Comments
-
@Professor Xavier, gun control is hitting the target
-
@Honaw Fierceclaw, it is also your trigger finger
-
@Osama bin Dead, and always remember to squeeze not pull
-
@Honaw Fierceclaw, or you'll be wondering why your grouping is low and to the left
-
@Osama bin Dead, not to be that guy, but I think a helicopter mounted minigun can actually shoot hundreds of bullets a second..... But I am very glad that it is not a widely available gun -] Though I do love my S&W M&P 9
-
@Honaw Fierceclaw, you might be correct, I just have no recollection of any type firearm being able to shoot that quickly. A mini-gun, not sure of it's technical name, can shoot thousands of rounds per minute, but getting up to a hundred per second seems unreal. I dunno though. Glad you are enjoying your M&P! I'm enjoying my Glock 21 Gen 3. I love me my .45
-
In my state, (nc), there was this guy who got pulled over by a cop. The cop saw a shotgun in the car, and the man yelled out, you get closer and I'm shooting! So the cop calls for backup. The cops are all circled around the man, hiding behind cars and the like, and the man says, "I'm gonna finish my cigarette, then I'm coming out and shooting you!" He finished his cigarette, and opened the door. Before he was able to get out, or even lift the gun, 143 shots were fired at the car. The sad part? Only 6 hit the guy.
-
@Simetricwl , 143 shots?? What the fvck. That's more shots than the German police fired in a year. And why did only six hit him? Though I wonder, did he die from the six shots that hit him? He kind of asked for it by threatening them.
-
@A pet named Steve, oh yea, he died. I have absolutely no idea why they missed so much, my guess is they were shaky and worried about getting shot.
-
@Simetricwl , also please don't forget that metal and glass has strong effects on bullet trajectory. We also don't know how far away each officer was from the suspect. Likely very far since they knew he had a shotgun. I can imagine even the most trained cop would have a hard time putting shots on target after a long stand off. Plus, the whole "suicide-by-cop" thing is really, really traumatizing to police officers.
-
@Simetricwl , most people aren't actually capable of killing, even if it's part of their job description
-
@WhoseLineIsItAnyway, when I first read the article, suicide by cop was the only explanation I could come up with for why he would try something like this.
-
@A pet named Steve, you have to understand that if there is a threat of life. Shoot to kill is the only option. So there is no difference in firing 9332 shots or 1 shot. Im an officer an we watched a video in training and they interviewed a sheriff and asked him why they shot a guy 50 times and his reply was "i guess they ran out of bullets" Unfortunately someone who is on the openly going to kill others the only option is to takedown. I hope and pray everyday i never have to draw my weapon
-
"guns are bad blah blah blah.... Why do you think you need a gun when you can just call the police blah blah blah "
-
@WelI Obviously, why do you need terrorist when in 2013 you had over 30k gun homicides in that year alone? To per that into perspective, there are less than 5 deaths a year on average of terrorist killings in the usa.
-
@Implicit88, thanks Jake Tapper
-
@The Gay Gatsby, no they are called facts.
-
@Implicit88, confused.jpg
-
@Implicit88, I'll take a guess that you don't like the current administration. If Trump banned guns and started to turn things into a dictatorship what would you do against the well armed tyrannical government at that point? Nothing. That's the point of the second amendment, it gives the people the ability to fight against tyranny, the founding fathers knew there was evil in men, so they decided to give the people a way to protect themselves. edit: I'm not a fan of Trump I'm a moderate.
-
@Muscular Rooster, without agreeing or disagreeing to you, I don't think banning guns turns the political system into a dictatorship. There are many Democratic countries where guns are illegal or restricted and it's working out (relatively) fine.
-
@WelI Obviously, hey fam, I don't care if people own guns-they hella fun- but I will dedicate my life to gun ownership protection of someone "exercises their second amendment right" on Donald trump.
-
@A pet named Steve, I was saying he bans it then turns it to a dictatorship not that banning makes it so
-
@Implicit88, Also when it comes to terrorist deaths in the US that is because of how diligent our intelligence community works to stop attacks. I know how hard the IC gets hit when things go wrong, but being a former IC member I can attest to vast amount of sh!t going on the behind the seens in any given country to stop attacks in absolutely unreal.
-
@Implicit88, Most of those gun homicides are gang related. In 2015 there were over 50,000 Americans killed from Heroin overdoses. That's almost twice as many Americans that were killed by gun homicides.
-
@Implicit88, youre right, we don't need terrorists. Also about 2/3 of those are usually suicides.... Not that that's a good thing, but it does reinforce the fact that people kill people, not the tool. Also put that in perspective with all the other causes of death and it barely accounts for 1%.
-
@Implicit88, our founding fathers weren't idiots. They had just fought a terrible war against a tyrant. In their day, owning a gun was just as essential as food, and I don't believe anythings changed. As Regan, one of the greatest presidents ever, put it, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."
-
@Implicit88, "30k gun homicides" NOOOOOOPE actually 30k gun deaths overall, with 60% being suicides, and 10% being accidents, so only 9,000 intentional taking of another's life with a gun, and an estimated 80% is gang and drug related, so there were only 1,800 non-gang-involved people shot and killed by another person, and not all of them are even murders. I'd say 1,800 is a LITTLE different than 30k, wouldn't you, Mr. European Supremacy? It's almost like the anti-gun side is literally incapable of being honest with the facts and figures.
-
@Muscular Rooster, fair enough, but what is a handful of people with guns going to go against literally the most powerful military in the history of the world. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think we're past the point where guns are the way to solve a tyranny issue. I still like guns, just don't think they are particularly useful against the assets of the military
-
@Pope Temporal, I served for a decade in the Army, and for as powerful as we are, we refuse to use our full power. That's why the insurgencies/terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan wars are able to take control. For instance when I was last in Iraq, we could've landed a knockout punch if we had kept pushing just as hard for a few more years. However, the Adminstration at the time, decided a fledgling government with a military force as competent as a group of 12 year old COD players could keep the momentum going. And we can all see how that worked out for Iraq.....
-
@Pope Temporal, well you have to think too, if there was a revolution, I can confidently say that not even half of the people would stay in the military. Would you? If you had extensive military training and your family would have to protect themselves? If you knew you would be sent to slaughter citizens who just want to protect their constitutional right? People from the inside would try to tear it apart, people on the outside would have a home vs away strategy, and the military most likely wouldn't use APC's and Apaches to destroy new York just to kill some rebels. It's your own citizens you're killing. The main objective would most likely to capture and secure. Sure the more troubling groups would be killed, but for a lot of governments vs citizens scenarios, underestimating the citizens is a huge mistake. Especially when a large portion owns and definitely can use guns.
-
@Muscular Rooster, what the fück are you going to do against a tyrannical government NOW? Only morons think they have the slightest chance against the US government with their gun. They have drones, as well as more guns than you. The second amendment is based on a concept that is woefully outdated. That man who shot up the republican baseball game thought he was acting under the second amendment against a tyrannical government, and do you know what he got for it? Dead. He got dead.
-
@Fun Facts 101, that's why I believe we're really being an internal military revolution. It would be too devastating for both sides
-
@Pope Temporal, there are multiple reasons why the US federal govt/military would be absolutely DEMOLISHED in a Feds vs Civilians Civil War, at least if the resistance is right-wing. Main things being logistics and desertion, but even in a best-case scenario where ONLY 25% of the .mil deserts AND 0 nuclear capable subs or bases desert, it's still gonna be bad for the feds.
-
@Pope Temporal, if the government started taking guns, there would be another civil war. I really fear that it's not as far away as we think. We need to be careful and try to see that people having their constitutional rights, how frivolous it may seem, is a very important thing to them. Trying to take that away is no light matter. Especially if it's about guns.
-
@I Are Lebo, lol if you think this government is tyrannical, go travel outside the you comfort zone. I have been in 12 different countries for extended periods of time, some have been wonderful places others make prison seem like a paradise. I'm not saying we don't have a corrupt system but it is far from tyrannical at th is point.
-
@Implicit88, I like how there was also something around 1600+ terrorist attacks in 2016 alone. Why use a gun when you can use a car to mow down countless citizens? What is it? Half a million deaths a year from driving accidents not even counting DUI accidents? We should ban cars! And they are not even a constitutional right, they are a privilege.
-
@A pet named Steve, history repeats itself. Normally countries take guns away, and then turns into a dictatorship like communism or socialism. Examples would be Stalin, Hitler, I believe Venezuela as well currently.
-
@A pet named Steve, banning guns doesn't make it a dictatorship, but if you look at history one of the first things dictators always do is disarm the citizens so they can't do anything about anything
-
@WelI Obviously, shhhh don't try to explain with facts and logic with anti-gun people. The only thing that works is "feelings"!
-
@Pope Temporal, "hand full of people with guns" = another complete fabrication. There are more guns in the US than there are people. And if you wouldn't stand up to defend yourself against a tyrannical government then you deserve to die a slave. Ask the Germans how being disarmed worked out before ww2.
-
@I Are Lebo, woefully outdated is what the "living breathing document" people always say. Funny how these people are always the ones that want to strip away more rights from the people. Of course these people know WAY better than the writers of the constitution, Who made it intentionally very difficult to change that document.
-
@Professor Xavier, and when you take into account most of those guns if not all are stolen or not purchased like most of us do.
-
@Pope Temporal, true but you have to take this into account as well. Im willing to bet 98% of our military isn't willing to go door to door to our own people and say give us your guns or die. Because thats there own family who will end up being on that list as well. Not to mention they would be afraid of billy bob straight up shooting threw the door at them.
-
@Muscular Rooster, I don't think it's tyrannical, and I think there are enough checks and balances in place to prevent Trump from becoming a dictator. But bringing up the second amendment as a deterrent against that is self deluding. The second amendment was written during a time when everyone had muskets. The technology has improved to the point where the amendment doesn't help. Having guns is not by itself evil or bad. But no civilian needs an automatic weapon capable of firing several hundred rounds per second. You will NEVER need that. There is no realistic situation where you will both have your gun and having it will make the situation better.
-
@I Are Lebo, you can't get a automatic machine gun with out having an incredibly difficult license. I own quite a few guns and have a conceal carry license. So the people that have converted certain rifles to be fully automatic have done so illegally. On the point of the musket argument, there were all ready patent for repeating rifles and automatic weapons when the founding fathers wrote the amendment so the musket argument is invalid.
-
@I Are Lebo, the point is not whether or not you need it. The point is that it's your right to have it. There was also machine guns albeit slow, during the time of the constitution. It was a crank, legal to own, and $100. It's not like they didn't know weapons would advance. The point is that the people can defend themselves. You don't *need* the first amendment. But it's nice to say what you want, right? It works the same way. I know we rarely agree, but look at the world today around you. How dangerous it is because of terrorism, gang violence, over all stupidity of citizens. You may not want a gun, but for someone who feels unsafe, it can feel like a necessity. And the amendment still helps. It doesn't matter whether or not we have guns that shoot lightning, we will still exercise your right to have that, because you have a RIGHT to protect yourself and your family.
-
@Fun Facts 101, one of the points that I have trouble believing is "guns allow you to protect yourself and your family". Having firearms in the house has shown consistent increases to the rate of risk for gun-related suicide and gun related homicide by/on a family member or acquaintance. Source: https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and
-
@Fun Facts 101, the first and second amendment rights are nothing alike. It's not "nice" to be able to say what you want, that's the basis of freedom. Without free speech, you are not free. It's that simple. Without that amendment, society collapses. Without the second amendment, gun violence goes down. You want the facts, look at Australia. They banned guns years ago, in spite of having some of the worlds most dangerous wildlife, and their gun violence and body count plummeted. Your argument is circular. "The right to have guns is needed because it's your right". You don't need guns. You want guns. And just wanting something is not a valid reason to keep implements of death around. People who have guns feel safer, but it is a false security. Having that many guns makes your country LESS safe.
-
@Pope Temporal, please read a history book. Look back to 1776 or so. Read on how a bunch of guys in the woods fought and won against not just the most powerful military but the most powerful country in the world.
-
@I Are Lebo, PART 1: let's take a look at England. They banned guns and their murder rate with blunt objects rose around 900%. As with Australia, the statistics where it sunk exponentially is from suicides. Which is where most of the gun death statistics come from. As well as accidental injury. Pretty much more than around 2/3. Murder or crime with a gun is actually relatively low compared to how many people own them. Let's dive a little deeper. Here's some gun statistics from justthefacts.com Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[23] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[24] that's good, being that the chance you'll be assaulted at some point. 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape)
-
@I Are Lebo, here's another. * In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976. You can't see the graph explaining the crime, so I'll explain it. Before the "gun control" law, the handgun intentional murder rate was around 25 out of every 100,000 people. About ten years later it had risen to 80 out of every 100,000 people. That's 20% short of double. Until they of course, stuck down that law as unconstitutional, in which it went back down to about 25 again. Let's look at the most gun controlled city in America, Chicago. After the general gun ban, the murder rate with guns rose from 46%, to almost 80%. Do you see a pattern? Here's another. Florida's right to carry law came into effect in 1987, where the murder rate for
-
@Fun Facts 101, guns was just around 11 out of every 100,000 citizens yearly, it sunk to just at 5 every 100,000 in 2011. So that's a 50% decrease over 20 years. Now let's talk about the suicides. Suicides make up for a little over 1/3 of all gun deaths. As a person who has struggled with depression before and a gun owner, it's not hard to sympathise. But if people want to die, they will. A gun won't stop that. As for accidental home injuries, you know I am very serious about gun safety. Guns should be kept in a safe, or hidden if you have children. Even so they should still know that it is not a toy, or something fun. It is a tool that can be used to end sometimes life. It is nothing to play around with. During my childhood my father kept all of the guns inside a locked safe except the one he kept on him. He made it incredibly clear it was not to ever be touched. It should be feared and respected, and I will agree with you that it is completely ridiculous the amount of accidents that
-
@Fun Facts 101, are accounted for with guns. But people will be stupid. People will be bad. But that doesn't mean you take the guns away. They are a right. Not to be infringed, ever. Period. And about your retort with the 1st amendment example, look at other countries without free speech. A very large amount of them do not have guns. Without the 2nd amendment there would be no first amendment.
-
@PECM97, look at my reply to Lebo.
-
@Implicit88, I like how you shítpost and then aren't heard from again when you get hosed. It makes me laugh. Typical libtard bs
-
@Sr5turbo, that's a false equivalency. The difference between technology of the civilians vs. the government is much greater today. You don't see civilians with artillery and automatic grenade launchers. Furthermore, the British had long supply and logistics lines and no easy form of communication. The guys in the woods had the advantage of the woods as home turf, and had a good general to lead them. Finally, the territory was huge and unexplored, making it much harder for the British. A better (but not perfect) comparison would be the South in the civil war, who lost anyway, due to fewer resources, among other reasons.
-
@Fun Facts 101, I think a valid argument can be made for allowing possession of handguns. I do not think there is a valid reason to own an automatic rifle. Hunting rifles should be allowed for the (legal) hunting of animals only.
-
@Pope Temporal, going up against the US government means going up against drones, self guided missiles, and satellite imagery. No civilian militia is winning against such odds, especially when you consider that step 1 in overthrowing a democracy is getting the armed forces on your side.
-
@Muscular Rooster, trump wouldnt ban guns though.
-
@VibratingButtChomper, how does one exercise the right to bear arms upon someone else? Are you referring to murdering someone? Thats bot what the second amendment is about, see yourself out.
-
@Caine, I'm not saying he actually would, I was just using it as an example so that the extreme far left anti-gun folks could grasp it.
-
@I Are Lebo, we can just agree to disagree
-
@Caine, exactly. The whole argument is moot. Trump is far more likely to relax gun laws than he is to restrict them.
-
@I Are Lebo, that's what I think. However, what people have pointed out (and I agree with to an extent) is that many in the modern military might refuse to fight a war against civilians in the country
-
@Fun Facts 101, considering neither one of us is in a position of authority for either of our opinions to actually matter, I'm inclined to agree with you. I freely admit my opinion of guns is biased by the fact that as a Canadian, I have never so much as held one. Also, if I have to kill someone in self defence, I'd prefer to use an improvised weapon so that I can dodge the premeditation charge.
-
@I Are Lebo, my dad was a cop for 9 years. The best thing to say is "I feared for my life, and did what I thought would protect it." Say nothing else except that you want you lawyer.
-
@Fun Facts 101, or how about the notion that if nobody has guns you don't have to be as afraid of strangers?
-
@I Are Lebo, well yeah, if there were no knives or weapons or terrible people or greed and everybody was vegan and wanted to sit in a drum circle and sing campfire songs, that would be nice.
-
@Fun Facts 101, no I mean with some basic defence training you can protect yourself against knives or bats. Can't outrun a bullet.
-
@I Are Lebo, no. You have to have body language training and knowledge of firearms tactics. It's really the same, there's always a better fighter, there's always a faster trigger. But I know what you mean. I wish we just all had some sort of unique power like an anime so we had badass dbz fights instead of shooting each other
-
@Caine, wow m8 don't be a dick about it. If you didn't know, the quotations were there because i am directly quoting Donald Trump when he said "someone should exercise their second amendment right on Hillary Clinton." Donny J was clearly implying that someone should assassinate Hillary, but he is a fvcking idiot, so you are right to ask that question of him. But you are wrong to ask that question of me.
-
@I Are Lebo, I cant name one firearm that even comes close to firing several hundred rounds per second. You would have to obtain a Class 3 firearms license to even own a fully automatic weapon, let alone it would be a fortune to buy a fully automatic weapon. AR-15s, the most common firearm in the U.S. is semi-automatic and fires only one round per trigger pull. They are not full automatic firearms
-
@I Are Lebo, you can easily disarm someone with a gun pointed at you
-
@VibratingButtChomper, why you are still upvoting your own comments, I have no idea
-
@VibratingButtChomper, he could have also meant using your Second Amendment right to defend yourself from Hillary Clinton's corruption and tyranny. Don't assume things, you can't spell assume without "ass".
-
@Osama bin Dead, right, so long as the orange man himself isn't 100% clear about what he says, you'll defend him tooth and nail. So long as ambiguity exists in this world, you'll find a way to justify eating shjt out of a monkeys "ass" hole if king Orange says it's the right thing to do. Or so I would "ass"ume. And btw, I have upvoted every comment I have ever made on this app. Never denied doing it, so idk why you're taking it so personal. I guess that's the mentality of a snowflake tho.
-
@Osama bin Dead, and you'll also notice, even though I only presented you with a factual quote from Donald trump which somehow offended you to the point where you felt it was necessary to downvote me, I didn't downvote you because I'm capable of reading comments on the Internet without getting ass hurt--which,by default, puts me one point ahead of your cheeto-puff King.
-
@VibratingButtChomper, it is such hubris because you are still assuming. How do you know I will defend President Trump on everything? Can you read my mind? I don't agree with everything President Trump does, and at least I am man enough to admit it. The really sad thing is you are upvoting your own comments. That is pathetic. Any argument you say is invalid. Learn to form logical, sound arguments with evidence and not assumption
-
@Osama bin Dead, I like how everyone is throwing around the word "hubris." Sounds like people are becoming Facebook scholars. But you continue to live your arguments through the assumption of correctness because ambiguity exists somewhere in the middle. And that's just fvcking weak, and is also another Facebook scholarly debate technique. "You can't prove I'm wrong therefore you are in the wrong." Which also leads to the wildly intelligent defense "if I remain ambiguous enough, then people can't attack me for being wrong!" And I'll be honest with you fam, that's some real Sean Spicer hiding in the bushes shjt.
-
@VibratingButtChomper, How is everyone throwing around the word hubris? Have you checked to see if everyone is using that word? Do you even know what hubris is? You are now saying that I am the one making assumptions when you clearly are the one doing so. Also your attacks on our Presidential Administration means zilch. No one cares bro. Also stop liking your own comments you narcissistic loser
-
@VibratingButtChomper, I also got a notification that you did downvote me. Looks like you are a poor liar as well
-
@Osama bin Dead, you ignored everything I said except for the first line lol. You're not debating anymore, you just want the last word. M8 chill out, you said it yourself, I upvote my comments which makes everything I say invalid. --And that is some grade A cheeto puff logic. So idk why you keep replying to the invalidity I keep presenting with you lol
-
@VibratingButtChomper, no mate, I don't care about the last word. This is my last response anyway. I'm responding to you prove you are a troll. Why do you even upvote your own comments bro?
-
@Osama bin Dead, you and I disagree on the definition of easy.
-
@Osama bin Dead, if you don't Like what you have to say, why bother even saying it. Not upvoting yourself is like not checking off the free space in a bingo game. Please stop attempting to inject etiquette into a free access online forum. Especially etiquette that doesn't make sense. Why do you care if someone else upvotes their own comment? That is such a meaningless thing to fixate on, and it is not worth the time and effort you've spent on it.
-
@Osama bin Dead, I'm glad you don't care about the last word, that means I get it lol thx fam!
-
@I Are Lebo, you have an astounding lack of knowledge/wisdom about what guns are and are not capable of. And who is able to own which types of weapons.
-
@VibratingButtChomper, you're welcome fam
-
@Osama bin Dead, noooooo! You were doing so well. I didn't think you would actually respond, but you couldn't help yourself lol. Are you actually Donald Trump?
-
@big freedom, this is true, and it comes from a lack of experience with firearms that I have little interest in correcting. All of my first hand experience with guns is through video games, I'm not ashamed to admit.
-
@I Are Lebo, well, I'm glad you would never use that lack of knowledge to promote legislation that would seriously restrict others rights! Phew
-
@VibratingButtChomper, I'm just messing with you bro, you can have the last say.
-
@big freedom, I think guns are unnecessary and most people don't need them, but that's my opinion. I'd never attempt to impose that opinion on anyone else, especially without first educating myself properly on the topic. I'm not dismissing that there's an argument to be had about gun laws, because there obviously is. Now, there are some other issues out there that ARE indefensible. All of the excuses for why Trump shouldn't be impeached, are just that: excuses. And once you take religion out of the equation, where it has no right to be in the first place, there's no argument against homosexual rights including marriage. There are also no valid arguments for completely shutting out refugees from Syria. They vet them better than they do their own citizens as it is. (There IS an argument regarding how many refugees are allowed in, but I leave that argument to more involved people)
-
@Osama bin Dead, just an FYI, you're being a massive troll right now.
-
@I Are Lebo, please enlighten me on how I am being a troll.
-
@Osama bin Dead, nope. You can figure it out. Not buying in.
-
@I Are Lebo, well you sound like a butt-hurt internet warrior. Just calm down
-
@Osama bin Dead, if I relaxed any more my DNA would unwind. I was merely remarking on the irony of you calling VBC a troll when you are fixated on people upvoting themselves, as well as insisting on getting the final word in every conversation/argument. I get commenting again because you have something else to say, but "ok I'll let you have the last word" is a rather pathetic passive-aggressive way of ensuring you yourself get the final word in.
-
@Osama bin Dead, I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending VBC. I'm not even clear what his stance even is. This entire thread he's been arguing against YOU, not about any actual issue.
-
@I Are Lebo, I am not trying to be a troll, I think trolling is childish. I replied last to VBC just as a joke, not to instigate anything. And believe me, I could care less about last comment, I was trying to defend my argument with logic, but it went downhill arguing with VBC. It is what it is I suppose.
-
@Osama bin Dead, fair enough.
-
@I Are Lebo, I don't understand how Trump works into the equation. He is left of Obama when it comes to gay marriage. He was openly for it while Obama was still publicly against it. Where is the impeachable offense? Not liking a president or his positions is not grounds for impeachment. Being a dummy isn't either.
-
@big freedom, giving away top secret information to Russian diplomats IS. So is derailing or attempting to derail a federal investigation. So is attempting to slip a bill past congress that would directly lead to millions of Americans losing their healthcare. I don't disagree with Trump's beliefs because he very obviously doesn't have any. He flip flops on EVERY issue because he has absolutely no concept of empathy. He only cares about what affects him. Look at his eyes while he is being recorded in a meeting. He has no idea what to do. He is in so far over his head. By his own words, he thought that being President would be easy. The man is unqualified in EVERY meaning of the word.
-
Must have been a white guy cause I haven't heard anything on the news about it
-
I feel like I need to comment here, but I don't come on this app to see people literally dead or dying.
-
MURICA! *shoots guns into are as a bald eagle soars overhead and screeches, throwing fear into all others*
-
@Doug Dimmadone, did you miss the eagle? 🦅
-
The top circle guy looks like he's orienteering with a map and compass.
-
#guns
GUN CONTROL: When a person shows tremendous control whilst using a firearm. "Those customers used gun control to subdue a would-be criminal."