Re: Your Weekly Mass Shooting

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:41 pm

NigelUno wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

So if someone has a gun like that sitting in their basement... are you in favor of guys with guns coming to his house and taking it from him by force? Like is that the solution? Hasn't harmed anyone or threatened anyone... but because it's in his possession do you think it's right for another individual to determine he is not allowed to have it? Maybe even take him from his home by force and put him in a cage against his will?

We should probably discuss what it actually means when we say things like "Well, he doesn't *need* a gun like that..."

What? You seem to have fallen into the deep end. Need some help getting out?

Yes, I do. I need help understanding what you mean by "they don't *need* the gun like that."

It's fine to just have that opinion of course. But are you looking to put that into action? "You don't need it...." Therefore you can't possess one? If you possess one x, y, and z will happen?

I just want to know at what lengths that statement goes.

by **Turtleneck** Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:58 pm

LooseGoose wrote:

Of course this and all of Bob's post ignore the actual fact that as the number of guns in the US has risen the number of murders using guns has fallen by half.

Facts like that don't make the vaginas quiver like "ooh the scary NRA"......

LooseGoose wrote:Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000

You seem to be asserting causation when all that really exists is correlation. The data only implies a relationship between gun ownership and a decrease in violent crime, which is not the same thing as causation. Why not get all the variables on the table? Why not discuss a decrease in poverty and increase in education as contributing to lower violent crime rates? With our sizable prison population, what about incarceration rates? There are a great many variables that could contribute to decreasing violent crime rates. However, you choose to ignore additional variables in favor of the one that you prefer. Additionally, while violent crime rates decrease, active shooter events increase.

USDOJ wrote:
The findings establish an increasing frequency of incidents annually. During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually. This trend reinforces the need to remain vigilant regarding prevention efforts and for law enforcement to aggressively train to better respond to—and help communities recover from—active shooter incidents

by **Gomer** Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:02 pm

xsanguine wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

It's not hunting in my opinion. Those type of weapons are overkill (pun intended) for hunting.

It's not hunting. It's just killing stuff. It's real life replicating a video game.

In my opinion, guns like that should not be sold for hunting purposes. Do you agree? Or is it more important to protect someone's "rights" at the risk of a weapon like that not being used for hunting purposes?

At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?

So if someone has a gun like that sitting in their basement... are you in favor of guys with guns coming to his house and taking it from him by force? Like is that the solution? Hasn't harmed anyone or threatened anyone... but because it's in his possession do you think it's right for another individual to determine he is not allowed to have it? Maybe even take him from his home by force and put him in a cage against his will?

We should probably discuss what it actually means when we say things like "Well, he doesn't *need* a gun like that..."

Haven't we already set boundaries? Fer instance: full automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, explosives, grenades, land mines, rocket propelled grenades, surface to air missiles, etc. etc. etc.?

It's pretty clear that we have long established that it is OK "for another individual (or group AKA society) to determine he is not allowed to have it" as it relates to a wide variety of "arms".

Do you agree?

by Guest Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:19 pm

Delusional.

Guy BensonVerified account ‏@guypbenson
Barbara Boxer, today: "Sensible gun laws work. We've proven it in California."

by Guest Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:22 pm

Turtleneck wrote:
You seem to be asserting causation when all that really exists is correlation. The data only implies a relationship between gun ownership and a decrease in violent crime, which is not the same thing as causation. Why not get all the variables on the table? Why not discuss a decrease in poverty and increase in education as contributing to lower violent crime rates? With our sizable prison population, what about incarceration rates? There are a great many variables that could contribute to decreasing violent crime rates. However, you choose to ignore additional variables in favor of the one that you prefer. Additionally, while violent crime rates decrease, active shooter events increase.

Is wall to wall coverage is causing more mass shootings? There certainly have been references by shooters to past incidences. Does the Press bear any responsibility? Or do you dismiss the copycat theory?

And of course here we're talking terrorism so it's a different animal altogether.

by **Turtleneck** Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:28 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:
You seem to be asserting causation when all that really exists is correlation. The data only implies a relationship between gun ownership and a decrease in violent crime, which is not the same thing as causation. Why not get all the variables on the table? Why not discuss a decrease in poverty and increase in education as contributing to lower violent crime rates? With our sizable prison population, what about incarceration rates? There are a great many variables that could contribute to decreasing violent crime rates. However, you choose to ignore additional variables in favor of the one that you prefer. Additionally, while violent crime rates decrease, active shooter events increase.

Is wall to wall coverage is causing more mass shootings? There certainly have been references by shooters to past incidences. Does the Press bear any responsibility? Or do you dismiss the copycat theory?

The press argument is interesting. Are we supposed to consider restring the speech of an otherwise free press guaranteed in the First Amendment so that we can protect a specific interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? It's almost like your pitting them against each other.

by Guest Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:35 pm

Turtleneck wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Is wall to wall coverage is causing more mass shootings? There certainly have been references by shooters to past incidences. Does the Press bear any responsibility? Or do you dismiss the copycat theory?

The press argument is interesting. Are we supposed to consider restring the speech of an otherwise free press guaranteed in the First Amendment so that we can protect a specific interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? It's almost like your pitting them against each other.

Oh the press has often cooperated with the government on restricting the reporting of certain things. The could avoid using names, images, etc. of the perps or even limiting such things to once every couple hours etc. I'm not advocating laws restricting coverage because those won't stand up to a court challenge.

by **Turtleneck** Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:42 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

The press argument is interesting. Are we supposed to consider restring the speech of an otherwise free press guaranteed in the First Amendment so that we can protect a specific interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? It's almost like your pitting them against each other.

Oh the press has often cooperated with the government on restricting the reporting of certain things. The could avoid using names, images, etc. of the perps or even limiting such things to once every couple hours etc. I'm not advocating laws restricting coverage because those won't stand up to a court challenge.

Exactly.

by **NigelUno** Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:45 pm

xsanguine wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

What? You seem to have fallen into the deep end. Need some help getting out?

Yes, I do. I need help understanding what you mean by "they don't *need* the gun like that."

It's fine to just have that opinion of course. But are you looking to put that into action? "You don't need it...." Therefore you can't possess one? If you possess one x, y, and z will happen?

I just want to know at what lengths that statement goes.

I have bolded what you said.

Here is what I asked:

"At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?"

It seems like you are taking a portion of what I asked (notice I asked a question), and then claiming I made a statement (and ignoring that I asked a question), and then running in a new direction.

Is that what you're doing? Because it certainly seems like it.

by Guest Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:12 pm

I know Mother Jones is a right wing rag written by mouth breathers, etc, etc....;-)...but they don't agree with the headline of this thread and they really disagree with the Reddit based "facts" being used elsewhere. Of course one reason there has been such a dramatic "increase" in mass shootings is the moving of the goal posts defining a mass shooting. Obviously if you change the definition from 4 killed to 4 wounded the number of incidents qualifying as a mass shooting rockets upward with no change in the underlying incidents.

How Many Mass Shootings Are There, Really?

At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982.

What explains the vastly different count? The answer is that there is no official definition for “mass shooting.” Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others. Or that a late-night shooting on a street in Savannah, Ga., yesterday that injured three and killed one is in the same category as the madness that just played out in Southern California.

While all the victims are important, conflating those many other crimes with indiscriminate slaughter in public venues obscures our understanding of this complicated and growing problem. Everyone is desperate to know why these attacks happen and how we might stop them — and we can’t know, unless we collect and focus on useful data that filter out the noise.

For at least the past decade, the F.B.I. regarded a mass shooting as a single attack in which four or more victims were killed.

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:13 pm

Gomer wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

So if someone has a gun like that sitting in their basement... are you in favor of guys with guns coming to his house and taking it from him by force? Like is that the solution? Hasn't harmed anyone or threatened anyone... but because it's in his possession do you think it's right for another individual to determine he is not allowed to have it? Maybe even take him from his home by force and put him in a cage against his will?

We should probably discuss what it actually means when we say things like "Well, he doesn't *need* a gun like that..."
Haven't we already set boundaries? Fer instance: full automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, explosives, grenades, land mines, rocket propelled grenades, surface to air missiles, etc. etc. etc.?

It's pretty clear that we have long established that it is OK "for another individual (or group AKA society) to determine he is not allowed to have it" as it relates to a wide variety of "arms".

Do you agree?

I agree it has been established. I don't agree that it is right.

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:15 pm

NigelUno wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Yes, I do. I need help understanding what you mean by "they don't *need* the gun like that."

It's fine to just have that opinion of course. But are you looking to put that into action? "You don't need it...." Therefore you can't possess one? If you possess one x, y, and z will happen?

I just want to know at what lengths that statement goes.

I have bolded what you said.

Here is what I asked:

"At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?"

It seems like you are taking a portion of what I asked (notice I asked a question), and then claiming I made a statement (and ignoring that I asked a question), and then running in a new direction.

Is that what you're doing? Because it certainly seems like it.

I'm trying to move the conversation along. If I'm incorrect and that's not what you're implying then say so and I will back up the conversation. Forgive me if I'm assuming you're going in the same direction that this conversation goes 99% of the time.

So, okay... no one "needs" the particular weapon in question. No one "needs" anything but food, water, and shelter.

I'll let you determine the next step in this conversational progression.

Edit: You also threw in "Or is there no limit?" Well you said no one needs it.. but didn't indicate limiting, only asked if there's a limit. What are you referring to as a "limit"? That leads me to believe you're implying the next question is about limiting that person's possessions based on what you perceive their needs are. But again, I'll let you explain it before I assume.

by Guest Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:24 pm

How We Got Even Dumber Watching TV ‘News’ On San Bernardino

Jesus, but this story was an effing mess. Watching the major networks (primarily Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, although at one point we flipped to CBSNews for about 20 minutes because we needed a power nap), yr Wonkette was subjected to so many speculative iterations of so many theories (“THREE WHITE GUYS!””TERRORISM!””NOT TERRORISM!””DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE AT A SEMINAR OR MAYBE CHRISTMAS PARTY!”) that the only thing we knew for certain was that no one knew anything.

It’s true that the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, on Wednesday — killing 14 and injuring at least 21 more — was and is a very unusual mass shooting story for a wide variety of reasons (and the depressing fact that we have a large enough sample size to make that call is another discussion entirely), but the sheer level of egregious fuckery as everyone shouted “FIRST!” and rushed to break the scoop was basically a real-time master class in the folly of modern media.

by **NigelUno** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:33 pm

xsanguine wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

I have bolded what you said.

Here is what I asked:

"At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?"

It seems like you are taking a portion of what I asked (notice I asked a question), and then claiming I made a statement (and ignoring that I asked a question), and then running in a new direction.

Is that what you're doing? Because it certainly seems like it.

I'm trying to move the conversation along. If I'm incorrect and that's not what you're implying then say so and I will back up the conversation. Forgive me if I'm assuming you're going in the same direction that this conversation goes 99% of the time.

So, okay... no one "needs" the particular weapon in question. No one "needs" anything but food, water, and shelter.

I'll let you determine the next step in this conversational progression.

Edit: You also threw in "Or is there no limit?" Well you said no one needs it.. but didn't indicate limiting, only asked if there's a limit. What are you referring to as a "limit"? That leads me to believe you're implying the next question is about limiting that person's possessions based on what you perceive their needs are. But again, I'll let you explain it before I assume.

Wait.

I have (again) bolded something for you.

I did not say that. I asked a question.

Why have you now (twice) incorrectly put words in my mouth?

by **Turtleneck** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:35 pm

Loose linking to Wonkette is like Bob asking us to read an article from Brietbart.

by Guest Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:35 pm

NigelUno wrote:Why have you now (twice) incorrectly put words in my mouth?

LOL, this from a man that was asking earlier today for Bob's help in arguing. Bob's tactic 1A is speaking for others, making up things they say or believe.

by Guest Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:36 pm

Turtleneck wrote:Loose linking to Wonkette is like Bob asking us to read an article from Brietbart.

Hey! You missed the Mother Jones/New York Times link. See unlike some I try to read from sources on all sides.

And btw I've been reading Wonkette for long enough that I remember when she was just a local DC bitch.

by **Turtleneck** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:36 pm

Just be glad it's only words getting pushed into your mouth...it could be Loose's pineapple pie bullshit.

by Guest Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:37 pm

Turtleneck wrote:Just be glad it's only words getting pushed into your mouth...it could be Loose's pineapple pie bullshit.

LOL, and to make you happy......it was the last pie to die.

by **Rocinante** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:38 pm

Turtleneck wrote:Loose linking to Wonkette is like Bob asking us to read an article from Brietbart.

Heh.

by **The_Dude** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:42 pm

Robert J Sakimano wrote:love how the right wing patriotic gun enthusiasts prefer not to "politicize" events such as this.. instead, let's offer "thoughts and prayers"..

You realize Obama said thoughts and prayers as did other Democrats, yes?

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:42 pm

Wait.

I have (again) bolded something for you.

I did not say that. I asked a question.

Why have you now (twice) incorrectly put words in my mouth?

Jesus H Christ, dude... I'm impatient.

Here....

"At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?"

At what point? Immediately. No one "needs" a gun. No one needs anything except for food, water, and shelter.

Go ahead.

by **NigelUno** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:54 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:Why have you now (twice) incorrectly put words in my mouth?

LOL, this from a man that was asking earlier today for Bob's help in arguing. Bob's tactic 1A is speaking for others, making up things they say or believe.

Is that what xsanguine is doing? So, you are taking issue with him, then?

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:56 pm

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

LOL, this from a man that was asking earlier today for Bob's help in arguing. Bob's tactic 1A is speaking for others, making up things they say or believe.

Is that what xsanguine is doing? So, you are taking issue with him, then?

I've answered you, Nigel.

by **NigelUno** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:02 pm

xsanguine wrote:
Wait.

I have (again) bolded something for you.

I did not say that. I asked a question.

Why have you now (twice) incorrectly put words in my mouth?

Jesus H Christ, dude... I'm impatient.

Here....

"At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?"

At what point? Immediately. No one "needs" a gun. No one needs anything except for food, water, and shelter.

Go ahead.

You seem to like to take portions of comments. Is this the 3rd time? I'm starting to lose track.

I have (again) bolded something for you.

I did not say no one needs a gun.

Do I really need to clarify my question (again)? Take note of the "like that" part.

by **NigelUno** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:03 pm

xsanguine wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Is that what xsanguine is doing? So, you are taking issue with him, then?

I've answered you, Nigel.

And...again you misconstrued what I said...as I have noted in response.

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:16 pm

NigelUno wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Jesus H Christ, dude... I'm impatient.

Here....

"At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Or is there no limit?"

At what point? Immediately. No one "needs" a gun. No one needs anything except for food, water, and shelter.

Go ahead.

You seem to like to take portions of comments. Is this the 3rd time? I'm starting to lose track.

I have (again) bolded something for you.

I did not say no one needs a gun.

Do I really need to clarify my question (again)? Take note of the "like that" part.

Jesus, dude... you're worse than a woman.

At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Immediately.
At what point would you say no one needs a gun? Immediately
At what point would you say no one needs a gun like that? Immediately
Would you say no one needs a gun like that? Yes, no one needs a gun like that
Would you say no one needs a gun? Yes, no one needs a gun
No one needs a gun like that? No, no one needs a gun like that
No one needs a gun? No, on one needs a gun

You're being difficult on purpose. Let's get on with it.
I never took you for a troll, Nigel. Let's move forward.

by **NigelUno** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:16 pm

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:Why have you now (twice) incorrectly put words in my mouth?

LOL, this from a man that was asking earlier today for Bob's help in arguing. Bob's tactic 1A is speaking for others, making up things they say or believe.

Did you let xsanguine take over the questions posed to you for some reason? Or you just didn't want to answer them?

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:17 pm

NigelUno wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

I've answered you, Nigel.

And...again you misconstrued what I said...as I have noted in response.

No, my answer is the same. I gave you 7 different versions of your question. It's the same response, regardless. Take your pick and let's make progress.

by **NigelUno** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:20 pm

xsanguine wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

You seem to like to take portions of comments. Is this the 3rd time? I'm starting to lose track.

I have (again) bolded something for you.

I did not say no one needs a gun.

Do I really need to clarify my question (again)? Take note of the "like that" part.

Jesus, dude... you're worse than a woman.

At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Immediately.
At what point would you say no one needs a gun? Immediately
At what point would you say no one needs a gun like that? Immediately
Would you say no one needs a gun like that? Yes, no one needs a gun like that
Would you say no one needs a gun? Yes, no one needs a gun
No one needs a gun like that? No, no one needs a gun like that
No one needs a gun? No, on one needs a gun

You're being difficult on purpose. Let's get on with it.
I never took you for a troll, Nigel. Let's move forward.

Ummm...OK?

I'm not sure what your point is though.

I think mine was (maybe) no one needs a gun like that for "hunting". You went all haywire after that, so I'm not sure where we are at this point.

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:29 pm

NigelUno wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Jesus, dude... you're worse than a woman.

At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Immediately.
At what point would you say no one needs a gun? Immediately
At what point would you say no one needs a gun like that? Immediately
Would you say no one needs a gun like that? Yes, no one needs a gun like that
Would you say no one needs a gun? Yes, no one needs a gun
No one needs a gun like that? No, no one needs a gun like that
No one needs a gun? No, on one needs a gun

You're being difficult on purpose. Let's get on with it.
I never took you for a troll, Nigel. Let's move forward.

Ummm...OK?

I'm not sure what your point is though.

I think mine was (maybe) no one needs a gun like that for "hunting". You went all haywire after that, so I'm not sure where we are at this point.

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:30 pm

NigelUno wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Jesus, dude... you're worse than a woman.

At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Immediately.
At what point would you say no one needs a gun? Immediately
At what point would you say no one needs a gun like that? Immediately
Would you say no one needs a gun like that? Yes, no one needs a gun like that
Would you say no one needs a gun? Yes, no one needs a gun
No one needs a gun like that? No, no one needs a gun like that
No one needs a gun? No, on one needs a gun

You're being difficult on purpose. Let's get on with it.
I never took you for a troll, Nigel. Let's move forward.

Ummm...OK?

I'm not sure what your point is though.

I think mine was (maybe) no one needs a gun like that for "hunting". You went all haywire after that, so I'm not sure where we are at this point.

Oh, so now you maybe meant something else by that question. It's for "hunting"... would have been nice to have included that originally, eh? Fine, I'll answer that one, too...

No one needs a gun like that for "hunting".; No, no one needs a gun like that for hunting. No one needs a gun for hunting. No one needs a gun like that. No one needs a gun.

My answer has been the same the entire time. So after all of that you "might" be saying that? After all that "you're not answering my question", that's it? You're not sure where we are? You wanted me to stick to a very strict version of your question that means the same throughout and you don't know where we are at this point? What was the point of all of that?

I thought you were being difficult because you had a point.

by **Turtleneck** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:31 pm

You two are boring the shit out of us.

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:34 pm

Turtleneck wrote:You two are boring the shit out of us.

Grab a paper and mind your tongue, old man.

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:34 pm

NigelUno wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Jesus, dude... you're worse than a woman.

At what point would you say...yeah...no one needs a gun like that? Immediately.
At what point would you say no one needs a gun? Immediately
At what point would you say no one needs a gun like that? Immediately
Would you say no one needs a gun like that? Yes, no one needs a gun like that
Would you say no one needs a gun? Yes, no one needs a gun
No one needs a gun like that? No, no one needs a gun like that
No one needs a gun? No, on one needs a gun

You're being difficult on purpose. Let's get on with it.
I never took you for a troll, Nigel. Let's move forward.

Ummm...OK?

I'm not sure what your point is though.

I think mine was (maybe) no one needs a gun like that for "hunting". You went all haywire after that, so I'm not sure where we are at this point.

I don't need a gun. I don't need an iphone, I don't need a PS4. I don't need a pretty wife or a leather wallet or a 50 inch flat screen or season tickets or a corvette. I don't need any of these things.

You wouldn't have happened to be saying that because you were, by some wild... crazy... insane... chance implying that some entity should be limiting them, right? Like I stated in my very first reply to you. That couldn't be it, could it? I'm not going to assume... but I'm hoping you'll explain the point of going through all of that just to say "Well... I don't know where we are at this point."

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:35 pm

Turtleneck wrote:You two are boring the shit out of us.

It's page 10. It's the right way to go down like this. Your Weekly Mass Shooting - Page 10 502811600

by **xsanguine** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:38 pm

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:You two are boring the shit out of us.

It's page 10. It's the right way to go down like this.

We're coming after you next, young man.

by **tTy** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:42 pm

Some motherfuckers were shot up in Taylor, MI just now.

WE SHOULD START A NEW THREAD YOU GUYS!!!!!!

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:43 pm

tTy wrote:Some motherfuckers were shot up in Taylor, MI just now.

WE SHOULD START A NEW THREAD YOU GUYS!!!!!!

I'm in!

by **tTy** Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:46 pm

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
tTy wrote:Some motherfuckers were shot up in Taylor, MI just now.

WE SHOULD START A NEW THREAD YOU GUYS!!!!!!

I'm in!

I'm prolly not.

by Sponsored content