, you made a pretty clear comparison-by-implication. Just because you didn't overtly state it in block capitals doesn't mean the intent isn't there. Don't try and be snidey and double-back because you realized you fucked up. Be a man and admit your fault, or fight your corner and die on the hill you planted your flag on.[/QUOTE]
You're pretty rude for someone who doesn't understand a fairly basic argument, that is, taking faulty logic and stretching it out to its extreme.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53150273]You're pretty rude for someone who doesn't understand a fairly basic internet argument.[/QUOTE]
Again, senseless misdirection and no coherent counter-point to my very realistic argument. Absolutely thrilling to talk to you, my friend. You bring a large helping of intellect to a very sensitive discussion.
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53150278]Again, senseless misdirection and no coherent counter-point to my very realistic argument. Absolutely thrilling to talk to you, my friend. You bring a large helping of intellect to a very sensitive discussion.[/QUOTE]
Your 'very realistic' argument? What, calling me an idiot over and over again while pointing out that mustard gas is illegal and bumpstocks aren't?
I clearly was never arguing that the two were comparible. Nobody else here assumed I was either. I was saying that his logic 'Why can't I own (thing designed for indiscrimate violence), I haven't done anything wrong with it?" is extremely dumb by pulling it out to its logical extreme.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147480][B]And comparing a bump stock for fun at the range [/B]to mustard gas is the stupidest argument I've ever heard.[/QUOTE]
"My weekend hobby is more important than people's lives."
[QUOTE=aydin690;53150294]"My weekend hobby is more important than people's lives."[/QUOTE]
Honestly I agree with this, there's just essentially no way to say it without sounding like you're virtue signaling or trying to win by taking the moral high ground.
I cannot understand how somebody can have the opinion that "This weapon modification that was used to assist in the [I]deadliest mass shooting in modern US history[/I] shouldn't be banned because it's [I]fun[/I]". Like, come on. That's honestly the reason being given?
This is coming from the same people (not specifically talking about those on this forum) that argue that weapons are treated seriously and with care by their owners because they are fully aware that they're deadly weapons.
[editline]22nd February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53150310]See, the problem with your emotional argument, is you haven't actually said anything of substance. You've basically said "people dying is bad", and I don't think anyone disagrees, but you've offered nothing of substance to argue, no facts, no statistics, no nothing. You've said "but think of the children" but given nothing to think about.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, it's because for this particular topic, there isn't a lot to be said. It's a tool that massively increases how deadly a weapon can be in a crowd, offers 0 advantages in a self-defense scenario, and was made for the purpose of subverting the law on automatic weapons.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53150332]More people die to cheeseburgers and shit diet than they do to that single accessory. More people die every day on their way to work due to shit drivers, than that single accessory ever enabled. More people die every day due to etoh than that single accessory.
But that single accessory is an easy target, not a hard target like any of the other things, so we'll ban it.
If your goal is to reduce deaths, then I can think of a million other ways of reducing deaths. If your goal is merely "but you don't NEEEEED it" then we don't really have a discussion, now do we?[/QUOTE]
That single accessory exists literally only for the purpose of
1. turning guns into novelty items (toys).
2. spraying large amounts of bullets inaccurately down range.
3. subverting existing regulations.
There may be a lot of other things that we could do, and that we should do, but there is literally not a single reason for these things to be sold. None.
Take a step back and realize that literally any responsible gun owner who legitimately believes in the 2nd amendment for the reason that the 2nd amendment was put into place would agree with this stance. Guns are not toys. An accessory that massively increases the lethal potential of a weapon (not in a tactical sense, mind you) that doesn't even have any use in sport has absolutely no valid reason for being on the market.
I'm in no way attempting to shame you for your stance, I just can't see this particular issue any other way.
honestly that weapon modification most likely hindered him severely.
one single incident over a hundred years of people cramming sticks in their guns doesn't make for a good reason to ban something.
if I mowed down 50 people with my truck would you move to ban brush guards? I sure hope not, because you know damn well that one singular incident doesn't make for a good reason to ban something. you know what the difference is? you don't have an emotional objection to trucks. I think anyone could tell you that an emotional argument is not a rational one.
[QUOTE=butre;53150350]honestly that weapon modification most likely hindered him severely.[/QUOTE]
Uh, probably not dude. He committed the single most deadly shooting in modern US history in ten minutes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.