So, the annual irrelevancy of a certain gun ban organization is out.
What is that, you may ask?
Why it's annual Brady Scorecard!
So how did South Dakota do?
Well, we only got 4 out of possible 100 points. Not as good as Florida's 3, or Louisiana's 2, or Utah that got a perfect score (0).
We're trying to get that number down. We really are. What with debate starting about allowing Constitutional carry, and striking down parking lot gun bans, we're on our way to getting down to that magic number.
Coincidentally, our western neighbor, my home state of Wyoming, started out with a score of 4 out of 100. But they got a 2-point demerit for allowing Constitutional Carry. The Brady's are going to have a fit if Florida style preemption gets passed over there.
Showing posts with label Brady Campaign to Prevent Gunownership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brady Campaign to Prevent Gunownership. Show all posts
Friday, February 17, 2012
Monday, January 24, 2011
All This Talk Of Bans and Whatnot
In the wake of the shooting a couple of weeks ago, debate has raged from all over as to whether our gun laws are too weak or not.
The typical poo flinging monkeys (Josh squared and Paul) have stated that gun shows, magazine capacity, and an inefficient background check system (on top of all the rhetoric the shooter never listened to or heard) were all the reasons a deranged nutjob hell bent on killing the object of his desire needed.
A couple of other bloggers, Joe Huffman and Say Uncle, pointed out that when arguing about gun control with an anti-gunner, their responses pretty much run into the 'F/U' department. In a discussion on a report out of my home state of WY becoming the 4th state to allow Constitutional Carry, the discussion turned to magazine capacity. Several commentors finally got down to the 4 letter word of the problem, need. They argue that no one 'needs' a magazine larger than 10 rds for anything. I did manage to point out that when the conversation turns to 'need' the person making the argument has lost and is showing their intellectual inferiority by doing so. I believe I said 'Your IQ is at room temperature and falling like a stone'.
In this, they are technically correct. But where they fail is that 'need' has nothing to do with it. Almost all of my rifles were designed from the outset to shoot from magazines that hold 30+ rds so I would argue that it's not need, its a requirement. My pistols, not so much. 1911's generally shoot from magazines that hold between 7 and 9 rds, depending.
It reminds me of a silly rule that NASCAR has. In order to slow things down at the superspeedways like Daytona and Talledega, they install a smaller fuel cell. 13 gallons for the super tracks vs. 22 for the rest of the circuit. The reasoning for this is it's supposed to slow the race down by making the cars have to pit for gas more often. They haven't limited the speeds on the track, they've just managed to make it more dangerous for the pit crews, as they have to deal with pitting these cars more often, placing them in harms way on pit road more often.
See any similarities to the debate on magazine capacity? Makes about as much sense, doesn't it.
The typical poo flinging monkeys (Josh squared and Paul) have stated that gun shows, magazine capacity, and an inefficient background check system (on top of all the rhetoric the shooter never listened to or heard) were all the reasons a deranged nutjob hell bent on killing the object of his desire needed.
A couple of other bloggers, Joe Huffman and Say Uncle, pointed out that when arguing about gun control with an anti-gunner, their responses pretty much run into the 'F/U' department. In a discussion on a report out of my home state of WY becoming the 4th state to allow Constitutional Carry, the discussion turned to magazine capacity. Several commentors finally got down to the 4 letter word of the problem, need. They argue that no one 'needs' a magazine larger than 10 rds for anything. I did manage to point out that when the conversation turns to 'need' the person making the argument has lost and is showing their intellectual inferiority by doing so. I believe I said 'Your IQ is at room temperature and falling like a stone'.
In this, they are technically correct. But where they fail is that 'need' has nothing to do with it. Almost all of my rifles were designed from the outset to shoot from magazines that hold 30+ rds so I would argue that it's not need, its a requirement. My pistols, not so much. 1911's generally shoot from magazines that hold between 7 and 9 rds, depending.
It reminds me of a silly rule that NASCAR has. In order to slow things down at the superspeedways like Daytona and Talledega, they install a smaller fuel cell. 13 gallons for the super tracks vs. 22 for the rest of the circuit. The reasoning for this is it's supposed to slow the race down by making the cars have to pit for gas more often. They haven't limited the speeds on the track, they've just managed to make it more dangerous for the pit crews, as they have to deal with pitting these cars more often, placing them in harms way on pit road more often.
See any similarities to the debate on magazine capacity? Makes about as much sense, doesn't it.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
My Take On Tuscon
With all the nattering of the media classes so far over the last 3 days, has it struck any one of them the irony of what they are spewing?
I mean, they are decrying 'right wing hate speech', while engaging, and forgetting, hate speech of their own.
Michelle Malkin has a great round up of some of the more egregious examples over at her site, here.
Snowflakes in Hell has a great little reminder of the 'hate speech' that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has conveniently forgotten, here.
And let's not forget our favorite bigots, the 3 Amigos of gun control at the Huffington Post (Horowitz, Sugarmann, & Henigan), who can't wait to dance in the still warm blood of the victims by trying to paint the firearms community as a bunch of blood-thirsty neanderthals and push for even more restrictions on That Which Shall Not Be Infringed. (As if any of the laws they push for would have stopped this. But I digress. That's a topic for another post.)
As the saying goes, I told you all that to tell you this. There was supposed to be a narrative of what happened last weekend. It has been reported that the One was in need of something, anything to save his reign, much like Clinton had Oklahoma City. You can tell there was supposed to be a narrative by checking out what the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSLSD, the liberal talk show hosts such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et al have been saying.
Never mind that within 24 hrs of the shooting we knew the nutcase in question read Mein Kampfe and the Communist Manifesto. And that former classmates in both high school and college described him as a leftist pothead. None of that matters. Every single talking head from ABC to MSLSD has been trying to paint this loon as some kind of right wing whack job. Unfortunately, with the rise of the new media and sources such as Drudge, Politico, Michelle Malkin; and talk radio hosts such as Andrew Wilkow, Mike Church, Mark Levin, and Cam & Company, they are having a really hard time trying to push their narrative like they did 16 yrs ago. Too much information is out there and Pandora ain't getting that back in her little box.
Mike Vanderboegh has publicly stated there will be no more free Wacos. After Oklahoma City, there will be no more free narratives such as that perpetrated in 1995. There are too many eyes, ears, and witnesses with an avenue to bring what they saw and heard to light. There is no way they can get away with it. Just witness what is happening in the media since Saturday.
I mean, they are decrying 'right wing hate speech', while engaging, and forgetting, hate speech of their own.
Michelle Malkin has a great round up of some of the more egregious examples over at her site, here.
Snowflakes in Hell has a great little reminder of the 'hate speech' that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has conveniently forgotten, here.
And let's not forget our favorite bigots, the 3 Amigos of gun control at the Huffington Post (Horowitz, Sugarmann, & Henigan), who can't wait to dance in the still warm blood of the victims by trying to paint the firearms community as a bunch of blood-thirsty neanderthals and push for even more restrictions on That Which Shall Not Be Infringed. (As if any of the laws they push for would have stopped this. But I digress. That's a topic for another post.)
As the saying goes, I told you all that to tell you this. There was supposed to be a narrative of what happened last weekend. It has been reported that the One was in need of something, anything to save his reign, much like Clinton had Oklahoma City. You can tell there was supposed to be a narrative by checking out what the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSLSD, the liberal talk show hosts such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et al have been saying.
Never mind that within 24 hrs of the shooting we knew the nutcase in question read Mein Kampfe and the Communist Manifesto. And that former classmates in both high school and college described him as a leftist pothead. None of that matters. Every single talking head from ABC to MSLSD has been trying to paint this loon as some kind of right wing whack job. Unfortunately, with the rise of the new media and sources such as Drudge, Politico, Michelle Malkin; and talk radio hosts such as Andrew Wilkow, Mike Church, Mark Levin, and Cam & Company, they are having a really hard time trying to push their narrative like they did 16 yrs ago. Too much information is out there and Pandora ain't getting that back in her little box.
Mike Vanderboegh has publicly stated there will be no more free Wacos. After Oklahoma City, there will be no more free narratives such as that perpetrated in 1995. There are too many eyes, ears, and witnesses with an avenue to bring what they saw and heard to light. There is no way they can get away with it. Just witness what is happening in the media since Saturday.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Something Don't Smell Kosher Here
Doing a little Google news wandering this morning and came across this.
A couple members of the local 5-0 are suing a gun store because someone bought a gun legally from them, that was then used to try to kill said officers.
Now, I'm not from WI, so I'm not all up on their gun laws like I am here in SD, but it would seem to me that this shouldn't get out of the starting blocks and here's why.
When the store made the sale, they did so pursuant to the applicable laws of the state of WI, and under GCA 68. Meaning, they did all the paperwork required under federal law (filling out the old Form 4473, which lying on could be a felony punishable by prison time) and from other sources waited the appropriate time also required under WI law.
Reading up on this, I found this little gem by Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Bunch. Now, I'm no scholar on things legal, but it would seem that if the gun in question was purchased from the store, and the buyer was a prohibited person, then either one of two things occurred. First, the buyer lied on the form, which in itself is illegal. The other is that the NICS check was delayed and after the mandatory 3 day wait, the sale was allowed to proceed per federal law.
(See also in the above linked piece the part about the 'assault weapon, high capacity mag, and *GASP* flash suppressor! A masterful piece of scare tactics I must say....NOT!)
Either way, I can't imagine a store with the issues that are purported to follow this one around, there would be a case where the store owner knowingly sold a gun to a prohibited person.
Like I said, something don't smell kosher on this, especially when the Brady Bunch is involved.
A couple members of the local 5-0 are suing a gun store because someone bought a gun legally from them, that was then used to try to kill said officers.
Now, I'm not from WI, so I'm not all up on their gun laws like I am here in SD, but it would seem to me that this shouldn't get out of the starting blocks and here's why.
When the store made the sale, they did so pursuant to the applicable laws of the state of WI, and under GCA 68. Meaning, they did all the paperwork required under federal law (filling out the old Form 4473, which lying on could be a felony punishable by prison time) and from other sources waited the appropriate time also required under WI law.
Reading up on this, I found this little gem by Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Bunch. Now, I'm no scholar on things legal, but it would seem that if the gun in question was purchased from the store, and the buyer was a prohibited person, then either one of two things occurred. First, the buyer lied on the form, which in itself is illegal. The other is that the NICS check was delayed and after the mandatory 3 day wait, the sale was allowed to proceed per federal law.
(See also in the above linked piece the part about the 'assault weapon, high capacity mag, and *GASP* flash suppressor! A masterful piece of scare tactics I must say....NOT!)
Either way, I can't imagine a store with the issues that are purported to follow this one around, there would be a case where the store owner knowingly sold a gun to a prohibited person.
Like I said, something don't smell kosher on this, especially when the Brady Bunch is involved.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
More Idiots On PeeRade
Well, the Brady Bunch is at it again. With the release of of the ATF Firearms Trace Data for 2009, we have the proverbial knickers in a knot response from the Brady Campaign.
I haven't had time to sit down and run any data, but from the states I looked up (NY, CA, MA, SD, and WY) the bulk of the 'crime guns' numbers came from inside the state itself. NY had over 1800 trace requests, CA had over 11,000, and MA had over (of course with the most draconian laws in the country, is it any wonder?). SD and WY each were under 200 (167 and 192 respectively) total trace requests. Makes you wonder, don't it?
I haven't had time to sit down and run any data, but from the states I looked up (NY, CA, MA, SD, and WY) the bulk of the 'crime guns' numbers came from inside the state itself. NY had over 1800 trace requests, CA had over 11,000, and MA had over (of course with the most draconian laws in the country, is it any wonder?). SD and WY each were under 200 (167 and 192 respectively) total trace requests. Makes you wonder, don't it?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
I Must Be Important
Got a visit from the Brady Bunch the other day.
They didn't stay around very long and do any snooping around, but they did come directly here. Should be interesting.
They didn't stay around very long and do any snooping around, but they did come directly here. Should be interesting.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Brady Gets Their Knickers In A Twist
It would seem the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has its panties in a twist over the supposed lack of reporting of "unstable mental patients" to "a national database".
What's the Brady position? Why, they think the state of Alabama, according to one Doug Pennington, "should not be finding ways to keep people out of the (database) system, the state should be finding ways to put them in".
Great, not that they don't have enough ways to potentially disqualify folks from being able to get a firearm, now the want the state to figure out new and creative ways to add more people to the 'mentally incompetent' roles. Evidently, the watch list thing isn't working out the way they planned, so they're jumping on any and all available means to justify their ends. No surprise, really, when you stop to consider the increasing irrelevance of their movement (tip o the old hat to Jeff Soyer at Alphecca for the link!).
What's the Brady position? Why, they think the state of Alabama, according to one Doug Pennington, "should not be finding ways to keep people out of the (database) system, the state should be finding ways to put them in".
Great, not that they don't have enough ways to potentially disqualify folks from being able to get a firearm, now the want the state to figure out new and creative ways to add more people to the 'mentally incompetent' roles. Evidently, the watch list thing isn't working out the way they planned, so they're jumping on any and all available means to justify their ends. No surprise, really, when you stop to consider the increasing irrelevance of their movement (tip o the old hat to Jeff Soyer at Alphecca for the link!).
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
LA Times Gets It's (Anti) Gun Thing On...Again
As has been reported around the interwebz the last couple of days, a rabid anti-gun zealot, Professor Garen Wintemute tells everyone how evil gun shows are in a 300+ page "report". Of course, the LA Times, being that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, can't help but pimp the Brady Line.
Dave Workman, the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, gets into Wintemute's twisting logic and flights of fancy, here.
Seems the good professor witnessed what we here in the free world call free exchanges of goods and services between consenting, like-minded adults. In other words, he saw face-to-face transfers of legal firearms. Now, in just about every free state in the western US, outside California, these transfers are perfectly legal. And that, evidently, is enough to get his knickers all kinds of in a twist.
And in typical progressive form, he (and the LA Times for that matter) can't help but paint gun shows and the gun owners who attend them as racist swine by letting you, the objective reader know that at a good portion of the shows he attended (and video taped), racist materials like the Turner Diaries and Mein Kompf were being peddled almost as fast as it could be put out on tables.
I do gun shows where I'm at, and you know, I've never seen a copy of either at any gun show I've gone to in over 5 yrs. Funny how that works, ain't it?
Dave Workman, the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, gets into Wintemute's twisting logic and flights of fancy, here.
Seems the good professor witnessed what we here in the free world call free exchanges of goods and services between consenting, like-minded adults. In other words, he saw face-to-face transfers of legal firearms. Now, in just about every free state in the western US, outside California, these transfers are perfectly legal. And that, evidently, is enough to get his knickers all kinds of in a twist.
And in typical progressive form, he (and the LA Times for that matter) can't help but paint gun shows and the gun owners who attend them as racist swine by letting you, the objective reader know that at a good portion of the shows he attended (and video taped), racist materials like the Turner Diaries and Mein Kompf were being peddled almost as fast as it could be put out on tables.
I do gun shows where I'm at, and you know, I've never seen a copy of either at any gun show I've gone to in over 5 yrs. Funny how that works, ain't it?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Ahhh Boy
What starts out as a seemingly balanced article about guns and their usage in public quickly devolved into a hatchet piece by the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'm sure the guys over the Virginia Citizens Defense League are quite familiar with this brand of fish wrap, but this is the first time I've had experience with them.
Our intepid columnist quotes everyone involved on the anti-freedom side, but nothing from anyone from VCDL or anyone else on the pro side.
I really like the part at the end where Brady Puppet says "A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense has already lost the battle."
I almost made this my inaugural post in a Quote of the Day category I've been kicking around for awhile. As good as this one was, the best is yet to come.
I have to take exception to that little statement there, bucko. See, if worms like you didn't work to undermine the prosecution of criminals by throwing everything that can be wrong with a person at the wall and watching to see what sticks, maybe we wouldn't have this kind of problem. I mean lets get real here. We are told time after time that we should give the criminal what they want, in this case it was everyone in the store dead. Which I guess comports with what the anti-gun/freedom crowd secretly wants. Mass shootings in which no one could defend themselves so they can dance in the blood of the victims to shout for even more controls on people who by their very nature will not be controlled expcept through return violence.
Our intepid columnist quotes everyone involved on the anti-freedom side, but nothing from anyone from VCDL or anyone else on the pro side.
I really like the part at the end where Brady Puppet says "A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense has already lost the battle."
I almost made this my inaugural post in a Quote of the Day category I've been kicking around for awhile. As good as this one was, the best is yet to come.
I have to take exception to that little statement there, bucko. See, if worms like you didn't work to undermine the prosecution of criminals by throwing everything that can be wrong with a person at the wall and watching to see what sticks, maybe we wouldn't have this kind of problem. I mean lets get real here. We are told time after time that we should give the criminal what they want, in this case it was everyone in the store dead. Which I guess comports with what the anti-gun/freedom crowd secretly wants. Mass shootings in which no one could defend themselves so they can dance in the blood of the victims to shout for even more controls on people who by their very nature will not be controlled expcept through return violence.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Another of the Clueless Class
I guess for some folks, freedom is too messy. Take the writer of this piece. He bemoans the fact that a convicted felon used a gun to kill someone. Never mind the scum who shot up the Holocaust Museum was a prohibited person and had been since the 80's. No, what we need is just one more law making felon in possession and murder more illegal.
He also rails on about the flawed thinking involved in the text of the second amendment. "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." His first faltering step down this road comes from his flawed premise that the 2A is, was, and shall always be, a law enforcement tool. While he didn't stumble headlong into the National Guard argument, he still maintains that citizen militias were the forerunners of of modern local police departments. Different avenue, same destination. The "people" he says should have the right to keep and bear arms at those the 2A was designed are those who the 2A was explicitly designed to protect AGAINST. And since he has so obviously forgotten, let me remind him of Hurricane Katrina. regular citizens banded together to protect each other's homes and property from vandals and looters in the absence of any police presence. What was that definition of a citizens militia he threw out again?
His second false premise is his assertion that pro-2A supporters believe the amendment in question protects an individual right, where, as he states "the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to protect society". Who does he think is going to protect "society"? Law enforcement? Not knocking law enforcement here, but in more than a few cases, they have been part of the problem. No, the "people" who are going to "protect" society are the very people the 2A was written for, you and me.
What has also gotten his panties in a twist is the notion that conservative lawmakers (i.e. Republicans) are on the dole to the NRA and are thus advancing the mythological " gun lobby's" agenda. Does he not realize that while the NRA has over 4 million members (and growing I might add), there are conservatively over 100 million gun owners in this country? That 99.99999% of them are not criminals, a good percentage of them will not kill anything and/or anybody, and the VOTE? SO how does this moron explain the phenomena of the "Blue Dog Democrat", who was elected to office in conservative states like VA and MT precisely because they are pro-gun? I would like to know.
Funny there, Mr Riestenberg, I have an NRA sticker on MY vehicle. Life Member, actually. Yet I have no confederate flag stickers, decals, flags or other paraphernalia in my possession. So what does that make me? I do find it telling you have a link to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership on your page. Is that where you get YOUR marching orders, and your talking points?
He also rails on about the flawed thinking involved in the text of the second amendment. "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." His first faltering step down this road comes from his flawed premise that the 2A is, was, and shall always be, a law enforcement tool. While he didn't stumble headlong into the National Guard argument, he still maintains that citizen militias were the forerunners of of modern local police departments. Different avenue, same destination. The "people" he says should have the right to keep and bear arms at those the 2A was designed are those who the 2A was explicitly designed to protect AGAINST. And since he has so obviously forgotten, let me remind him of Hurricane Katrina. regular citizens banded together to protect each other's homes and property from vandals and looters in the absence of any police presence. What was that definition of a citizens militia he threw out again?
His second false premise is his assertion that pro-2A supporters believe the amendment in question protects an individual right, where, as he states "the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to protect society". Who does he think is going to protect "society"? Law enforcement? Not knocking law enforcement here, but in more than a few cases, they have been part of the problem. No, the "people" who are going to "protect" society are the very people the 2A was written for, you and me.
What has also gotten his panties in a twist is the notion that conservative lawmakers (i.e. Republicans) are on the dole to the NRA and are thus advancing the mythological " gun lobby's" agenda. Does he not realize that while the NRA has over 4 million members (and growing I might add), there are conservatively over 100 million gun owners in this country? That 99.99999% of them are not criminals, a good percentage of them will not kill anything and/or anybody, and the VOTE? SO how does this moron explain the phenomena of the "Blue Dog Democrat", who was elected to office in conservative states like VA and MT precisely because they are pro-gun? I would like to know.
Funny there, Mr Riestenberg, I have an NRA sticker on MY vehicle. Life Member, actually. Yet I have no confederate flag stickers, decals, flags or other paraphernalia in my possession. So what does that make me? I do find it telling you have a link to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership on your page. Is that where you get YOUR marching orders, and your talking points?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Brady Rankings Are Out
Seems the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has listed its annual ranking of the several states according to their gun laws. How did Wyoming fare this year?
Not very good. We wound up with a lousy 9 out of possible 100. As far as I'm concerned, we could do better. We need to strive to be like our friends in OK, KY, and LA. These states all have a combined score of 6, 2 each.
What does this mean? Well, it means that according to the hoplophobes from the Brady Bunch, our gun laws are so weak that anyone can walk into a gun store and walk out with a Sherman tank. Only in OK, KY, and LA can you get really premium hardware like an Abrams MBT.
Lets take this a step further. The violent crime rate for WY is 239.3 per 100k. For California, the #1 ranked Brady state, the rate was 522.6. Murder in WY was 3.1 (up from 1.7 in '06) compared to CA with a murder rate of 6.2 (which was down slightly 6.8 in '06). CA has double the murder rate for WY, yet they have a veritable wish list of laws the Brady Bunch drool over, like an "assault weapons ban", waiting periods, license to buy, and "may issue" of concealed weapons permits, among others.
Wyoming had a whopping 16 murders in 2007, with 7 committed with firearms (2 by handgun, 2 by rifle, 2 by shotgun, and 1 committed by a firearm of undetermined type). The remaining 9 were committed with knives, other types of weapons (not listed by the FBI) or hands/fists/feet etc. California had 2249 murders, with 1605 committed with firearms (1305 were handguns, 51 were rifles, 74 were by shotgun, and 106 were by firearms of undetermined type. The remaining 600 and change were knives/cutting instruments/hands/fists/feet, etc.
Where would you rather live?
Not very good. We wound up with a lousy 9 out of possible 100. As far as I'm concerned, we could do better. We need to strive to be like our friends in OK, KY, and LA. These states all have a combined score of 6, 2 each.
What does this mean? Well, it means that according to the hoplophobes from the Brady Bunch, our gun laws are so weak that anyone can walk into a gun store and walk out with a Sherman tank. Only in OK, KY, and LA can you get really premium hardware like an Abrams MBT.
Lets take this a step further. The violent crime rate for WY is 239.3 per 100k. For California, the #1 ranked Brady state, the rate was 522.6. Murder in WY was 3.1 (up from 1.7 in '06) compared to CA with a murder rate of 6.2 (which was down slightly 6.8 in '06). CA has double the murder rate for WY, yet they have a veritable wish list of laws the Brady Bunch drool over, like an "assault weapons ban", waiting periods, license to buy, and "may issue" of concealed weapons permits, among others.
Wyoming had a whopping 16 murders in 2007, with 7 committed with firearms (2 by handgun, 2 by rifle, 2 by shotgun, and 1 committed by a firearm of undetermined type). The remaining 9 were committed with knives, other types of weapons (not listed by the FBI) or hands/fists/feet etc. California had 2249 murders, with 1605 committed with firearms (1305 were handguns, 51 were rifles, 74 were by shotgun, and 106 were by firearms of undetermined type. The remaining 600 and change were knives/cutting instruments/hands/fists/feet, etc.
Where would you rather live?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
