Conquer Club

Gun Control

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Gun Control

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:51 pm

comic boy wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
ooge wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Analogous thinking can be misleading.


So can blindly following and Ideology =D> =D> =D>


Do people have the right to protect themselves? The right to life?



Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. your life my life are more important then your liberty my liberty...that is why the founders put it in that order. I cant take credit for this idea a father of a slain child from Newtown said it.


If only it was a crime to shoot people...


Serious question , in cases of accidental firearm deaths do people in the USA ever get prosecuted for manslaughter or something similar. Also are there laws protecting the families of gun owners , I know children have been killed whilst playing with firearms , are the parents ever prosecuted for neglect.


Yes - sometimes. Neglegent Homocide, but that's all up to prosecutors.
http://www.ktxs.com/news/Neighbors-mour ... index.html

Here you have a 4 year old girl, shot in the head through a wall, by an adult who was "cleaning a loaded gun." Not a crime, apparently.
Each week occupy the NRA has about 10 news stories shared with us about kids "accidentally" killed by adults or teenagers. It's obviously not common, given the size of America, but that's 10 deaths a week that can easily be prevented.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Gun Control

Postby ooge on Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:40 am

anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?
Image
User avatar
Captain ooge
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge

Re: Gun Control

Postby Night Strike on Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:42 am

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun Control

Postby chang50 on Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:22 am

Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.


There can't be many countries where there is about 1 gun per head of population,including children and the incarcerated,and large numbers of the population can see no problem with that.Must be working out just fine...
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Gun Control

Postby notyou2 on Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:24 am

Road to disaster and we are living next to them. I hope they go south, not north when it happens.

Sorry Nietsche.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Gun Control

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:41 pm

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


Most likely not, cuz

1. increasing the price on legal guns might not affect the price on illegal guns
2. if it does, it may not be enough of a price increase
3. this taxes unnecessarily punishes responsible citizens for participating in a relatively safe form of entertainment
4. those taxes will most likely not go to "additional security cuz too many guns in US."


No to insurance program. Imposing costs on a group which isn't responsible for the outcomes of other people's guns would not incentivize people to commit less crimes---especially if they obtained the gun illegally, thereby can avoid the insurance scheme.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Gun Control

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:12 pm

chang50 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.


There can't be many countries where there is about 1 gun per head of population,including children and the incarcerated,and large numbers of the population can see no problem with that.Must be working out just fine...


It is working out just fine. In 99% of the USA's counties, there are 0-1 homocides per year.

The problem is almost entirely in the cities, and the problem is caused by a plethora of different reasons, such as race, age, culture, income, education, peer pressure, children born out of wedlock, gangs, and laws. It is not because of all the guns people who do not live in the city own.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:09 pm

No Senator has read the bill. Anyone surprised?



Which is how you get to this, intentionally brainwashing Americans and confiscation

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Gun Control

Postby comic boy on Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:49 am

Phatscotty wrote:
chang50 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.


There can't be many countries where there is about 1 gun per head of population,including children and the incarcerated,and large numbers of the population can see no problem with that.Must be working out just fine...


It is working out just fine. In 99% of the USA's counties, there are 0-1 homocides per year.

The problem is almost entirely in the cities, and the problem is caused by a plethora of different reasons, such as race, age, culture, income, education, peer pressure, children born out of wedlock, gangs, and laws. It is not because of all the guns people who do not live in the city own.


I have no idea if your figures are correct , perhaps you might supply some data , but if things are 'just fine' then why the continued debate ?
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: Gun Control

Postby AndyDufresne on Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:41 am

Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.

America is a lot like the scene from the Matrix.

Tank: So what do you need? Besides a miracle.
Neo: Guns. Lots of guns.


Image


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Gun Control

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:37 pm

comic boy wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
chang50 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.


There can't be many countries where there is about 1 gun per head of population,including children and the incarcerated,and large numbers of the population can see no problem with that.Must be working out just fine...


It is working out just fine. In 99% of the USA's counties, there are 0-1 homocides per year.

The problem is almost entirely in the cities, and the problem is caused by a plethora of different reasons, such as race, age, culture, income, education, peer pressure, children born out of wedlock, gangs, and laws. It is not because of all the guns people who do not live in the city own.


I have no idea if your figures are correct , perhaps you might supply some data , but if things are 'just fine' then why the continued debate ?


Cuz it's going through the Senate in the next 5 days?? Is this not a good time??

About the gun homocide rate by county, as if that's even challengable? Just think it out with me for a second. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicide deaths in the USA last year. Take out Chicago, DC, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Flint Michigan, Oakland Cali, St. Louis, Memphis, Little Rock and Birmingham Alabama, Buffalo, Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, Newark, Indianapolis and a few other major cities out of the equation.......how many gun homocides are left to divvy up between the rest of the 3.7 million square miles/counties??? Not many
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:58 pm

Let me show another way. I'll just say up front before I even start that I have no idea what the result will be, but I am going on confidence in the numbers that it will match up.

Here is my state that borders your country.


Image

murders total (not just guns, all murders)

Image

Image

As you can see, a large majority of our counties have ZERO murders, most of the rest have 1 or 2 murders. North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa, all have a LOT less murders than Minnesota. That's thousands of counties that have 0-1's (not even gun murders....total murders)

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Gun Control

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:45 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


Most likely not, cuz

1. increasing the price on legal guns might not affect the price on illegal guns
2. if it does, it may not be enough of a price increase
3. this taxes unnecessarily punishes responsible citizens for participating in a relatively safe form of entertainment
4. those taxes will most likely not go to "additional security cuz too many guns in US."


No to insurance program. Imposing costs on a group which isn't responsible for the outcomes of other people's guns would not incentivize people to commit less crimes---especially if they obtained the gun illegally, thereby can avoid the insurance scheme.


1) 2) Doesn't do anything for the question at hand. Let's not turn this into another Libertarian case of "I don't want to pay money for my risky behavior that doesn't concern you." It's a simple cost analysis.

3) Define "responsible." In your scenario you would not have drivers purchase car insurance, unless perhaps they had already had an accident. Yet we all accept the cost of auto insurance (and see the benefits) as part of the cost of having the driving privilege. Why should it be different for gun owners?

4) The money should work just like auto insurance, to help the victims or their families.

No gun owner can be called responsible if they are arguing against gun owners insurance. All guns used in crime in America come from legal sources. Just like all cars used in crime come from legal sources. And most guns sold in America do not require background checks, either because they are sold privately or because they are sold at trade shows. And according to the FBI, only 2.2% of all fatal gun shootings are ruled justifiable homicide. It's just not a realistic scenario. But a gun in your home increases the risk that you will be shot to death by 72%, it's 22x more likely to be used in a suicide than for defense, it triples the risk of homicide, it increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 5, and abused woman are 6x more likely to be murdered just if there is a gun available in the home. That's not to mention that most children who are shot to death are shot by people they know.
Now people would argue that there are a lot of gun owners in this country who's guns are strictly for hunting, or who have never been involved in a crime. And that's a fine and just argument. But those gun owners should still pay for gun insurance, because most of these fatal shootings did involve a supposedly responsible gun owner just like them. It's just for the same reason that requiring all drivers to buy auto insurance is just.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:48 am

Phatscotty wrote:As you can see, a large majority of our counties have ZERO murders, most of the rest have 1 or 2 murders. North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa, all have a LOT less murders than Minnesota. That's thousands of counties that have 0-1's (not even gun murders....total murders)

A large majority of those countys have like, 10 million square miles and 11 people.

Phatscotty wrote: Take out Chicago, DC, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Flint Michigan, Oakland Cali, St. Louis, Memphis, Little Rock and Birmingham Alabama, Buffalo, Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, Newark, Indianapolis and a few other major cities out of the equation.......how many gun homocides are left to divvy up between the rest of the 3.7 million square miles/counties??? Not many

That's like, half our population.
But I see what you're saying.
Guns should be outlawed in every US city, as defined by US census.

Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Gun Control

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:51 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


Most likely not, cuz

1. increasing the price on legal guns might not affect the price on illegal guns
2. if it does, it may not be enough of a price increase
3. this taxes unnecessarily punishes responsible citizens for participating in a relatively safe form of entertainment
4. those taxes will most likely not go to "additional security cuz too many guns in US."


No to insurance program. Imposing costs on a group which isn't responsible for the outcomes of other people's guns would not incentivize people to commit less crimes---especially if they obtained the gun illegally, thereby can avoid the insurance scheme.


1) 2) Doesn't do anything for the question at hand. Let's not turn this into another Libertarian case of "I don't want to pay money for my risky behavior that doesn't concern you." It's a simple cost analysis.


Well, JB, it's not a libertarian argument. It's about how people would react to price changes. It's not wise to ignore that.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:17 am

Maybe if the question is "why wont American's accept it?"
Because the answer is wholly different than if the question is "what's logical/responsible?"
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Gun Control

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:14 am

comic boy wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
ooge wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Analogous thinking can be misleading.


So can blindly following and Ideology =D> =D> =D>


Do people have the right to protect themselves? The right to life?



Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. your life my life are more important then your liberty my liberty...that is why the founders put it in that order. I cant take credit for this idea a father of a slain child from Newtown said it.


If only it was a crime to shoot people...


Serious question , in cases of accidental firearm deaths do people in the USA ever get prosecuted for manslaughter or something similar. Also are there laws protecting the families of gun owners , I know children have been killed whilst playing with firearms , are the parents ever prosecuted for neglect.


Short answer - yes to the first question; I don't know to the second question (but would assume yes). Further on the second question, if a child is accidentally killed due to firearm security neglect, the parent has received an exceedingly harsh punishment already.

As to the issue at hand, and as I've indicated in prior threads...

(1) Gun control, as it is currently being proposed, is constitutional (under the TGD intepretation of the Constitution - the Second Amendment protects groups, not individuals). Even if not under the TGD interpretation, it is still constitutional, much like the bans on bazookas and machine guns.

(2) The most serious bill in Congress right now would do virtually nothing to protect against gun violence in the United States (it doesn't ban hand guns, by far the most used weapon for homicides), would not stop mass shootings (as indicated in the previous Assault Weapons Ban, the weapons can be modified to shoot the exact same way... they just look less scary), and ultimately does not solve the inherent problem with gun violence - the people doing the shooting (just like drunk driving, for example).

(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gun Control

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:30 am

thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.


It's most likely a waste of time and energy on net, but it's very beneficial for particular politicians seeking to maximize votes. Why not take advantage of the uninformed by harping about gun control/de-control?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Gun Control

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:33 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.


It's most likely a waste of time and energy on net, but it's very beneficial for particular politicians seeking to maximize votes. Why not take advantage of the uninformed by harping about gun control/de-control?


Hmm... fair point. It appears that the politicians, pundits, and lobbyists on both sides are making out well.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:36 am

User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Gun Control

Postby Dukasaur on Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:41 am

thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

Gun advocates see it as the thin edge of the wedge. I'm not sure they're wrong about that. In the 1970s when the first No Smoking areas appeared in hospitals, even smokers considered them perfectly reasonable restrictions. Yet it only took about 10 or 15 years after that for smoking bans in most public buildings, and only about 30 years to get to where we are now, with smoking almost completely banned in all indoor spaces except private homes, and even in many outdoor spaces.

Whether gun control advocates also see it as the thin edge of the wedge is more difficult to discern, but I suspect many of them (the more strategic-thinking ones, anyway) do.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Major Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26979
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Gun Control

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:49 am

Dukasaur wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

Gun advocates see it as the thin edge of the wedge. I'm not sure they're wrong about that. In the 1970s when the first No Smoking areas appeared in hospitals, even smokers considered them perfectly reasonable restrictions. Yet it only took about 10 or 15 years after that for smoking bans in most public buildings, and only about 30 years to get to where we are now, with smoking almost completely banned in all indoor spaces except private homes, and even in many outdoor spaces.

Whether gun control advocates also see it as the thin edge of the wedge is more difficult to discern, but I suspect many of them (the more strategic-thinking ones, anyway) do.


I wonder if all those bans and all that money spent on signs really even mattered--after it was convincingly demonstrated that smoking cigarettes can greatly increase one's chances of getting cancer.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

Postby The Voice on Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:59 am

Mind control is far more damaging to our autonomy than gun control; yet, nobody seems to give two shits about it. You really think your guns will stop tyranny when your minds have been turned to mush?
Major The Voice
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:37 pm
Location: Location, Location!

Re: Gun Control

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:07 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

Gun advocates see it as the thin edge of the wedge. I'm not sure they're wrong about that. In the 1970s when the first No Smoking areas appeared in hospitals, even smokers considered them perfectly reasonable restrictions. Yet it only took about 10 or 15 years after that for smoking bans in most public buildings, and only about 30 years to get to where we are now, with smoking almost completely banned in all indoor spaces except private homes, and even in many outdoor spaces.

Whether gun control advocates also see it as the thin edge of the wedge is more difficult to discern, but I suspect many of them (the more strategic-thinking ones, anyway) do.


I guess I would point to the 1947 ban on machine guns which led to the 1990s Assault Weapons Ban which led to the no ban at all which led to where we're currently situated. My point here is that this must be an extremely slow burn.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:45 pm

The Voice wrote:Mind control is far more damaging to our autonomy than gun control; yet, nobody seems to give two shits about it. You really think your guns will stop tyranny when your minds have been turned to mush?


Instead of "mind control," don't you mean "mind mushing"?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jusplay4fun