Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, Shoot (Connecticut)Follow

#327gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 6:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's a question of how many people he's going to actually hit and/or kill in that time. It's not just about fire rate. If it was, then every single person in that theater in Colorado would be dead, and we should be looking at a couple hundred dead kids in NewTown. You are making an absolutely false assumption that the shooter is actually a good shot, actually shoots efficiently rather than wildly, his guns don't jam, he doesn't take time to do other crazy things, yell at the sky, whatever, doesn't spend any time changing position, etc.
#328 Dec 20 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
**
297 posts
Quote:
every guy wit a gun stopped would have really killed a million-thousand others but the fact remains that even in actual mass shooting events where a person with a firearm attempted to intervene in those events, they failed to stop it


Only law enforment/military if armed would shoot the person. Your averge citizen that likes to shoot at targets at a range/club would not. Those that intend to kill others wouldn't be stopped by your average citizen that carries a gun. Like in the quote, they fail and also get injured themselves.

#329 Dec 20 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You are making an absolutely false assumption that the shooter is actually a good shot, actually shoots efficiently rather than wildly

When you're killing people in a crowd, you don't have to be.

When you're trying to kill one specific person without killing anyone else in the crowd, you're at a tremendous disadvantage.
Quote:
then return just in time to prevent the killer from taking his 4th or 5th victim.

You mean 3rd or 4th. Because once you kill your fourth, you gain the magical bullet immunity that prevents any civilian from taking you down and statistics about you no longer count.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 6:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#330 Dec 20 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But to insist that their presence would not have an impact on mass shootings is just indefensible.

Not at all. As shown, it's had no effect on events the FBI considers to be "mass shootings".


In how many of those mass shootings was there an armed civilian (not the shooter) present?

This is a completely BS claim Joph. I've already explained twice why.

Quote:
You can play the hypothetical game all night long where every guy wit a gun stopped would have really killed a million-thousand others but the fact remains that even in actual mass shooting events where a person with a firearm attempted to intervene in those events, they failed to stop it (and were often wounded or killed in the process).


Sure. Because you're only looking at cases where the number of fatalities reached a number required to be considered a "mass shooting". So by definition, any of those in which an armed civilian attempted to intervene that person failed to prevent it from being a mass shooting. But that's selection bias. It tells us nothing about whether armed civilian intervention can or does prevent mass shootings. It only says that in those cases, it didn't.


It's exactly like concluding that airbags don't prevent people from dying in car accidents because in every case where someone died in a car accident and their airbag deployed, it failed to save their life. We could insist that anyone claiming that people in accidents where their airbags deployed were saved by them are just hypothesizing that those people would have died without the airbag being there. See! We can't know for sure, so let's just pretend that none of them would have, so the airbag didn't matter.

We could. But we'd all say that person was dumb as a brick.

Quote:
Can you explain why armed civilians failed in every one of these events?


Because you're only counting the events where they failed? Can you explain why in every game that the Patriots lost this year, they failed to win? Clearly, we should just assume that the Patriots are incapable of winning a football game, right? They should just stop even bothering to try and should forfeit every game instead.

You're really trying to use this kind of logic?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#331 Dec 20 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
You can play the hypothetical game all night long where every guy wit a gun stopped would have really killed a million-thousand others but the fact remains that even in actual mass shooting events where a person with a firearm attempted to intervene in those events, they failed to stop it (and were often wounded or killed in the process).


Sure. Because you're only looking at cases where the number of fatalities reached a number required to be considered a "mass shooting". So by definition, any of those in which an armed civilian attempted to intervene that person failed to prevent it from being a mass shooting. But that's selection bias. It tells us nothing about whether armed civilian intervention can or does prevent mass shootings. It only says that in those cases, it didn't.


It's not that the civilian failed to stop it from _becoming_ a mass shooting. It's that the armed civilian failed to stop the event once it had become a mass shooting from progressing any further and themselves was shot and/or killed in the process of trying to stop it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#332 Dec 20 2012 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Can you explain why armed civilians failed in every one of these events?
Because you're only counting the events where they failed?

Why can't I look at any events where a civilian stopped a shooting after the 4th victim? Can you show me the event where this occurred?

Is this the magic "4th victim" bullet immunity I've heard so much about?
Quote:
You're really trying to use this kind of logic?

The logic where I point to a fact and you run around trying to come up with a thousand hypothetical situations you like more or conjecture as to why you're totally right?

Yes, it's exactly that kind of logic.


Edited, Dec 20th 2012 6:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#333 Dec 20 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
***
1,087 posts
#334 Dec 20 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts


Fail link?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#335 Dec 20 2012 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not even sure how you ***** up a link that bad.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#336 Dec 20 2012 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
The quote shows it was a set of double brackets around a link. And that's all.

So it's likely some screwy formatting thing with the and then around the link.

Edit:
It appears that the double brackets is automatically a "create zam wiki link" thing.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 7:58pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#337 Dec 20 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Can you explain why in every game that the Patriots lost this year, they failed to win?


NFC West is good this year, Baltimore at home, NFC West is good this year, NFC West is good this year.

Sums it up nicely. Smiley: cool

gbaji wrote:
Clearly, we should just assume that the Patriots are incapable of winning a football game, right? They should just stop even bothering to try and should forfeit every game instead.


Fine by me. Smiley: grin

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#338 Dec 20 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR wrote:
It's not that the civilian failed to stop it from _becoming_ a mass shooting. It's that the armed civilian failed to stop the event once it had become a mass shooting from progressing any further and themselves was shot and/or killed in the process of trying to stop it.


First off, that's not true at all. In most shootings where it's already become a mass shooting and civilians intervene, few if any additional people are killed (other than the shooter) after the civilian intervention occurs. To be fair, in most of these cases, the shooter is out of ammo, or attempting to escape, when the civilians intervene. But to say that they fail to prevent further deaths is quite incorrect. Here's an interesting study on exactly what you're addressing. While not official or peer reviewed, he does provide his methodology and data, and came up with some very interesting facts. When civilians are the first to intervene in shootings (armed or not), the average number of deaths is 2.33. When police are the first to intervene, the average number of deaths is 14.29.

So this certainly indicates that civilians intervention absolutely reduces the total number of deaths. Dramatically. We can sit here and speculate about why that is the case (One theory that immediately comes to mind is that in cases where civilians are able to intervene, the shooter was less well armed and less likely to kill lots of people anyway, for example), but it seems a bit like sticking your head in the sand to insist that they don't have an impact, much less to argue that if more civilians were armed that they might not have an even greater impact.

Secondly, that's not all the Mother Jones study was claiming, and it doesn't address the core issue here. If you limit your data set to only those shootings that *become* mass shootings, then by definition no one was able to prevent it from becoming a mass shooting, right? While we can't know how many potential mass shootings didn't become mass shootings because of the intervention of an armed civilian, it's a good bet that in at least some of the cases where an armed person starts shooting indiscriminately and another armed person shoots him some number of innocent lives were saved, and likely quite a few.

How many? No way to know. As I said earlier, mass shooters can vary wildly in terms of how fast or slow they shoot. How they pick their targets (or don't). How much they walk around or stick to one spot. There are a ton of factors, and frankly (and gratefully) not really a large enough data set to be able to do a great statistical analysis other than to say that they're all a little different. But it seems pretty obvious that everything else being the same, if there's an armed person around who can try to stop them, fewer innocent people will die than if there isn't. At the very least, it's unlikely that will increase the number of people killed in a mass shooting.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#339 Dec 20 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It's exactly like concluding that airbags don't prevent people from dying in car accidents because in every case where someone died in a car accident and their airbag deployed, it failed to save their life.

Really? It's exactly like that? A passive computer controlled safety mechanism tested exhaustively and tuned to react faster than humans can move is exactly the same as a random person firing a weapon at an assailant?

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Is gun control going to stop mass shootings? No, it's not. Would an armed populace stop mass shootings, no, it won't. The end. Will a law get passed based on emotion that will have unintended consequences and not solve the problem that led it to it's passage? Yes. Welcome to how all laws are passed.

Even the NRA doesn't really believe the "more armed people lead to less mass shootings" thing, it's just a way to set the starting point for negotiations as far to their side as possible. It's as stupid as "without legal guns there's no gun deaths!" Both make no sense. 99.999% of firearms won't be used in a homicide. 99.999% of gun owners will never fire a shot in defense. Can we move the fu[ck on? Guns make you feel powerful, Americans like to feel powerful. That's the root cause of "gun culture" in the US. It's a country with a wild disparity in privlidge, and our mythology says that if the rich land baron rapes your daughter and buys off the cops you and your friends go shoot him. It's the foundational myth of the US, that the people can use force to resolve unfairness. It hasn't been even vaguely true for 200 years, but who cares about that? So long as people feel like they have power in a powerless world, they don't care about the realities.

Nexa was in a school when someone showed up with a gun. No one was shot, I assume it was related to the kid losing a bet about what day in June the lake would unfreeze, and he got upset and rode his lobster chariot into the school with his father's moose pistol. That kid being killed by the pine cone arts teacher wouldn't have accomplished anything. She's from Maine. Try the veal.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#340gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 7:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope. There is no such thing. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There are very few cases where a civilian (especially armed) attempts to intervene, fails, and the killer goes on to kill a bunch more people.
#341gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 7:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The logic he's using is Smash. The logic. Try to keep up.
#342 Dec 20 2012 at 7:58 PM Rating: Excellent
**
297 posts
Quote:
Tyler Texas Courthouse shooting I believe. While the civilian didn't kill the shooter (and was actually killed himself), his action is why the shooter stopped shooting random people and attempted to flee. Police caught up to him later. The point being that no one else was killed after the civilian took action (well, except himself). There's no evidence that the shooter would have stopped shooting people if not for that intervention.


This makes no sense. The shooter is randomly shooting at people, assuming he is killing them. All of a sudden some random person dies due to the random shooting and the guy freaks and runs away...

Link this story so that facts you are not mentioning can be read. Try not to ignore this post, normally you are all about creating more hypotheticals but ignored my last post completely.
#343 Dec 20 2012 at 7:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


The logic he's using is Smash. The logic. Try to keep up.


I understood. Your metaphor sucks. I also understood what you were aiming at, although it took some effort getting past your attempts to severely obscure it.

Here's a better metaphor:

That's like saying everyone who undergoes bypass surgery and dies in the OR shouldn't have opted for surgery because it didn't save their live.

See the difference? Human related action where skill matters with uncertain outcome instead of possibly the most tested computer based safety feature in history. The attempt to equate carrying a Glock with Airbags is juvenile and distracting. Your point was valid, you ruined it by removing important factors from the metaphor allowing people to ignore it at so many points before they get to the punchline that most never will even bother. The most common reaction will be "oh yeah, guns are just like airbags" then eyrolling and ignoring the rest.

You suck at rhetoric. Let me once again remind you that when you begin a post thinking I "missed something", just stop.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#344 Dec 20 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,134 posts
This is what you meant to link. But also part of what I was trying to say, about lumping ALL native americans together. They were separate people, with separate nations, and separate views on life.

Are you trying to say that because some of them were monstrous, that ALL of them deserved to be treated as monstrous?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#345 Dec 20 2012 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Are you trying to say that because some of them were monstrous, that ALL of them deserved to be treated as monstrous?

His point is that they were savages, so murdering their children was fine because they would have grown up with a powerful hunger for white women and scalps.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#346 Dec 20 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,134 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
stupidmonkey wrote:
Are you trying to say that because some of them were monstrous, that ALL of them deserved to be treated as monstrous?


His point is that they were savages, so murdering their children was fine because they would have grown up with a powerful hunger for white women and scalps.


Well obviously, but I thought maybe there was more to it then that.

Also LTQ. FFS, it is so EASY, stop making yourself look so silly!!!!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#347 Dec 20 2012 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Tyler Texas Courthouse shooting I believe. While the civilian didn't kill the shooter (and was actually killed himself), his action is why the shooter stopped shooting random people and attempted to flee.

Nope.

lolwiki wrote:
A local resident, Mark Alan Wilson, was in his downtown loft when he heard the shooting begin. He looked out his window and saw Arroyo at the courthouse steps engaged in a shootout with law enforcement. Wilson, who held a Texas concealed handgun permit, immediately armed himself with his Colt .45 caliber pistol, and left his residence to intervene in the gun battle. Because Arroyo was already engaged in a heated gun battle with sheriff's deputies and Tyler police officers, he did not see Wilson approach from behind.

As Wilson approached Arroyo from behind, Arroyo was taking aim at his son who he had already shot in the leg and wounded. Acting to defend the life of Arroyo's son, Wilson fired a round from approximately 50 feet which struck Arroyo in the back causing him to stumble and taking his attention away from his son. A witness who saw Wilson's round strike Arroyo reported seeing "white puffs of powder-like substance" come from Arroyo's clothing. This is believed to be the first time Arroyo was hit or injured during his attack on the courthouse.

Wilson was forced to take cover behind Arroyo's truck in a prone position and exchanged fire with Arroyo. As Arroyo began to approach Wilson's position, he stood up from behind cover and fired again, hitting Arroyo. Unknown to Wilson, Arroyo was wearing a bulletproof vest, rendering Wilson's shots ineffective. Arroyo eventually fired a shot that struck Wilson, who faltered and fell from the view of witnesses, face down behind Arroyo's truck. Arroyo then walked up to Wilson and fired three more shots at him, killing him.

Officers from the Tyler Police Department including Sergeant Rusty Jacks, a trained sniper armed with a Colt AR-15 rifle, soon arrived on the scene. After more than 116 rounds had been fired, Arroyo attempted to flee and a pursuit ensued. The pursuit continued from the city streets of Tyler to a nearby highway. At the terminus of the pursuit, Arroyo fired at the vehicle of Deputy Sheriff John Smith who had pulled closely behind Arroyo's truck during the pursuit. After taking fire, Deputy Smith returned fire with his vehicle still in motion and used his patrol car to ram Arroyo’s truck. Arroyo stopped his vehicle, exited it, and attempted to fire upon Smith, whose patrol car had essentially come to a stop on the passenger side of Arroyo's truck after ramming it. Smith sped away to avoid Arroyo's shots and gunfire from other law enforcement officers. At this point with Arroyo out of his vehicle, Sgt. Rusty Jacks fired five shots from his rifle hitting Arroyo in the back of the head and killing him instantly as he attempted to get back into his vehicle.


Wilson came up on Arroyo already in a firefight with law enforcement. The whole "shooting civilians" part was over. Wilson attempted to intervene and died for his efforts. Arroyo left later after more fighting with law enforcement. Wilson's efforts, brave as they may have been, had zero effect on stopping Arroyo's shooting.

Also, Arroyo wasn't shooting random people. He was targeting specific people. And he only killed three two (edit: my mistake, the third death was Arroyo himself) people so even if you had the other details correct, it still wouldn't have qualified for the question asked. But you did a great job of showing how an armed civilian can NOT stop a shooter and die instead.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 9:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#348 Dec 20 2012 at 9:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Tyler Texas Courthouse shooting I believe. While the civilian didn't kill the shooter (and was actually killed himself), his action is why the shooter stopped shooting random people and attempted to flee. Police caught up to him later. The point being that no one else was killed after the civilian took action (well, except himself). There's no evidence that the shooter would have stopped shooting people if not for that intervention.


This makes no sense. The shooter is randomly shooting at people, assuming he is killing them. All of a sudden some random person dies due to the random shooting and the guy freaks and runs away...


Huh? It wasn't random shooting. The civilian shot the shooter and interrupted him (while he was actually attempting to kill his son, after already killing his ex-wife). The shooter was not able to kill the boy, but instead focused his attention on the civilian, eventually killing him. At that point, more police had arrived and he choose to flee. The point being had the civilian not intervened, it's almost guaranteed that the boy would have been killed and possibly several other people.

Point being that there's no way to prove what would have happened otherwise, but you also can't assume that nothing would have.

I've already posted a list of shootings that were interrupted by armed civilians. How about you go look at them instead of just pretending that none of them prevented additional loss of life. There's the New Life Church shooting, in which a heavily armed man, intent on killing as many people in the church as possible, killed two people and wounded 3 others in the process of entering the church, and was met by an armed civilian with a concealed weapon, who shot him and stopped the shooting. Given the amount of ammunition he had, it's not unreasonable that dozens of people could have died that day had the civilian not stopped him.

There are a number of cases where random people who just happened to be in a location with a concealed weapon have stopped a shooting incident cold. They just don't get much (any) national news coverage because usually few if any people are killed, and frankly it doesn't play into the anti-gun narrative that most people in the mainstream media want to tell the public.

Quote:
Link this story so that facts you are not mentioning can be read. Try not to ignore this post, normally you are all about creating more hypotheticals but ignored my last post completely.


Sigh. I've already linked to a site with a whole list of other links (twice). Here is it again. And these are just the cases where the shooting was public and it's pretty clear that more people would have died if not for the intervention. We can't know at all how many individual cases of self defense with a weapon prevent victimization, but as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the absolute lower bounds for that is 800,000 a year, with upper bound studies predicting more like 5 million, and the more moderate studies coming in around 2.5-3 million per year.


Again though, all of this is somewhat moot. The statistics are just that: statistics. I'll again point out that absent a removal of the 2nd amendment, people in the US will always have access to firearms. Given that most mass shootings are committed by people who do not have criminal backgrounds and who obtain their weapons legally, the most gun control efforts can do is limit the type of firearms they can use and there's no evidence that this will actually reduce the number of people they'll kill *or* the likelihood of a shooting happening in the first place. We can certainly look at better psychological screening methods and whatnot, but that's never going to be anywhere near 100% either (and opens up a whole privacy can of worms as well).

I think it's reasonable to not just focus on prevention but also mitigation. How do you minimize the harm caused when someone decides to go on one of these shooting sprees? None of that other stuff stops the killer once he starts shooting. The only thing that does is if someone stops him. And the one thing that the statistics do absolutely show us is that civilians will always be present at a shooting before the police arrive (obvious, but there you have it). So if some percentage of them may be armed in the area where the shooting occurs, the odds of stopping the shooting earlier and with fewer deaths is increased.

This is really not in question. If just one of the faculty had been armed at that school last week, we'd likely have far far fewer dead children today. People look at events like this and become outraged that they happen, but they fail to point any of that outrage at the lack of an incredibly simple legal change which would almost certainly save many lives and might even deter these sorts of shooters from picking schools as their target of choice in the first place (although perhaps not in this case). The unfortunate reality is when you support the laws which enforce gun free zones around schools, you are basically contributing to the deaths of those children. And the next batch. And the next. And the next. Shooters have shown that they don't care what kinds of weapons they can use, or how much you tell them it's wrong, they'll still attempt to do these kinds of things. The only thing that stops before they kill as many as they can is someone stopping them. And the odds of that happening increase dramatically if there are armed civilians in the area.


It should be a no-brainer, really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#349 Dec 20 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,134 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think
No, you don't

gbaji wrote:
it's reasonable
No, it's not

gbaji wrote:
It should be a no-brainer, really.
You are a no-brainer, safe during the zombie apocalypse.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#350gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 9:37 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) He stopped the killer from killing the boy he was targeting. You read the damn Wiki Joph. You quoted from it. He sacrificed his life to save that of a child. You're right. That just accomplished nothing at all. Had the shooter not been wearing body armor, he might have saved the boy and not lost his life either. The point is that the shooter did not attempt to leave until after Wilson shot him. At that point, despite police being in the area and exchanging shots, he had not been shot. He was holding the police at bay while shooting at his ex-wife and son. It was only when Wilson shot him that he gave up trying to kill the boy and attempted to retreat.
#351 Dec 20 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Also LTQ. FFS, it is so EASY, stop making yourself look so silly!!!!

Do you really think it's an issue of me not knowing how? Or does it seem more likely that it's an intentional stylistic choice?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 251 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (251)