If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"   (salon.com) divider line 522
    More: Obvious, making excuses, New York City Police Department  
•       •       •

10858 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 3:27 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



522 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-18 10:19:54 AM

Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: RatMaster999: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms.  It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...

Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners.  These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate.  These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products.  It is a powerful fantasy.  These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides).  Their stories are not told.  They are just statistics.  They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death?  Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one.  Tell me again how guns save lives.

If all justified defensive firearm uses resulted in death, your argument would not be intellectually dishonest.


Yes, yes.  Let's compare apples to oranges, as you say.  That would be "intellectually honest": comparing  deaths to non-deaths.  Instead of comparing bad guys killed to good guys killed, let's compare good guys killed to bad guys scared.  The latter statistic doesn't really exist; it's pretty much just a bunch of CSBs from self-proclaimed heroes, so you're more free to just make some numbers up.
 
2013-09-18 10:25:03 AM
      "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?
 
2013-09-18 10:27:34 AM
Salon fail.

December 2007, New Life Church in Colorado Springs.  Former police officer Jeanne Assam (an armed citizen at the time) shoots gunman in the church; gunman has 3 weapons and 1,000 rounds of ammo.  Gunman had killed 2 and wounded 5 in the parking lot moments before, and killed 2 others at a missionary training school the previous night.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/10/colorado-church-gunman-had-g ru dge-against-christian-group-cops-say/
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/11/nation/na-shoot11
http://www.5280.com/magazine/2012/12/jeanne-assam-still-waiting
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22174890/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/col o- shooter-identified--year-old-male/#.Ujm3iMaTh8E
 
2013-09-18 10:27:46 AM

Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?


No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.
 
2013-09-18 10:30:13 AM
Giltric:
I've used my firearm twice in my lifetime to defend myself. Noone died though. Why doesn't that count?

Cool story, bro.
 
2013-09-18 10:32:10 AM

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.


Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?
 
2013-09-18 10:34:12 AM
 
2013-09-18 10:34:41 AM

Giltric: I've used my firearm twice in my lifetime to defend myself. Noone died though. Why doesn't that count?


You're a lousy shot?
 
2013-09-18 10:34:44 AM

Triumph: What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.


Not a single mass shooting THAT OCCURRED was stopped by gun control laws.  OMFG you just blew my mind and didn't even have a gun.

I for one think everyone should be required to carry a rubber chicken.  Not a single mass shooting has occurred where the victims were carrying a rubber chicken.
 
2013-09-18 10:35:35 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


Was Crispus Attucks defending his country as a solder or militiaman when he died or was he murdered as a citizen?

I doubt you believe that a person has a right to defend themselves through any means necessary, you probably do not hold human life in high regard.
 
2013-09-18 10:36:36 AM

dehehn: 9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm Off-Duty Cops and Vets

 
2013-09-18 10:37:44 AM

kronicfeld: feckingmorons: He didn't shoot anyone. He was armed, when he wrestled with others for the weapon used to shoot everyone. You might want to read the headline.

Yes, you are literally correct, given the particular phrasing of the headline: he was an armed civilian who was partially involved in subduing the shooter. Of course, given that the gun in his pocket had no role whatsoever in what transpired, his being armed was utterly meaningless. His being armed had as much relevance as his gender, race, or sexual orientation: none.


Did you know that Zamudio also had a rock in his pocket at the time of Rep. Giffords' shooting? That day could have been 100s of times more deadly if he hadn't had that rock, what with all the tigers running around and the scent of the freshly spilled blood of the shooting victims in the air.
 
2013-09-18 10:39:33 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: dehehn: 9 "Potential" Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm Off-Duty Cops and Vets


Also
This article refers to a study that included only events where 4 people were killed.
 
2013-09-18 10:40:24 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.

Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?


Felons aren't allowed to posses and buy firearms. They are already breaking the law.
 
2013-09-18 10:41:32 AM

433: DRTFA, DRTcomments.

A shooting at Smith County Courthouse in Texas was halted by a man with a sidearm.  The shooter had shot several people in the courthouse, several more outside.  A man with a concealed-carry license drew on him, and struck the shooter, mortally wounding him.  The shooter fatally shot the man firing at him, and fled in a pickup.  He wrecked the truck a distance later, dead.


The gentleman in question was retired Navy, and while what he did was no less than heroic, the question posed would be in regards to those without military training. Former/off-duty/current cops and security guards would also not necessarily count as a plain old regular Joe with a gun, as all of the above (with the possible exception of a security guard) have had some sort of training in dealing with these situations.
 
2013-09-18 10:44:58 AM
I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?
 
2013-09-18 10:45:13 AM
You gun grabbers should all be thankful for the dozens of times in the past 30 years that I've prevented extinction-level meteor impacts with my mind.

How many times have earth- shattering meteors destroyed all human life, huh? None? There's your proof, buddy.

You people owe me, big time. I'm getting upset just thinking about it.
 
2013-09-18 10:45:41 AM
Ithis is interesting new fark logic.

I guess vets aren't civilians.

To the people making this argument, do you think vets should have special rights when it comes to carrying weapons in public?
 
2013-09-18 10:47:00 AM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?


See: socialized medicine
 
2013-09-18 10:47:32 AM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?


Are you aware that none of thsoe studies adressed countries with as many weapons as the US has per person?

Are you aware that those studies have no legal impact on the 2nd?
 
2013-09-18 10:48:27 AM

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.

Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?

Felons aren't allowed to posses and buy firearms. They are already breaking the law.


Without

a

background

check

how

would

you

know

you're

selling

to

a

criminal

?
 
2013-09-18 10:48:35 AM

Phinn: You gun grabbers should all be thankful for the dozens of times in the past 30 years that I've prevented extinction-level meteor impacts with my mind.

How many times have earth- shattering meteors destroyed all human life, huh? None? There's your proof, buddy.

You people owe me, big time. I'm getting upset just thinking about it.


Thanks a lot. I was controlling those meteors with MY mind. But you stopped me.

<shakes fist>
 
2013-09-18 10:48:39 AM

liam76: Ithis is interesting new fark logic.

I guess vets aren't civilians.

To the people making this argument, do you think vets should have special rights when it comes to carrying weapons in public?


Only from certain MOS.

18s? definitely.

15s? how about no.
 
2013-09-18 10:51:20 AM

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.


upload.wikimedia.org

Not contradicting, just adding information.
 
2013-09-18 10:53:20 AM
Giltric:
85% of all gun related homicide are perpetrated by people with previous felony convictions that preclude them from owning a firearm.

85% of all victims of firearm related homicide are also people with prior felony convictions.

85% of all victims and perpetrators of firearm homicide are involved in gangs ...


Did you happen to have a teacher 15 years ago who flunked you in a lab class for fabricating numbers?  If so, we may know each other.
 
2013-09-18 10:53:25 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.

Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?


'Cause they the seller asked "Are you a criminal?", the buyers all said "no."

Doesn't that count as a background check?
 
2013-09-18 10:54:41 AM

liam76: Ithis is interesting new fark logic.

I guess vets aren't civilians.

To the people making this argument, do you think vets should have special rights when it comes to carrying weapons in public?


Would you like to know more?
 
2013-09-18 10:54:50 AM

Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.


All but three mention that the person who stopped the shooting was a cop or former military. In at least one of the ones where it didn't mention that (Nick Meli), the person who stopped it was an off-duty security guard. I couldn't find anything on the other two, but I think that's the point that they're trying to make-- that typically when you hear of these things it's not Joe Average with a gun. It's been someone who has had some sort of prior training in handling these situations.
 
2013-09-18 10:59:09 AM

Giltric: Was Crispus Attucks defending his country as a solder or militiaman when he died or was he murdered as a citizen?



He was rightfully executed by officers of the Crown for armed rebellion.
 
2013-09-18 10:59:41 AM

OrangeSnapper: That would be "intellectually honest": comparing  deaths to non-deaths.


More accurately: comparing crimes completed to crimes averted is intellectually honest. Limiting analysis of defensive firearm uses to those where death resulted is intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-09-18 11:02:26 AM

liam76: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?

Are you aware that none of thsoe studies adressed countries with as many weapons as the US has per person?

Are you aware that those studies have no legal impact on the 2nd?


Just did a quick check on Norway here. We have 1/3 as many guns per capita, about 1/6 as many gun deaths per capita per year.

You're probably familiar with the fact that Switzerland is pretty well armed. Almost half as many guns per capita as the US. And twice the gun death rate as here in Norway.

Japan has .6 guns per 100 people, and .06 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year, compared with the US's 10.
 
2013-09-18 11:03:09 AM

Elegy: Unless you're suggesting we disqualify anyone from the list that has ever served in the military or police.


Nobody's going to claim that they don't count, per se, but again... The point being made is that there is a vast difference between "armed person" and "armed civilian." To say that something was stopped by an "armed civilian" would imply that said person has had no professional military or law enforcement training, and I think we can all agree that there is a vast difference between someone who has had that training and someone who hasn't and how each would react in these situations. The idea seems to be among some that simply having a gun (no training) would be enough to stop these things. That isn't necessarily the case.

I'm personally all for guns, but I also strongly believe that people should be required to go through basic firearms training at the very least. I've told the story at least a dozen times of the woman I encountered who was going on about her new gun and how she couldn't tell whether or not it was loaded. If Darwin only took out the stupid ones where guns were concerned, I wouldn't be so worried about people like her.
 
2013-09-18 11:08:22 AM

supayoda: Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.

All but three mention that the person who stopped the shooting was a cop or former military. In at least one of the ones where it didn't mention that (Nick Meli), the person who stopped it was an off-duty security guard. I couldn't find anything on the other two, but I think that's the point that they're trying to make-- that typically when you hear of these things it's not Joe Average with a gun. It's been someone who has had some sort of prior training in handling these situations.


"Former military" is a civilian.
"Police officer", on-duty of off, is a civilian.
"Security guard" is a civilian.

And the people in all of these categories are "Average Joes."
As for the training involved, only the police have anything applicable. I was in the Army for six years, and I never had a minute of training in how to deal with a nut-job shooting up a crowd of people. I don't think the security guard that kind of training at mall-cop school.
 
2013-09-18 11:08:53 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: Phinn: Mass shootings almost always occur in legally-mandated gun-free zones. Law-abiding civilians don't bring guns there.

Was Floyd Corkins stopped by armed civilians? I can't remember. Corkins was the only politically-motivated mass murder (albeit prevented) in more than 10 years -- he was a gay marriage advocate. He had something like 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches with him, which he planned to smear in his victims' faces.

Clearly, left-wing political activists, inspired by the SPLC's list of designated "hate groups," pose the 21st century's biggest political mass-shooting threat.

"According to a study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, less than a quarter of mass shootings in the last four years occurred in "gun free zones.""


It's just false. It depends on a self-serving definition of "gun-free zone." Mother Jones and the (Democrat) Mayor's "study" doesn't count a place as a gun-free zone if there are armed security guards (military bases, malls, schools), but the ordinary private citizen is barred from carrying, even with a CCW. The Navy Yard was a gun-free zone. Virginia Tech. Aurora. Fort Hood.

There haven't been that many mass shootings in the last 30 years. Look them up and count the shopping malls, government facilities, schools and churches.
 
2013-09-18 11:15:33 AM

Calipataa: liam76: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?

Are you aware that none of thsoe studies adressed countries with as many weapons as the US has per person?

Are you aware that those studies have no legal impact on the 2nd?

Just did a quick check on Norway here. We have 1/3 as many guns per capita, about 1/6 as many gun deaths per capita per year.

You're probably familiar with the fact that Switzerland is pretty well armed. Almost half as many guns per capita as the US. And twice the gun death rate as here in Norway.

Japan has .6 guns per 100 people, and .06 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year, compared with the US's 10.


Neither Japan, Norway nor Switzerland have as many young, unemployed, urban, drug-dealing gang members as the USA.

Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?
 
2013-09-18 11:17:59 AM

Prophet of Loss: How gun owners see themselves:

[mobiusband.com image 300x420]

The reality:

[hellogiggles.com image 478x310]


I didn't think the boy would look in the crisper drawer
 
2013-09-18 11:18:02 AM

Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: That would be "intellectually honest": comparing  deaths to non-deaths.

More accurately: comparing crimes completed to crimes averted is intellectually honest. Limiting analysis of defensive firearm uses to those where death resulted is intellectually dishonest.


Do you have the numbers for crimes completed to crimes averted?  I'd honestly be interested in those too.  The best ones I can find show around 400,000 firearms-related crime victims per year.

I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.  Guns are lethal weapons; death is what they are designed for.  To this end, bad guys are using them more effectively than good guys.

I don't know how often guns are used to threaten.  But I'm inclined to suspect that they help the bad more than the good here, too.  We know that bad guys shoot to kill more often.  It is likely that they draw their guns to threaten more often, too.
 
2013-09-18 11:20:55 AM
Dimensio:
Strangely, despite frequent issuance of similar predictions by concealed weapons permit opponents, such an incident has never actually occurred in reality.

I'm not an opponent, I just think that some sort of critical thinking/sanity test/renewal should be required.  Of the CC permit owners I know, Three-ish are lunatics who are just dying to have an excuse to murder someone.
 
2013-09-18 11:20:58 AM

Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?


Oooh, don't tell me...... It's Madonna, isn't it? I always said she was up to no good.
 
2013-09-18 11:24:45 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


Yes.  Except that it was also in case that militia needed to defend the people against its government, so it IS needed, especially today.
 
2013-09-18 11:25:30 AM

Gothnet: Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?

Oooh, don't tell me...... It's Madonna, isn't it? I always said she was up to no good.


Sorry for the mobile link, but here's a hint --

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1862771
 
2013-09-18 11:27:38 AM

Phinn: Gothnet: Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?

Oooh, don't tell me...... It's Madonna, isn't it? I always said she was up to no good.

Sorry for the mobile link, but here's a hint --

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1862771


Gah! Trying again...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1862771
 
2013-09-18 11:29:31 AM

Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?


Grannies.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-18 11:32:49 AM

OrangeSnapper: I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.


Understandable, as such a dishonest comparison is the most effective way to claim that defensive firearm uses are rare.
 
2013-09-18 11:39:49 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.



The RKBA is held "sacred" because it is the only effective means that The People have to deter tyranny - the one "right" that allows The People to defend all other "rights" if and when government becomes intolerably oppressive.

But of course folks like you believe that all government is inherently and perpetually benevolent, so I wouldn't expect you to "get it".
 
2013-09-18 11:40:46 AM

Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.

Understandable, as such a dishonest comparison is the most effective way to claim that defensive firearm uses are rare.


So, you don't have any statistics at all do you?  Nothing at all to defend your position, just name calling?  Sorry to have overestimated you.
 
2013-09-18 11:43:33 AM

OrangeSnapper: Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.

Understandable, as such a dishonest comparison is the most effective way to claim that defensive firearm uses are rare.

So, you don't have any statistics at all do you?  Nothing at all to defend your position, just name calling?  Sorry to have overestimated you.


Estimates of defensive firearm uses range from 150,000 incidents annually to 1.5 million incidents annually. However, as you will disregard any incident for any accepted number when no deaths resulted, you have already demonstrated a disregard for honest analysis.
 
2013-09-18 11:45:16 AM

supayoda: 433: DRTFA, DRTcomments.

A shooting at Smith County Courthouse in Texas was halted by a man with a sidearm.  The shooter had shot several people in the courthouse, several more outside.  A man with a concealed-carry license drew on him, and struck the shooter, mortally wounding him.  The shooter fatally shot the man firing at him, and fled in a pickup.  He wrecked the truck a distance later, dead.

The gentleman in question was retired Navy, and while what he did was no less than heroic, the question posed would be in regards to those without military training. Former/off-duty/current cops and security guards would also not necessarily count as a plain old regular Joe with a gun, as all of the above (with the possible exception of a security guard) have had some sort of training in dealing with these situations.


So only ex-military and ex-vets should be allowed to utilize their constitutional rights?

Nice society you got there, Heinlein.
 
2013-09-18 11:46:21 AM

OrangeSnapper: Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.

Understandable, as such a dishonest comparison is the most effective way to claim that defensive firearm uses are rare.

So, you don't have any statistics at all do you?  Nothing at all to defend your position, just name calling?  Sorry to have overestimated you.


He's right.  Its odd how you feel it necessary to single out defensive gun use that results in no one dead.  Isn't that the ideal?  Use of a gun to prevent harm...and it actually does?

But you are also right.  Ignoring all the times when a criminal uses a gun and no one is hurt is also a bad idea.

Then again, remember 9/11 when we all knew the best way to save yourself during a hijacking was to cooperate?  That works...until it doesn't.
 
2013-09-18 11:48:15 AM
Bull shiat
 
Displayed 50 of 522 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report