Gun Homicide rates

mrsilkunderwear said:
You fail to see that many of those regulations will not stop the criminals. Your industrialized nations still have a firearm related problem.
Click to expand...
Do they? If they do, it's a much much smaller one than the US has.

I do not know how else to explain it to you. Obviously gun crime will go down if there are heavy regulations. Violent crime still exists and in some cases surpasses what we have here.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where this strawman keeps coming from. No one is arguing that gun control will result in a 100% reduction of violent crimes. You brought up the UK though. The homicide rate is 1.2 per 100,000. In the US, it's 4.7 per 100,000. Claiming that there'll still be robberies or something really doesn't resonate against a 75% drop in the homicide rate. You know what robbery victims still get to do that homicide victims don't? Be alive.

I am extremely pleased that the people in this country love their guns to death. Again coming from a third wold country where guns are mostly prohibited, I can tell that less guns is not a solution to crime.
Click to expand...
That's nice. My wife is from Peru. My brother-in-law was nearly abducted by the Shining Path when he was twelve. You know what no one from that family says? "Boy, we sure do need more guns". Regardless of your personal opinion, the data bears out that less guns is certainly a positive indicator towards a lower homicide rate in industrialized democracies. Let's say that again: Homicide rate. Just like the thread title says. Not "But people will still get beat up so we must need guns!" but homicide rate.

Another country that is a great example is Switzerland ( I think it was it). High ownership rate of firearms, yet extremely low homicide rate. So.. Guns=/=Crime
Click to expand...
High ownership rate, sure. Also tremendously more regulated than the US. But, again, the Usual Suspects go ape irate if you imply that we should have national mandatory firearm registration, required gun permits and registration for private individual sales, strict requirements on who may carry guns in public, etc -- all things in Switzerland. If you're going to hold up Switzerland as a model, you should be demanding that we follow their lead in something beyond "Lots of guns!"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
Do they? If they do, it's a much much smaller one than the US has.
Click to expand...
Depends if you consider homicide a problem.

I'm not sure where this strawman keeps coming from. No one is arguing that gun control will result in a 100% reduction of violent crimes. You brought up the UK though. The homicide rate is 1.2 per 100,000. In the US, it's 4.7 per 100,000. Claiming that there'll still be robberies or something really doesn't resonate against a 75% drop in the homicide rate. You know what robbery victims still get to do that homicide victims don't? Be alive.
Click to expand...
You are talking about these regulations keeping "gun-toting" criminals off the street. I say otherwise. They will continue to be there in some form or another. A robbery victim is less likely to be a victim if he pulls a gun on a perpetrator. 60% of the time, it works every time.

That's nice. My wife is from Peru. My brother-in-law was nearly abducted by the Shining Path when he was twelve. You know what no one from that family says? "Boy, we sure do need more guns". Regardless of your personal opinion, the data bears out that less guns is certainly a positive indicator towards a lower homicide rate in industrialized democracies. Let's say that again: Homicide rate. Just like the thread title says. Not "But people will still get beat up so we must need guns!" but homicide rate.
Click to expand...
Sucks for your brother law. I do not know why you bring him up as an example, its as if your implying the 12 year old should have had a gun. Your data is correct in suggesting that less guns in circulation would usually mean less homicides. I never denied that. As a matter of fact I said that several times. You know if we restricted knifes, we would have less knife related homicides. Scientists confirm that.

High ownership rate, sure. Also tremendously more regulated than the US. But, again, the Usual Suspects go ape irate if you imply that we should have national mandatory firearm registration, required gun permits and registration for private individual sales, strict requirements on who may carry guns in public, etc -- all things in Switzerland. If you're going to hold up Switzerland as a model, you should be demanding that we follow their lead in something beyond "Lots of guns!"
Click to expand...
Again these things would not do much to stop it if people themselves are corrupt. You think some criminal punk gives a shit about your registration or permits? If you do, well then I got a bridge to sell you.

Also again remember the 2nd amendment. This is why people are sensitive when liberals try to restrict the gun sales and ownership.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Depends if you consider homicide a problem.
Click to expand...
I do, so sure.

You are talking about these regulations keeping "gun-toting" criminals off the street. I say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Data doesn't back it up.

Sucks for your brother law. I do not know why you bring him up as an example
Click to expand...
Illustrating that personal anecdotes are great and all but they're not data.

Again these things would not do much to stop it if people themselves are corrupt.
Click to expand...
Unless the US has a corner on "corrupt people" the data suggests that they do work. Which seems more important than people saying "Nuh uh! 'Cause they'll all get guns anyway".

 
I've seen the argument several times that the tighter gun control laws in places like Chicago, DC, etc. don't work because guns can just easily be gotten in nearby areas where there aren't tighter gun control laws...

Let's say we completely banned the private sale and ownership of firearms (I know, I know, no one here is really arguing for that...) - with as freely as firearms (and drugs... and people...) cross the Mexican border, would it really do anything to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of those who would use them to do bad things?
 
UncleBob said:
I've seen the argument several times that the tighter gun control laws in places like Chicago, DC, etc. don't work because guns can just easily be gotten in nearby areas where there aren't tighter gun control laws...

Let's say we completely banned the private sale and ownership of firearms (I know, I know, no one here is really arguing for that...) - with as freely as firearms (and drugs... and people...) cross the Mexican border, would it really do anything to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of those who would use them to do bad things?
Click to expand...
No one is suggesting a complete ban so why waste our time talking about it? You are correct that folks who want to get a gun will be able to do so through illegal means as has been the case time immemorial.

Chicago and DC have major socioeconomic problems that contribute the the high murder rate by firearms. The powers to be in those cities wanted to find a way to get guns off the street but more importantly make gun possession outside of your home a felony carrying a lengthy jail sentence. Thus, the ADA wouldn't have to prove a case against one of the "bad" guys you allude to above. If they are caught with a gun on them, they are going to jail. As a counterpoint to Chicago and DC one only need to look at NYC to see that gun regulations can work. Granted it is only one of the factors that contributed to the turnaround. The increase in police presence, a major influx of money and gentrification certainly were major factors as well.

CAVEAT: There is no denying that NYC has become a "bit" of a police state for people of certain a race or ethnicity but the results are hard to argue with. Change is coming on that front as we speak. De Blasio is now focusing on remedying some of these shortcomings to make the city a better place for all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
UncleBob said:
Let's say we completely banned the private sale and ownership of firearms (I know, I know, no one here is really arguing for that...) - with as freely as firearms (and drugs... and people...) cross the Mexican border, would it really do anything to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of those who would use them to do bad things?
Click to expand...
Sure. Be easier to prosecute, be easier to determine if a gun is illegally owned (because they all are), be more difficult to transport since you couldn't throw it into your trunk with the WalMart receipt, all sorts of things. Wouldn't be an immediate effect but, again, lots of nations have tight gun regulations and aren't plagued with gangs of illegal gun-wielding hoodlums roaming the streets. I suppose that could be because they all decided "We just don't like guns" but I have a suspicion that the lack of easy availability and legal ramifications play a pretty good role.

Consider, for instance, more military grade weaponry. Go to the Middle East and north Africa and it's awash with AK-47s, RPGs and stuff like that. Do we have a fully automatic rifle problem in the US? Not really; certainly not compared to semi-automatics or revolvers. If you were some gang guy who wanted to really teach a lesson to some other gang, wouldn't an RPG into their home be a great way to do it rather than shooting with a pistol? But you don't hear of many inner city RPG attacks, do you? Or people throwing hand grenades? Do you think this is because they just have some moral objection to rocket propelled grenades or because laws against their importation and ownership make it impractical? There's no lack of RPGs in the world, they just aren't coming into the US in any great quantity (note I'm not saying none/never just the rarity).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
Data doesn't back it up.
Click to expand...
Actually it does. The rate of criminals is not tied to the rate of firearm circulation.

Illustrating that personal anecdotes are great and all but they're not data.
Click to expand...
Yet they do provide a good insight, like they did in both of our cases.

Unless the US has a corner on "corrupt people" the data suggests that they do work. Which seems more important than people saying "Nuh uh! 'Cause they'll all get guns anyway".
Click to expand...
I think you miss the picture. If a criminal needs a firearm and has the means to acquire it, then he will. Like I said before, these criminals do not just magically disappear. Violent crime still persists and therefore the root of the problems lies somewhere else.

 
Nah, I've already pointed to other nations who don't have complete bans as potential models.  I'll admit that you can play all sorts of games with "But you said as much as possible!" though.  This is just a web forum though; I'm not trying to nail down exact policy or write legislation here.

 
kill3r7 said:
CAVEAT: There is no denying that NYC has become a "bit" of a police state for people of certain a race or ethnicity but the results are hard to argue with.
Click to expand...
Numerically, perhaps. I'm not sure that they pass ethical/constitutional litmus tests, given the very, very, very disproportionate racial impact of (for one thing) stop and frisk.

Speaking of NYC, I always wondered about the economic renovation of Times Square (from seedy vice district to family friendly theme park) and how much that has impacted crime rates. Certainly the gentrification of Brooklyn is moving crime from out of there to wherever folks are being displaced to. But that's a whole other conversation.

 
mykevermin said:
Numerically, perhaps. I'm not sure that they pass ethical/constitutional litmus tests, given the very, very, very disproportionate racial impact of (for one thing) stop and frisk.

Speaking of NYC, I always wondered about the economic renovation of Times Square (from seedy vice district to family friendly theme park) and how much that has impacted crime rates. Certainly the gentrification of Brooklyn is moving crime from out of there to wherever folks are being displaced to. But that's a whole other conversation.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all fronts. It's kind of the chicken and the egg question. Was it the influx of money or was it the police presence that changed NYC? I would argue a little bit of both.

I do think that the police department deserves credit for cleaning the streets in the mid to late 90's, the constitutionality of their methods can be debated ad nauseam, I don't think a lot of what they did was constitutional, but it's hard to deny the results. That said, let's be realistic here, they merely made it difficult for folks to partake in seedy businesses out in the open. You can still buy drugs, and get your dick sucked if you want to but everything is now behind close doors. However, the police presence is still there and one could argue that it serves as a pretty strong deterrent. During the same time period the "suits" decided they were tired of the burbs and started to reclaim Manhattan. I recently saw a census graph on Reddit which showed the change in household incomes and cost of living in NYC over the last 20 years. As you can imagine the numbers are staggering. What else is there to say about the socioeconomic change in NYC other than there are now brownstones in Harlem that sell for $3-$4 million dollars a piece on a monthly basis.

Brooklyn on the other hand is a slightly different story. Artist and folks looking for a more authentic NYC experience were the fist people to move into Park Slope and Wililamsburg, primarily after the "suits" displaced them from Manhattan. In the early 00s gentrification started to happen, faster then anywhere else I've seen or heard of. There is a pretty good blog on topic called Brownstoner. The only other place I can think of to compare Brooklyn to is Hoboken, but what has happened in Brooklyn has far outpaced the changes in Hoboken.

Bringing our conversation back to the original topic, I hate myself for saying this, because it is such a loaded statement, but the truth of the matter is that investment bankers "might" commit a lot of white collar crimes but they sure as shit are not going to rob folks at gunpoint or shoot each other. Even more telling is the fact that they get around NYC without having a need to carry a gun on them for protection. Life moves along, business as usual without the need for guns.

That said NYC like every other city on this planet is not absent of crime, criminals and corruption but a the end of the day anyone who's lived in the area can attest that the last 20 years have brought about a new high.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
Nah, I've already pointed to other nations who don't have complete bans as potential models. I'll admit that you can play all sorts of games with "But you said as much as possible!" though. This is just a web forum though; I'm not trying to nail down exact policy or write legislation here.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah you have pointed them out but unfortunately you do not see the big picture. Thats ok though, its not like you are writing a legislation here.

 
I can never understand why people like the OP have fetishes for how things are in different countries but stays in a country that he disagrees with the norms.

 
Spokker said:
de Blasio is finally going to clean up New York City.
Click to expand...
We'll see soon enough, as de Blasio has to renegotiate 150 plus municipal union contracts this year. If he can get past that hurdle unscathed things will be just fine. That said, the city needed Giuliani and Bloomberg to achieve a level of prosperity it enjoys today.

 
Spokker said:
de Blasio is finally going to clean up New York City.
Click to expand...
Yeah he is going to clean it up because everyone is going to flee the state when they see how horrible his policies will be.

If New York was much smaller time and had less businesses supporting it it would have failed decades ago like Detroit has in recent times because of all the horrible socialist policies put in place to stifle freedoms and economic prosperity.
 
RPGNinja said:
Yeah he is going to clean it up because everyone is going to flee the state when they see how horrible his policies will be.

If New York was much smaller time and had less businesses supporting it it would have failed decades ago like Detroit has in recent times because of all the horrible socialist policies put in place to stifle freedoms and economic prosperity.
Click to expand...
Spoken like someone who has never lived in NYC. Also, if its policies are so stifling to economic prosperity and freedom why do people from all over the globe flock to NYC? Furthermore, why do business continue to operate and prosper in this city?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
irideabike said:
I can never understand why people like the OP have fetishes for how things are in different countries but stays in a country that he disagrees with the norms.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that his worldview is wider than just "gun regulation".

There's things I think other places do better. There's things I think the US does better. There's innumerable things I enjoy about the US that have nothing to do with political/social policy at all. The things I think we could do better I'd rather see us change than move to somewhere else and lose the other things I enjoy. As a citizen of the United States, I'm empowered to try to change and mold the nation to how I think things should be via various means (voting, activism, whatever). So implying that someone should just "move to France" (as the usual saying goes) is missing a huge part of what it means to be an American citizen. It's not about shutting up and just accepting things or leaving.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that his worldview is wider than just "gun regulation".

There's things I think other places do better. There's things I think the US does better. There's innumerable things I enjoy about the US that have nothing to do with political/social policy at all. The things I think we could do better I'd rather see us change than move to somewhere else and lose the other things I enjoy. As a citizen of the United States, I'm empowered to try to change and mold the nation to how I think things should be via various means (voting, activism, whatever). So implying that someone should just "move to France" (as the usual saying goes) is missing a huge part of what it means to be an American citizen. It's not about shutting up and just accepting things or leaving.
Click to expand...
This is Vs, we don't need that logic around these parts.

 
kill3r7 said:
Spoken like someone who has never lived in NYC. Also, if its policies are so stifling to economic prosperity and freedom why do people from all over the globe flock to NYC? Furthermore, why do business continue to operate and prosper in this city?
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true idiot, I was born in New York -_-. Businesses continue to operate because New York IS New York, it is like a secondary center of the universe. If you think Detroit had the same kind of support New York had then you need to get your head out of your ass. Detroit wasn't the financial center either and it didn't have things like the Stock Exchange and all the businesses that come with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RPGNinja said:
Spoken like a true idiot, I was born in New York -_-. Businesses continue to operate because New York IS New York, it is like a secondary center of the universe. If you think Detroit had the same kind of support New York had then you need to get your head out of your ass. Detroit wasn't the financial center either and it didn't have things like the Stock Exchange and all the business that comes with it.
Click to expand...
 
RPGNinja said:
Spoken like a true idiot, I was born in New York -_-. Businesses continue to operate because New York IS New York, it is like a secondary center of the universe. If you think Detroit had the same kind of support New York had then you need to get your head out of your ass. Detroit wasn't the financial center either and it didn't have things like the Stock Exchange and all the businesses that come with it.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear you were born in NY. Unfortunately that doesn't make your statement any less idiotic considering that the NYSE and the businesses associated with it were here in the 70s, 80s and early 90s and yet the city was an utter shit hole. So yeah, keep telling yourself that NYC is an awful place to live in with policies that stifle business and liberty. I'm sure the rest of us will continue to enjoy living and working in it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That makes sense.  Hard to ask the people who have been shot to death what they think about it.  Pity we can't though since I bet they'd have some solid opinions on how great guns are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really?  If I was getting shot at, I bet my thoughts would be "I wish he didn't have a gun so no one was shooting at me" before "I wish I had a gun so we could be shooting each other".

But, hey!   You found a story where a person was murdered with a gun and then that guy was shot with a gun so YAY GUNS!!! :D/ :twoguns:

 
Syntax Error said:
Really? If I was getting shot at, I bet my thoughts would be "I wish he didn't have a gun so no one was shooting at me" before "I wish I had a gun so we could be shooting each other".

But, hey! You found a story where a person was murdered with a gun and then that guy was shot with a gun so YAY GUNS!!! :D/ :twoguns:
Click to expand...
So you do want to ban all guns from citizen ownership?

 
egofed said:
So you do want to ban all guns from citizen ownership?
Click to expand...
Probably not. I mean, if my options were "No guns" or "Guns for everyone" I'd pick the former in a heartbeat. As more of a shade of gray, I'd try to model our gun penetration, regulations and restrictions more after the numerous countries mentioned upthread who manage to not "ban all guns" and yet don't need to celebrate how awesome guns are when someone gets murdered and then the murderer also gets shot. You can probably re-read the first 75 posts to get a better feel for all that.

 
Syntax Error said:
Really? If I was getting shot at, I bet my thoughts would be "I wish he didn't have a gun so no one was shooting at me" before "I wish I had a gun so we could be shooting each other".

But, hey! You found a story where a person was murdered with a gun and then that guy was shot with a gun so YAY GUNS!!! :D/ :twoguns:
Click to expand...
Strange. A normal person would think "How do I defend myself?"

I am not celebrating the fact that guns are awesome. I am just merely pointing out that lives were saved that day because a professor chose to ignore the dumb rule of a gun free zone. YAY common sense. :D/

 
I'd think that "Common sense" would start with strict measures to keep guns out of the hands of a felon who had been committed multiple times for psychiatric problems but I guess I'm just a "glass is half dead" kind of guy.   But, hey, he did it because he was mad at the "dumb rule of a gun free zone" so I guess he's a martyr for liberty for something.

 
Syntax Error said:
I'd think that "Common sense" would start with strict measures to keep guns out of the hands of a felon who had been committed multiple times for psychiatric problems but I guess I'm just a "glass is half dead" kind of guy. But, hey, he did it because he was mad at the "dumb rule of a gun free zone" so I guess he's a martyr for liberty for something.
Click to expand...
Oh are there no laws against selling guns to minors, felons and the criminally insane people? Before you reply keep in mind we already went over this in the first few pages.

 
Right, we did.  And I questioned why some people were so adamant against blocking any sort of access for these people to get guns such as straw sales, private purchases, gun shows, mandatory reporting of "stolen" firearms, etc.  In fact, I think I even framed it in the context of "We could take a lot from other nations with much stricter regulations without playing the 'ban all guns' card". 

Because I'd call "Don't let the crazy felon just buy a gun at a gun show or via straw purchase where there's no regulation" a common sense sort of thing but I guess not.  "Common sense" is apparently having someone get murdered by an insane felon with a gun and then calling is a big gun victory because someone shot the murderer.

 
Syntax Error said:
Right, we did. And I questioned why some people were so adamant against blocking any sort of access for these people to get guns such as straw sales, private purchases, gun shows, mandatory reporting of "stolen" firearms, etc. In fact, I think I even framed it in the context of "We could take a lot from other nations with much stricter regulations without playing the 'ban all guns' card".

Because I'd call "Don't let the crazy felon just buy a gun at a gun show or via straw purchase where there's no regulation" a common sense sort of thing but I guess not. "Common sense" is apparently having someone get murdered by an insane felon with a gun and then calling is a big gun victory because someone shot the murderer.
Click to expand...
I am sure I or someone answered it before but I will do it again. There are some people who do not think that a federal government can be trusted because they have shown to abuse the power. Richard Nixon, George Bush and president Barack Obama are good examples of that. Some people are ok with restrictions on the state level but the results are abysmal.

This might seem like common sense but to many it does not. No one called this a victory and trying to label me as a crazy gun nut is a poor tactic. Try to keep it a bit more civil.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
This might seem like common sense but to many it does not. No one called this a victory and trying to label me as a crazy gun nut is a poor tactic. Try to keep it a bit more civil.
Click to expand...
You're the one who bumped this thread just to post the story. You obviously thought it was some "win" or else you wouldn't have bothered. If you need to start backpedaling now that says more about your platform than any missing "civility".

But to stick directly to your question there ("Guns are bad?") I'd have to say -- based on the story you present as evidence in which an insane felon gets access to a gun and murders a psychiatrist because he's mad over a "No guns policy" -- yes. I'm going to go with a solid "yes" on that one. Must be because I'm lacking in that great "common sense" or something.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
egofed said:
Do we know how this guy got his gun? It says it was unlicensed.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything in regards to the gun used this time. He had multiple gun violations on his record including carrying an unlicensed gun while on parole and armed bank robbery. Thankfully, he was apparently able to easily get himself a gun this time as well (plus the two other guns found in his home after the fact) and exercise his Second Amendment Solutions when he protested the hospital's gun policy.

We wouldn't want any regulations or restrictions though because Scary Obama or Scary Bush. Much better to let the felons with multiple gun violations and committed to mental hospitals build up a gun collection before going on a murder spree.

 
Syntax Error said:
You're the one who bumped this thread just to post the story. You obviously thought it was some "win" or else you wouldn't have bothered. If you need to start backpedaling now that says more about your platform than any missing "civility".

But to stick directly to your question there ("Guns are bad?") I'd have to say -- based on the story you present as evidence in which an insane felon gets access to a gun and murders a psychiatrist because he's mad over a "No guns policy" -- yes. I'm going to go with a solid "yes" on that one. Must be because I'm lacking in that great "common sense" or something.
Click to expand...
Obviously you knew exactly what I thought at the time of the post. I posted the story in order to show that there could have been another massacre in a gun free zone. No backpedaling here.

Guns are not bad. They are an inanimate objects. If we apply your logic then we should be banning knives, guns and even the government.

 
Must be awesome to have a pure black & white mindset.  I can say a dozen times that I'm seeking a middle ground away from "ban all guns" using the many, many more successful nations (in terms of gun homicides) as a model but all you can do is say "You want to ban all guns!  So let's ban knives!"

I bet that sort of simplistic clarity is very self-comforting.  I'm a little envious.

 
Syntax Error said:
Must be awesome to have a pure black & white mindset. I can say a dozen times that I'm seeking a middle ground away from "ban all guns" using the many, many more successful nations (in terms of gun homicides) as a model but all you can do is say "You want to ban all guns! So let's ban knives!"

I bet that sort of simplistic clarity is very self-comforting. I'm a little envious.
Click to expand...
No, I just looked at the facts. Changed my mind and went from being anti gun to believer in a right to defend yourself. I only used your logic which you brought up. Other counties have lower homicide rates and yet crime statistics are higher or around the same level. Again we had this argument before. Seems I still look at the big picture unlike some other people.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Other counties have lower homicide rates and yet crime statistics are higher or around the same level. Again we had this argument before.
Click to expand...
The one where you tried to equivocate being mugged with being murdered so you could say the crime between the nations was the same? Yeah, I remember :lol:

 
Syntax Error said:
The one where you tried to equivocate being mugged with being murdered so you could say the crime between the nations was the same? Yeah, I remember :lol:
Click to expand...
No, I think you are referring to one with the rapes and assaults. If memory serves right you said something like rape wasn't as bad as getting shot.

 
Memory doesn't serve you right.  I'm not sure if you were intentionally misstating my comments out of malice or if you were just too lazy to scroll up 44 posts in the same thread.

That said, sure, I'll go out on a limb and say that being raped isn't "as bad" as being murdered (again, note topic: gun homicide rates).  Which, based on our justice system and the penalties we assign to each, isn't all that crazy a stance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
Memory doesn't serve you right. I'm not sure if you were intentionally misstating my comments out of malice or if you were just too lazy to scroll up 44 posts in the same thread.

That said, sure, I'll go out on a limb and say that being raped isn't "as bad" as being murdered (again, note topic: gun homicide rates). Which, based on our justice system and the penalties we assign to each, isn't all that crazy a stance.
Click to expand...
Neither. Either I confused you with someone else or just made a mistake.

 
We need to ban rocks. 

You can throw a rock at someone and really hurt them. You could probably kill someone if you dropped a big enough rock on them.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top