|
SocketWrench posted:Actually we import a lot of guns made all around the world. So you'd cut off domestic makes, I guarantee you there's plenty outside the country. Did you just compare national borders with state borders that are constitutionally forbidden from restricting interstate trade to prove that smuggling laws are useless?
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Not useless, but seeing as how "effective" we are at securing a national border as is, I don't think it's gonna make a really big difference.archangelwar posted:If you removed the US market as a consumer, less guns would be manufactured. They're already manufactured; surplus arms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
OK but in reality gun control in other countries has reduced the rates in gun ownership dramatically. None of the countries that are adjacent to us have major arms manufacturers. What are people going to be smuggling them in from Germany and Russia overseas? Why doesn't this happen in Australia? Or Denmark? Why don't those wily gun owners just easily thwart the NFA and buy full-auto machine guns from smugglers right now today since it's so easy? Hell, why oppose gun control then, if you can still get guns regardless. I love how gun control is simultaneously a plot to disarm Americans and simultaneously so ineffective it's not worth doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
If you want your guns, just be honest with us: you want it because you like guns, and you see events like Sandy Hook as an acceptable sacrifice to keep your guns. Don't kid us when you say you need guns in case of a government uprising (in which no one can accurately describe how that would happen, let alone take down a government that can drone strike you to death), for personal protection, or any other fantasy of yours. Guns are fun to shoot, but the efficiency they give in killing people is scary. If you really need the rush that shooting a gun gives, go skydiving, or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:If you want your guns, just be honest with us: you want it because you like guns, and you see events like Sandy Hook as an acceptable sacrifice to keep your guns. Is this a surprise? That Americans aren't willing to sacrifice literally anything to help someone they don't know personally?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Prosecutors have another term for warning shots: attempted felonious assault, improper discharge of a firearm etc. Shooting someone in the leg rather than center mass is similarly misguided and will not evade serious felony charges. Similarly, pulling out a gun just to "defuse the situation" is a legal non-starter. Do not be tempted to do this. If the gun comes out of the holster, the gun owner had better be justified in immediately employing it fully. There is no such thing as a warning shot or shooting to wound. This will be construed as a miss, bad marksmanship and perhaps even attempted murder. This author understands the theory that the presence of a firearm might eliminate a confrontation. However, the opposite is equally true. For illustration purposes, assume the following: Someone was rudely and dangerously cutoff on a street, the horn blast that logically followed developed into the "cutter" getting out of the car to go yell at the "cuttee." The "cutter" does not display anything other than bare hands. Unfortunately, "cuttee" then displayed his handgun in the honest belief that it would avert/end the confrontation. Bad move. First, no threat of imminent serious physical harm or death had been made, thus the person who took out the handgun did not have any legal justification for using lethal force. Second, the "cuttee" has escalated the situation: Within his own car, without any threat of serious physical harm or death, he removed a handgun from a holster. This action clearly, in this circumstance, could be construed as a threat. Would the "cutter" now be justified in drawing a handgun of their own and shooting the "cuttee," assuming it wouldn't violate a duty to retreat? This scenario will always present more questions than answers, and the gun owner is going to be playing against long odds if he brandishes a firearm in a non-lethal situation. Removing a handgun from a holster, or even possibly just uncovering and indicating the presence of a handgun, can be considered a hostile act and will be considered a criminal act. As the old saying goes, an armed society is a polite society, and people do not need to be waving guns around to accomplish this. IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR HANDGUN OUT OF A HOLSTER, YOU HAD BETTER BE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN USING IT IMMEDIATELY. Readers, students and the general public never like this answer, but I assure you it is an accurate answer under Ohio law and has withstood the test of time and appellate cases. Any deliberate action on your part that introduces lethal force into the encounter in a manner that makes the other person aware of the lethal force, IS THE USE OF LETHAL FORCE. If you make reference to lethal force, show lethal force, hold lethal force in your hand etc., those actions are simply an alternative use of lethal force, short of pulling the trigger. If you are in a non-lethal encounter, and have used lethal force, even in this round-about, alternate way, you have escalated the encounter and will have difficulties proving your self-defense case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK but in reality gun control in other countries has reduced the rates in gun ownership dramatically. Those do seem to be some places they tend to get shipped in from quote:Why doesn't this happen in Australia? Or Denmark? Why don't those wily gun owners just easily thwart the NFA and buy full-auto machine guns from smugglers right now today since it's so easy? I don't know, maybe because guns weren't the cultural icon elsewhere that they are here? I think banning them would reduce the numbers all right, but those that still really wanted them would try to get them. quote:
I love how you're being a total dick to someone who's on the mid ground in this trying to make sense and work with either side. Perhaps you could be an even smugger douche and people would see your points and obey like lemmings? I don't think it would be ineffective in lowering gun ownership. I do think it would be ineffective in curbing the underlying issues that would go on regardless. So you'll magically be able to fund this program to ban and seize and just eat the gently caress out of resources at hand, and then leave those other issues for whenever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:They're already manufactured; surplus arms. And as guns are removed from circulation this surplus would diminish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
You are arguing something is impossible even though Australia literally did that exact thing, and handwaving it away as American exceptionalism and gun culture, even though the only way that kind of program could happen politically in the US is with supermajority support.SocketWrench posted:I think banning them would reduce the numbers all right, but those that still really wanted them would try to get them. Sorry I don't see jagoffs like Dylan Roof and Jared Loughner magicking up guns just because they really really want them. Again you're claiming something is impossible when Australia effectively eliminated mass shootings. Also this is a bizarre standard "oh you only reduced gun violence by something less than 100% so what have you really done?" Uh, saved thousands of lives a year?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You are arguing something is impossible even though Australia literally did that exact thing, and handwaving it away as American exceptionalism and gun culture, even though the only way that kind of program could happen politically in the US is with supermajority support. But how would this effect my raging boner at the range when I'm high off burnt powder and *clink* of spent casings?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You are arguing something is impossible even though Australia literally did that exact thing, and handwaving it away as American exceptionalism and gun culture, even though the only way that kind of program could happen politically in the US is with supermajority support. So you're saying it can't be gun culture despite it requiring a hell of a lot of change to get enough support to actually change, like there was some sort of culture that enjoyed having and using firearms to overcome? quote:Sorry I don't see jagoffs like Dylan Roof and Jared Loughner magicking up guns just because they really really want them. Cause firearms are the only way to gently caress poo poo up quote:Again you're claiming something is impossible when Australia effectively eliminated mass shootings. Australia didn't have that many to loving begin with. quote:Also this is a bizarre standard "oh you only reduced gun violence by something less than 100% so what have you really done?" Uh, saved thousands of lives a year? You just admitted this would take a majority to get done, which requires turning over a lot of support to your side. You are going to burn up every spec of power to get that done, and when the problems persist? What then? Seems we tried this before with pot and alcohol. Both burned through manpower and money, the former now being legalized and the latter just a goddamned trainwreck i'm all for gun control, when it's actually something meaningful that's going to allow legal owners to continue their hobby and not have to worry about the ATF kicking in their door. But this poo poo where we're gonna throw out a list of poo poo to get rid of or suddenly make illegal that doesn't do anything because gun control advocates made it on their own without insight from anyone else is just a waste and a deflection from problems at hand. Sure, have your registration list, so long as this list is kept to actual proper usage by the law and doesn't become like the fiasco in New York state with the media listing all the homes with firearms. I want something in turn though. I want to avoid lists of add ons or firearms deemed "menacing" because they look or sound bad so that if I choose to have an ak-47 I won't be penalized for not grinding off the bayonet lug or for adding a polymer stock to replace wood or having a shotgun with a heat shroud.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:If you want your guns, just be honest with us: you want it because you like guns, and you see events like Sandy Hook as an acceptable sacrifice to keep your guns. Y'know what else lets you kill a bunch of people easily? Cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Not useless, but seeing as how "effective" we are at securing a national border as is, I don't think it's gonna make a really big difference. Smuggling illegal goods over national borders is slightly more difficult, risky, and expensive than shipping in legal goods through traditional legal channels! Also, while the thread is discussing it as a hypothetical for some reason I haven't bothered to challenge because this whole debate is stuffed to the gills with conservative hyperbole, I don't think too many people are pushing for literal gun ban and confiscation of all existing guns - just like with drugs, it's far better to restrict and regulate guns. seiferguy posted:If you want your guns, just be honest with us: you want it because you like guns, and you see events like Sandy Hook as an acceptable sacrifice to keep your guns. To be fair, I can think of a realistic situation in which that happened...in post-Reconstruction America, after the federal troops were withdrawn, militias made up of ex-Confederate soldiers attacked local and state governments in a number of Southern states, overthrowing and removing the Reconstruction governments (elected in free and fair elections in which non-whites were allowed to vote) by force and replacing them with anti-equality governments which promptly instituted Jim Crow and heavy vote-rigging. For decades afterward, groups like the White League were regarded as heroes for rising up against the government to defend their ability to oppress black people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Imagine Adam Lanza or Dylann Roof, social rejects, walking into a black market, asking for some assault weapons, packing the Benjamins to afford the markup on a black market weapon and the ammo for it. Argh, gun control foiled again! They might get a free frogurt too. Volcott posted:Y'know what else lets you kill a bunch of people easily? Cars. And guess what? I have to take driver's education, pass a licensing test, have insurance, and get my license renewed every five years, and my car registration renewed every year in order to drive! Yes, cars are dangerous, and should be regulated. The primary reason for a car is to transport people / items. The primary reason for a gun is to kill people, and yet they're somehow less regulated than cars. This is such a dumb argument, and only serves as a red herring to avoid taking any responsibility on guns. seiferguy fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Other things can kill people besides guns. Checkmate, LIEberals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Y'know what else lets you kill a bunch of people easily? Cars. Guns are the best choice though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Imagine Adam Lanza or Dylann Roof, social rejects, walking into a black market, asking for some assault weapons, packing the Benjamins to afford the markup on a black market weapon and the ammo for it. Argh, gun control foiled again! I mean, you don't have to hunt the most dangerous game. You could try waterfowl. Or deer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Sure, have your registration list, so long as this list is kept to actual proper usage by the law and doesn't become like the fiasco in New York state with the media listing all the homes with firearms. I want something in turn though. I want to avoid lists of add ons or firearms deemed "menacing" because they look or sound bad so that if I choose to have an ak-47 I won't be penalized for not grinding off the bayonet lug or for adding a polymer stock to replace wood or having a shotgun with a heat shroud. I think it is a fair trade to get effective gun control measures in exchange for some removal of restrictions on obscure tough guy cosplay accessories. Maybe this should be our strategy to get the gun fanboy demographic on our side: licensing, registration, required secure storage, maximum numbers of firearms, banning of loaded guns in public, in exchange for Totally Letting You Have a Sweet Gun Like the Punisher Pew Pew
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You are arguing something is impossible even though Australia literally did that exact thing, and handwaving it away as American exceptionalism and gun culture, even though the only way that kind of program could happen politically in the US is with supermajority support. Australia had 1 mass shooting before gun control They had a 3 after Please tell me more about how taking all the guns away will solve anything The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp  So why didn't the homicide rate drastically decline? Or the armed robbery rate, how is it possible that this spiked after '96? 
WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
^ Australia also did more than just "ban the guns, that'll solve it all" too. And had more that one mass shooting prior to the buyback. Like around 8 or 9 over the course of 50's through the PA shooting mostly around random family member going ape and blasting the rest of his famiy. Arson still continues to be a fun event thoughseiferguy posted:And guess what? I have to take driver's education, pass a licensing test, have insurance, and get my license renewed every five years, and my car registration renewed every year in order to drive! Yes, cars are dangerous, and should be regulated. The primary reason for a car is to transport people / items. The primary reason for a gun is to kill people, and yet they're somehow less regulated than cars. Actually it was suggested before that just like driver's ed, we should have a gun safety course taught through the school system that was shot down for the fear it would make more people gun owners. As for the other thing about safe storage. That was another suggestion that popped up before and the idea of giving a tax break or a federal credit of some sort to encourage the purchase of a gun safe was laughed at. "maximum numbers of firearms" that might be a stalling point, honestly. What difference does it make if someone has 1 or 50? As long as they're licensed and registered and stored properly. "Loaded in public" As long as that means like walking down the street and not including ranges, hunting, etc. It's already illegal to have a loaded gun in your vehicle. In all honesty I'm not sure exactly what this would stop/prevent as loading a gun is as simple as inserting a mag, so whatever rampage you're planning on already this is gonna do nothing to stop SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Actually it was suggested before that just like driver's ed, we should have a gun safety course taught through the school system that was shot down for the fear it would make more people gun owners. Everyone is in favor of gun safety but accidental deaths with guns are a tiny fraction of gun deaths and of that tiny fraction a significant percent are either of people already roughly educated in gun use or too young to be so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Though the catch with that is that if you have the political clout to enact a constitutional amendment (never mind one that repeals a previous amendment) there are much more important issues that you could and should tackle first. Well, why not both? I think removing the idea that guns are some kind of inalienable right would be a good thing overall. As it stands amending the constitution and gun control are both equally as likely to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Australia had 1 mass shooting before gun control Please explain why crime did not skyrocket and the government did not go Skynet on the pure white man as is prophesied in all the holy tales of gun advocacy
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:
From your own loving link quote:the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms has actually declined over the last several years: quote:The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Everyone is in favor of gun safety but accidental deaths with guns are a tiny fraction of gun deaths and of that tiny fraction a significant percent are either of people already roughly educated in gun use or too young to be so. Well a class on gun safety around 18 would be for licensing, no? I mean how else do we decide who to license? Leave it to the guys people commonly refer to as jackbooted baby crunching army wannabees in the police departments? Hell, open the NICs check to everyone selling firearms. SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Please explain why crime did not skyrocket and the government did not go Skynet on the pure white man as is prophesied in all the holy tales of gun advocacy I really don't think the government will go skynet if guns are confiscated. I think you seem to think the "pro-gun" movement actually believes this one tile thinking because you yourself believe that guns will end all crime. It's bullshit. The idea that taking guns away will make Heinrich the first re-animate is bullshit. The idea that taking all guns will make Jesus return is also bullshit. If someone is desperate enough to kill a large group of people taking their ability to buy firearms legally will not stop this. No criminal is going to say "Gee, I want to kill 100 people, but I decided against it because I needed a dremel and a 1st grade knowledge of Geography to plot a 4 corner shape and push a drill into it" Here's a question for everyone: Why can we not ban knifes? Here: tell me how you can ban this http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2013/04/9mm-bsp-submachinegun.html WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:
You can ask this when you tell me what useful reason there is to shoot something other than it's destruction. Because knives have all sorts of use beyond 'kill/maim'. I don't cut my steak as practice for murder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Third, your assertion that those mean old lefties just want to ban all guns forever out of a vindictive and self-destructive compulsion to gently caress over conservative voters is downright stupid. Is that really more reasonable than "they want to put in place restrictions on dangerous weapons to reduce the possibility that they are used for violence"? I guess it's not entirely unbelievable that you'd think that, considering that your solution to gun violence is to just end all violence so there won't be any violence left to use those perfectly innocent guns for. meristem posted:Could you link the data? I'd like to play with them a bit. Here's the CDC-generated map of all suicides (in each case, the range of results in divided into color-coded quartiles):  And here's firearm suicides:  The firearm suicides map tracks very closely to the overall suicide rate. Now, there is some argument to be made about the efficacy of firearm suicides vs other methods, but even if crunch the numbers and assume you somehow magically completely eliminated firearms (unrealistic) and also assume that every firearm suicide attempt instead tried the next most effective method (also unrealistic, it's hanging/suffocation btw) then you're only talking about a few thousand extra fatalities per year. That sounds like a lot, but if you're setting the threshold for banning something at "a few thousand fatalities every year, nationwide" you're going to have to cast a much wider net than guns. (I really hope you don't like alcohol.) Now let's look at firearm homicides:  Take a look at the SF Bay Area, Cook County, NYC, and the DC-Maryland-Virginia region. Unfortunately for Vitalsigns' arguments about gun ownership being related to gun crime, some of the places with the highest rates of firearm homicide are in the places with the lowest rates of legal gun ownership and the most strict laws about gun control. Legal gun ownership is not what drives firearm homicides, or homicides in general. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You can ask this when you tell me what useful reason there is to shoot something other than it's destruction. Because knives have all sorts of use beyond 'kill/maim'. I don't cut my steak as practice for murder. Slightly missing the point there, Why is it PHYSICALLY impossible to ban knives? What you don't seem to understand is that now more than ever with the advent of 3D printers you can manufacture a firearm in your basement. You can make a 12 gauge shotgun with a drywall nail a spring and a pipe. If I use a firearm primarily for hunting does that mean I am practicing for murder? WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:I really don't think the government will go skynet if guns are confiscated. I think you seem to think the "pro-gun" movement actually believes this one tile thinking because you yourself believe that guns will end all crime. It's bullshit. The idea that taking guns away will make Heinrich the first re-animate is bullshit. The idea that taking all guns will make Jesus return is also bullshit. If someone is desperate enough to kill a large group of people taking their ability to buy firearms legally will not stop this. No criminal is going to say "Gee, I want to kill 100 people, but I decided against it because I needed a dremel and a 1st grade knowledge of Geography to plot a 4 corner shape and push a drill into it" I'm sorry but I didn't invent the idea that the government only wants to pass gun control so it can steal all our freedoms, that's a very very standard line amongst gun advocates. It's true that someone sufficiently determined can make a zipgun but it turns out most people aren't that determined and most murders aren't premeditated by people with access to a machine shop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Slightly missing the point there, Why is it PHYSICALLY impossible to ban knives? Physically knives exist on a whole other level of commonplace existence. Not many people are calling for an absolute physical gun ban though, so this is a huge red herring. Knives also are a way easier thing to improvise. Prisoners aren't putting guns together to kill each other in prison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
If it's so trivial and effective to machine a gun to make it fully automatic how come almost nobody seems to do it before committing a crime, even premeditated crimes like mass shootings or major robberies where it might prove useful
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Prisoners aren't putting guns together to kill each other in prison. You sure?  made from iron bedposts; charge made of pieces of lead from curtain tape and match-heads, to be ignited by AA batteries and a broken light bulb. On May 21, 1984 two inmates of a prison in Celle, Germany, took a jailer as a hostage, showed off their fire power by letting go at a pane of bullet-proof glass.  This gun was found along with other homemade firearms in the cell of two Celle prison inmates on November 15, 1984. The weapons had been made in the prison’s metal workshop. They were loaded with pieces of steel and match-heads.  4-barrel zip gun found on the shelves of the Kingston Penitentiary library on October 1945. The trigger, now missing, was a clasp from an overshoe WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Shelter in place, but if the gunhaver busts through the door, shoot him with your gun. Look at this fantasist, imagining himself a hero who will successfully shelter in place. More likely, you'll freeze with panic and instead of closing the front door, you'll mess up and end up with the doorknob in your butt. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:You sure? Agreed, keeping prisoners from having guns is pointless because the bad prisoners will always have access to guns. We should allow all the prisoners to have guns so a good prisoner with a gun can stop a bad prisoner with a gun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:If it's so trivial and effective to machine a gun to make it fully automatic how come almost nobody seems to do it before committing a crime, even premeditated crimes like mass shootings or major robberies where it might prove useful http://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/ Also, requires a drop-in trigger kit and bam you have a fully automatic firearm. Why don't you google the facts beforehand
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Edit: Tezzor
WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem is that people who want to "put in place restrictions on dangerous weapons to reduce the possibility that they are used for violence" are unwilling to apply the same utility logic of "making things safer" to other issues. Mmm, no. I'm pretty sure almost everybody supports most of the following: licensing, training and registration for driving, seatbelt laws, regulations on safety features on cars, regulation of use of cars on public roads, banning drunk driving, banning public intoxication, banning overserving at bars, banning unlicensed possession of explosives, safety regulations on food and medicine, etc, etc, etc. By contrast, gun advocates oppose all restrictions on firearms beyond "don't be a convicted felon," "have a photo ID," and "have $300."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:I really like that you immediately assume that the intent was to state that all prsoners should have guns, when the point of the statement was even people who aren't allowed pee in private can still access and assemble firearms. And you only had to search 70 years of history to find three examples of largely ineffective guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Radbot posted:And you only had to search 70 years of history to find three examples of largely ineffective guns. It's cute that you didn't even read the post and only saw pictures. This gun was found along with other homemade firearms in the cell of two Celle prison inmates on November 15, 1984. The weapons had been made in the prison’s metal workshop. They were loaded with pieces of steel and match-heads. Sorry, they actually constructed MULTIPLE guns. https://www.hookedonphonics.com/upload/HOP_shop/hoptvhome.jpg (MODNOTE: please do not image leech) Somebody fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:36
|
|