mission vending Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 An AR-15, or the so-called "Assault Weapon", was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged.The Police said they found the rifle in the car. But the Administration probably had a pre-planned attack already waiting, to ban so-called assault weapons and jumped on that line of reporting, knowing it was a lie, which included people like sycophant Piers Morgan who said the shooter used an AR-15 that shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, as if it were a machine gun. Could it be that the Democrat Liberals and THEIR SUPPORTERS were pushing for the new law, hoping they could do it, before the Coroner released the info? http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donut Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 They want to ban all guns because they're responsible for killing people..... The people who are holding them and pulling the triggers have nothing to do with it..... It's the piece of machinery that is the real problem... Not a person's mental state.... Somebody tell me that I don't have to raise my hand to tell everyone I'm being sarcastic...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donut Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I've got a friend who is the Sheriff of El Dorado County in California (John D'Agostini used to work here in Amador County) who wrote a letter to the Vice President.... The article is here: http://www.inedc.com/1-3568 The full letter (if you don't want to see the article): http://www.edcgov.us/Sheriff/VP_Biden_Letter.aspx I'm waiting to see if other Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police start to follow suit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Profits Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 This is exactly the type of guy we should all be worried about having a gun. Let me illustrate my point. If all manner of firearms were removed from within the borders of the United States those in society would who have no respect for the rule of law, would still find a way to obtain and use firearms. Let's take a look at firearm death rates per 100,000 in the UK, and Canada, where "all manner of firearms are removed from within the borders". Let's compare that to the United States, where any idiot can get a gun. http://www.gunpolicy..._000_people/194 Now, let's take a look at the number of gun deaths that occur, just so we can get a good overview of the magnitude of the problem. http://www.gunpolicy..._gun_deaths/194 Our Nation's problem with violent crime is not an issue of firearms; it is an issue of mental illness and antisocial behavior. Yes, it is absolutely without a doubt an issue of firearms. Have you ever met anyone who considered themselves to be an irresponsible gun owner? Me neither. Have you ever met anyone who considered themselves to be a "bad guy"? I'm specifically referring to the slogan "if our guns get taken away, then only the bad guys will have guns". Let me paint a few scenarios that should make sense to anyone with any understanding of human behavior. Situation Number One: I'm heading back to my car parked in the Walmart parking lot. I see a guy with a late model Cadillac Escalade swing his door wildly into the door of my BMW 335i. The impact of his door hitting my rear fender puts a dent in my car that's about 4 or 5 mm deep. I watched him do it, it so I confront him. I say to him "hey, you dented my car." He says to me "I didn't dent your car". I say "Yeah, you did. And you're going to pay for it." He says "what are you gonna do about it?" I said "I'm going to take your insurance information, and I'm going to bill them for the repair." He said "Oh yeah?" and he pulls out a gun. Why, you might ask? Because he has to "defend" himself from me. I was a threat to him. And he has a gun, so he thinks he has the upper hand. Situation Number Two: A man farted while walking down the sidewalk. A guy in adjacent house was offended by this, and felt threatened. He was a responsible gun owner, so he pulled out his 9mm and shot the guy in the head. He later died. Situation Number Three: You're at a night club. There's a really hot woman grinding on another man. The guy she's grinding on doesn't know the guy across from her is her boyfriend, and her boyfriend is not impressed. Her boyfriend shoves the guy she's grinding against. The guy she's grinding against feels threatened, so he punches her boyfriend in the face. Now the guy who did the shoving feels his life is in danger, so he pulls out his concealed .45 and shoots him in the chest. Threats are 100% subjective, but everyone thinks the use of a firearm was 100% unavoidable. The problem is that 99% of society has some serious judgement problems, and doesn't think very coherently when they're challenged, emotional, or stressed. Everyone thinks the use of a firearm is 100% needed, despite the fact that nearly all situations could have easily been walked away from. The more guns you put in the hands of more people, the more killings will occur. Stuff like this happen every single day of the week, hundreds of times around the country. All because people feel empowered by the authority a gun gives them to instantly take another's life. All you have to do is read the news blotter to see how bad it really is. Gun advocates say stuff like "well, if he wasn't going to kill with a gun... it would have been a pair of shoelaces, or a knife, or a baseball bat." That's such an ignorant argument because to kill someone with shoelaces requires a much higher level of commitment and emotion that to simply pull a trigger and end someone's life. And it's not simply an argument about "bad guy's versus good guys". Everyone starts out as a good guy. Good guys become bad guys all the time. All that needs to happen for violence to occur is to engage someone who's having a really bad day, a little push, a little heated emotion. And all they need is a gun. They're not going to kill you with shoelaces. Everyone considers themselves a good guy. Everyone perceives THEY are the good guy when it comes to a confrontation that they believe requires the use of a firearm. So what happens when you put two good guys in the middle of a heated situation that would normally end with someone getting punched in the face? Someone's getting their brains sprayed on the ground. If you want to read a really insightful article, I recommend checking this out: CNN: Guns endanger more than they protect http://www.cnn.com/2...sion/index.html The people most victimized by this nightmare vision end up being the people who believe it -- and who carry the weapons that kill or maim their neighbors, their relatives, their spouses, and random passersby. If guns didn't contribute to an increase in violence, or an increase in deaths, then the intentional homicide rate of the UK should be close to identical to that of the US. But it's not. In the US, that rate is 4.8 per 100,000. In the UK, that rate is 1.2 per 100,000. It's easy to conclude that guns do not make society a safer place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlefrog Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Being unbiased here, but this is why my family and I will ALWAYS have firearms and the know-how to put a few well-placed rounds where they need to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlefrog Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 This is why my family and I will always own firearms and will be trained to use them. Gun Control: A few well placed bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlefrog Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 My great uncle has been a full-line vender for 40 years. He has locations in a few high-risk areas. He legally carries a concealed Colt M1911 and he has used it to fend off would-be thieves by and has saved him from burglary on more than one occasion. Needless to say, he always moves those locations after an incident! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Profits Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 They want to ban all guns because they're responsible for killing people..... The people who are holding them and pulling the triggers have nothing to do with it..... It's the piece of machinery that is the real problem... Not a person's mental state.... Somebody tell me that I don't have to raise my hand to tell everyone I'm being sarcastic...... If you're a LEO, you really truly believe that with all the wackadoodles you deal with on a daily basis... the world would be a safer place if they all had guns? People can't co-exist without massive amounts of conflict. You step on someones foot in the wrong area, and they want to fight you. Look at someone weird and they want to fight you. Tell someone you're not going to give them a cigarette, and they pull out a box cutter and slash you. All of these people feel they should have the right to carry a gun. You honestly in your heart of hearts think the world would be a safer place if these people had firearms? I'm not talking about assault rifles. I'm simply talking about firearms. Glock 45's anyone can pick up at their local gun store for $700. The one thing that is slightly reassuring about when it comes to the instability of general society, and the inability to peacefully co-exist, is that the exponentially higher rate of conflict in poor areas means these particular people are more likely to kill each other than anyone else. High crime areas tend to be extremely segregated. I'm certain, however, that handing out killing tools to society in general is not a smart idea. This whole theory that "arming your neighbor makes everyone safer" is a huge crock of sh1t. If that were true, why aren't we gifting nuclear weapons to the Middle East? It's the same philosophy. The world is an unstable place, and weapons in anyone's hands simply makes your death more imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission vending Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 The topic on these two threads is pretty much the same so I merged them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musser Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Gee if only Travon Martin had had a gun and shot George Zimmerman because he was afraid and being stalked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donut Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 The problem is that 99% of society has some serious judgement problems, and doesn't think very coherently when they're challenged, emotional, or stressed. Everyone thinks the use of a firearm is 100% needed, despite the fact that nearly all situations could have easily been walked away from. Gun advocates say stuff like "well, if he wasn't going to kill with a gun... it would have been a pair of shoelaces, or a knife, or a baseball bat." That's such an ignorant argument because to kill someone with shoelaces requires a much higher level of commitment and emotion that to simply pull a trigger and end someone's life. So what you're telling me is that if for some reason YOU had a gun, you'd be shooting people if they dented your car, rubbed your girlfriend, or you were somehow offended or threatened (as mentioned in your 3 scenarios)? Of course not. And the reason is that your statement of 99% of all society has judgement problems is incorrect. Not everyone thinks the use of a firearm is needed. In fact, most people do NOT use a firearm to commit crimes... As for your second statement... Believe me, whether you use a shoelace, a knife, or a gun, it requires a high level of commitment if you're going to kill, and it is NOT "easier" and less of a commitment to pull a trigger. Again, if YOU had a gun, would you use it all the time? Of course not. Not unless your or the life of another is in danger. The people who use firearms without any regard are the ones who SHOULD NOT have access.... I don't think you'll get any argument over that one from anyone. I used to believe in gun control to a large measure.... "make it hard for people to get guns"... That way when I pulled them over or went to their house, I would have less of a chance of running across a gun and getting shot... but over the last 16 years, I've come to realize that it's not the people who obtain firearms legally I have to be wary of.... It's the one who COULDN'T get the firearm legally.... That's the guy I gotta worry about... I'm not saying just hand guns out at the supermarket to every Tom, golpher and Harry... Heck, I wouldn't have an issue with having people take some sort of testing to make sure they're not prone to being a psychopath... I don't think anyone wants someone who isn't quite "right" in the head of having guns... But keeping law abiding citizens from ownership isn't the answer... It is my belief that if a criminal knows or believes that a victim "might" have a firearm, he's going to think twice about doing something... If the criminal knows that the victim "does not" have a firearm, he knows he has nothing to worry about and will commit the crime without that second thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission vending Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 Hey Profits, nice to see your ugly avatar around here again..... Let me begin with this comment. Gun control, like abortion, is one of the hot button issues of our day. I'll acknowledge right now that I probably won't change your mind and that you won't change mine, but I think its important to have a civil discussion to gain understanding of each others positions. From understanding solutions can be achieved. That said.. From your post... #4 "Let's take a look at firearm death rates per 100,000 in the UK, and Canada, where "all manner of firearms are removed from within the borders". Let's compare that to the United States, where any idiot can get a gun." Instead of firearm death rates lets take a brief look at murder rates. A graphic chart of current worldwide homicide/murder rates: http://www.chartsbin.com/view/1454 About what you would expect if you pay attention to the world news. It is also worth mentioning that in many of the countries that have a higher murder rate than ours have for all practical purposes banned guns. Same for Chicago, the state of Illinois and the City of Chicago have pretty strict gun control laws but it doesn't seem to be working http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/chicago-homicide-rate-alr_n_2433329.html Why did I mention this? To illustrate that banning guns does not necessarily make you safe. In my signature line I have had a quote from Ben Franklin, "Those willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither...." And let me add my own corollary ... and those that do will receive neither For me this discussion is more philosophical than about a specific law. To me the base question is what kind of government do we want? Do we want a all intrusive nanny state or do we want limited government and accept responsibility for our actions. I don't believe that the government (local, state and federal combined) can pass enough laws and hire enough law enforcement officers to effectively and efficiently protect me and my family no matter how much of my earnings they take. The scenarios your present are all plausible and some version of them probably happens every day in this country. IMO, even if guns were unavailable these scenarios would still happen. The reason being is that, again IMO, there is a fundamental breakdown in our society that is occurring where people have lost the ability to have common courtesy and manners around their fellow man. The reason for this is complex and I don't think anyone has been able to quantify it so far. Is it the breakdown of the nuclear family, our education system, exposure to violence, exposure to artificial colors and chemicals or maybe because as humans we can't live in the high density cities that we have migrated to? Whatever the reason, even if guns were unavailable in these scenarios almost inevitably violence will occur. So do we now ban baseball bats, tire irons or fists as they become the next weapon of choice? Perhaps addressing this societal question will do more to reduce gun violence than any ban ever would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Action Vending Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Profits do you believe that some one who is willing to kill people with a gun cares about whether or not it is legal for them to have a gun?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will.vend Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Damn profits you come back with both barrels blazing! Oh wait bad choice of words! Welcome back I always enjoy your post. Btw my spoon made me fat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donut Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 This is another letter..... This one is from my County Sheriff.... He makes some really good points. http://www.amadorsheriff.org/assets/files/SHERIFFS%20LETTER.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moondog Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 This is another letter..... This one is from my County Sheriff.... He makes some really good points. http://www.amadorshe...IFFS LETTER.pdf To tell you the truth Donut, I'm just not real sure about all of this. Personally I think that every time they want to write a new law they should have to take three other ones off the books. As for assault weapons, I'm not too sure what I'd do with one anyway. They don't improve your aim, they take all the fun out of hunting and who ever heard of anybody ducking a mugging by whipping out their M16? I've already got too much crap laying around here now I don't need. When I bought my last gun there was a 10 day waiting period which was okay by me as I didn't have anything that needed killing that day anyway. Which reminds me of that TV show, My Name Is Earl, when Earl's ex wanted to go get a gun because she needed to kill somebody right away but ended up with a crossbow because that's all she could get on such short notice. A crossbow, now there's my idea of the perfect assault weapon - no noise, totally accurate and you get to reuse the ammo. But I digress. ........................... It just seems to me if they'd stop trying to ban things, people would stop wanting to have them so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moondog Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 This is exactly the type of guy we should all be worried about having a gun. Let me illustrate my point. Let's take a look at firearm death rates per 100,000 in the UK, and Canada, where "all manner of firearms are removed from within the borders". Let's compare that to the United States, where any idiot can get a gun. http://www.gunpolicy..._000_people/194 Now, let's take a look at the number of gun deaths that occur, just so we can get a good overview of the magnitude of the problem. http://www.gunpolicy..._gun_deaths/194 Yes, it is absolutely without a doubt an issue of firearms. Have you ever met anyone who considered themselves to be an irresponsible gun owner? Me neither. Have you ever met anyone who considered themselves to be a "bad guy"? I'm specifically referring to the slogan "if our guns get taken away, then only the bad guys will have guns". Let me paint a few scenarios that should make sense to anyone with any understanding of human behavior. Situation Number One: I'm heading back to my car parked in the Walmart parking lot. I see a guy with a late model Cadillac Escalade swing his door wildly into the door of my BMW 335i. The impact of his door hitting my rear fender puts a dent in my car that's about 4 or 5 mm deep. I watched him do it, it so I confront him. I say to him "hey, you dented my car." He says to me "I didn't dent your car". I say "Yeah, you did. And you're going to pay for it." He says "what are you gonna do about it?" I said "I'm going to take your insurance information, and I'm going to bill them for the repair." He said "Oh yeah?" and he pulls out a gun. Why, you might ask? Because he has to "defend" himself from me. I was a threat to him. And he has a gun, so he thinks he has the upper hand. Situation Number Two: A man farted while walking down the sidewalk. A guy in adjacent house was offended by this, and felt threatened. He was a responsible gun owner, so he pulled out his 9mm and shot the guy in the head. He later died. Situation Number Three: You're at a night club. There's a really hot woman grinding on another man. The guy she's grinding on doesn't know the guy across from her is her boyfriend, and her boyfriend is not impressed. Her boyfriend shoves the guy she's grinding against. The guy she's grinding against feels threatened, so he punches her boyfriend in the face. Now the guy who did the shoving feels his life is in danger, so he pulls out his concealed .45 and shoots him in the chest. Threats are 100% subjective, but everyone thinks the use of a firearm was 100% unavoidable. The problem is that 99% of society has some serious judgement problems, and doesn't think very coherently when they're challenged, emotional, or stressed. Everyone thinks the use of a firearm is 100% needed, despite the fact that nearly all situations could have easily been walked away from. The more guns you put in the hands of more people, the more killings will occur. Stuff like this happen every single day of the week, hundreds of times around the country. All because people feel empowered by the authority a gun gives them to instantly take another's life. All you have to do is read the news blotter to see how bad it really is. Gun advocates say stuff like "well, if he wasn't going to kill with a gun... it would have been a pair of shoelaces, or a knife, or a baseball bat." That's such an ignorant argument because to kill someone with shoelaces requires a much higher level of commitment and emotion that to simply pull a trigger and end someone's life. And it's not simply an argument about "bad guy's versus good guys". Everyone starts out as a good guy. Good guys become bad guys all the time. All that needs to happen for violence to occur is to engage someone who's having a really bad day, a little push, a little heated emotion. And all they need is a gun. They're not going to kill you with shoelaces. Everyone considers themselves a good guy. Everyone perceives THEY are the good guy when it comes to a confrontation that they believe requires the use of a firearm. So what happens when you put two good guys in the middle of a heated situation that would normally end with someone getting punched in the face? Someone's getting their brains sprayed on the ground. If you want to read a really insightful article, I recommend checking this out: CNN: Guns endanger more than they protect http://www.cnn.com/2...sion/index.html If guns didn't contribute to an increase in violence, or an increase in deaths, then the intentional homicide rate of the UK should be close to identical to that of the US. But it's not. In the US, that rate is 4.8 per 100,000. In the UK, that rate is 1.2 per 100,000. It's easy to conclude that guns do not make society a safer place. Since when were all the guns banned in Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogcow Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 i like guns, i own guns, but frankly most of the people i know who legally carry scare the s*t out of me, a lot of them are looking for trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musser Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 i like guns, i own guns, but frankly most of the people i know who legally carry scare the s*t out of me, a lot of them are looking for trouble. DC you and I are in the same frame of mind. Sorry folks but most of the people I know with lots of guns shouldn't be allowed to have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission vending Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 Let's not forget that the 2nd amendment according to our founding fathers was primarily to enable its citizens to protect themselves from the tyranny of their government. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke. A armed population is called "citizens" a unarmed population is called "subjects" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission vending Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 DC you and I are in the same frame of mind. Sorry folks but most of the people I know with lots of guns shouldn't be allowed to have any. Musser and DC I agree with you on this point, I have friends that by today's standards of normalcy would be considered to be out in left field and I would not mind if they couldn't have guns. Again, we come back to the question of what kind of government do we want? For me, I want small government that does not intrude into my personal life and decisions. The result of that is that , yes, some people that shouldn't have guns will get them, but on the other hand if you ban guns people that shouldn't have guns will still get them. If they do something bad they will suffer the consequences, one way or the other. My support of this position also means that I have to accept the risk something happening to me or my family on a random basis due to the actions of a disturbed or enraged individual. I accept this risk as part of living in a FREE country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Action Vending Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 What I am tired of is bureaucrats who want to take away things that other people have and their rights just because they don't have a need for that right. Well I dont have a gun so no one else should either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlefrog Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 If it weren’t for citizen’s right to own firearms. We would all be sipping tea speaking in a British accent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogcow Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Let's not forget that the 2nd amendment according to our founding fathers was primarily to enable its citizens to protect themselves from the tyranny of their government. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke. A armed population is called "citizens" a unarmed population is called "subjects" i think its true when they wrote it but at that time the regular people had mostly the same weapons as the military even the most highly armed citizen doesnt have tanks,50mm anti arcraft guns, gps guided bunker buster missiles, drones, nuclear weapons,etc..etc.. the military has far superior weapons and nobody really questions that. the fact is a coup is when the MILITARY decides to oust the leader, not the people which ever side the military is on wins. look at syria vs egypt. in egypt the military was against mubarack because he forgot that the military really runs the country, he thought for a minute he was running things and the military showed him the truth by not putting down the uprising. now in syria you see what happens when a coup does not have military support, it turns very ugly even though many of the people are armed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogcow Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Again, we come back to the question of what kind of government do we want? For me, I want small government that does not intrude into my personal life and decisions. The result of that is that , yes, some people that shouldn't have guns will get them, but on the other hand if you ban guns people that shouldn't have guns will still get them. If they do something bad they will suffer the consequences, one way or the other. i agree with that and i think its the same with carry laws, obviously no one is gonna decide against robbing a liquor store because they dont have a carry permit. i guess i am just expressing general frustration wit the culture especially in this area. a lot of people here i think see themself as clint eastwood or charles bronson they carry a gun around for no explicable reason. the thing is if you carry you need to be prepared for the consequences. in the next town over there was that zimmerman guy, now i know the area pretty well i have some route stops right near where that happened. its not really a bad neighborhood but its not great either, ive been in way worse areas of miami selling at street parades. anyway this guy is facing spending the rest of his life behind bars. i dont care if thats right or wrong. i mean its not important to my point. the point is , he could have ended the night with a busted nose and hurt pride, but he pulled his gun and killed an unarmed kid and now he has to face the consequences. thats my point, if you carry a gun you need to be prepared to face the consequences of killing someone and i dont think a lot of gun nuts are really prepared for that. also you have to face the consequences of being killed. if you are getting robbed and you are unarmed theres pretty much a 100% chance you are gonna get robbed but a low chance you are gonna be killed. if you pull a weapon you escalate that scenario to a place where you're life is in danger and no amount of money is worth my life, i can always get more money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.