The Ethics of Publishing Gun Owner Lists

As is often the case around the firearms community, there are foolish people who do very dubious things in support of their beliefs concerning firearms. Case-in-point: The Journal News recently published several interactive maps that show the location of every pistol permit holder in three counties.  Everyone I know is up in arms about this, even if they aren’t into firearms, as it is a slap in the face of every firearm owner to be treated like sex offenders.  Talk about a way to piss off an incredibly large group of people who are in possession of  ‘deadly weapons’!

While I could write a book about how mad that us, I won’t for several reasons: 1.) This is an ethics blog, and ethics is what I’m gonna stick to; 2.) Honestly, the people who NEED to read this DON’T CARE about OUR feelings.  Most of them are too worried about THEIR feelings to take any notice of ours.  That is OK though, thanks to my wife, we will address their feelings about this and the ‘protect the public’ crowd should be up in arms about this:  Publishing these maps are incredibly dangerous to the general public! 

Yea, Right!

Don’t believe me do you?  Have you ever seen the sign that points out a neighbor’s house doesn’t have guns?  The Journal News just put an “I’m unarmed, come rob me” sign on every house in three counties that does not have a pistol permit.  Granted there may still be rifles in those houses, but a criminal has just gotten a major tool to help him a.) steal a pistol and b.) pick houses to rob with a low likely hood of encountering an armed home defender.  Also they put a ‘guns inside, come steal them’ sign on every permit holder in 3 counties.  Making targets out of every citizen in 3 counties, if nothing else, is totally indefensible by even the staunchest gun control advocate and does nothing to ‘protect the public’.

The Ethics of this situation are staggering!

This is where I am going to offend everyone on both sides of the line:  This situation has so many ethics violations, that if this were a sport, both teams would be forever banned from ever participating again!  The only way to begin these things is from the beginning, so here we go:

To The Journal News:

  1. Publishing information about individuals that puts them at risk is wrong -  Why on earth would you tell every criminal who wants a gun where he can steal one in his neighborhood?  If you think what they did was right, let’s do some role reversal: Robert Cox over at The Talk of the Sound, obtained the names and addresses (and other contact information) of the employees of The Journal News.  Do you think that is right or wrong?  For the answer read on.
  2. Publishing information that aids criminals is wrong – see #1, then think about this: If there is a rash of robberies in a neighborhood on your map, and it can be shown that the criminal used your information to choose homes to steal handguns from and to choose unarmed homes to rob, The Journal News could find itself in a lot of legal hot water.  Realistically, criminal charges would be hard to prosecute but civil action would not.  In a world where hot coffee is worth millions, just think about the potential payout to families who were robed or (God forbid) lost loved ones to criminals wielding firearms stolen from homes The Journal News targeted!  Wrongful Death Suit Anyone?
  3. Invading the privacy of anyone by mis-using a mechanism designed to protect citizens from government secrets (Freedom Of Information Act) is wrong! – Just because it’s legal don’t make it right!

To Robert Cox at the Talk of the Sound:

  1. Publishing information about individuals that puts them at risk is wrong – While some would say turnabout is fair play, and in this case it shows just how bad what The Journal News did is: It’s still wrong!  It is true that the risk to the employees at The Journal News you created is probably less-than the danger they created by singling out permit holders, enabling criminals and endangering the UN-permitted, but for the same reasons (ie, if someone actually does hurt an employee because of your list) you will not only be open to similar legal issues (and since Robert is a private citizen and gun owner he has less buffer against criminal charges than a multimillion dollar news outlet); but it would also provide feather in the cap of gun control advocates everywhere: “Crazed Gun Owner Uses Hit Map Made By Gun Nut To Kill Journalist Supporting Gun Control!”  Because of the nanny state world we live in gun control advocates are fighting us downhill, so we have to be more careful about working against our own cause with foolish mistakes like this than they do.
  2. Turnabout is never fair play -  Think about it, the only time to use turnabout is when you feel someone has wronged you.   If it is wrong for them to do to you, then why is is OK for you do do to them?  It’s wrong both ways, sorry.
    • My co-commenters over at The Truth About Guns have made me realize the above statement is not quite right – turnabout can be ‘fair’ as it balances the equation of right and wrong (sort of, sometimes) but just because something is ‘fair’ does not make it ‘right’.  (If a drunk driver kills one of your family members, it is ‘fair’ to kill one of his, but it is incredibly wrong!)

This Sign :

  1. Publishing information about individuals that puts them at risk is wrong: Whether it’s a DE-humanizing online map or a witty sign in your front yard, you are still revealing information about someone that a passer-by (read criminal) would not otherwise know if not for your sign.
  2. Publishing information about yourself that puts you at risk is STUPID! -  This is not so much a ethical point as a tactical one, if you point our your neighbor is pro-gun control, then it is safe for a criminal to assume you are a gun owner with steal-able guns. At the very least a criminal who knows you’re likely to be armed is much more likely to arm themselves before coming into your home, costing you 2 major tactical advantages: surprise and superior force/weaponry.

I believe that we (anti-gun control) are at war with the pro-gun control crowd, but it is a social-political war where we claim we are the higher ground while they argue we are not.  We must fight a clean fight in an arena where anything goes (politics) against an opponent who sits back and waits for our mistakes and claims them as their victories.  An unfairer fight I have yet to see, but we will win only if we maintain the high ground and convince people one at a time and over time that the enemy is fear and not us or our tools.  This is ethics.

- Walter Wojcik

See Also:

The Journal News Page Post

Talk of the Sound – Newspaper Employees Map





The Code (Not) in Action – #5 Robert Foote

Robert Foote

Proof that Alcohol, Firearms and Anger don’t mix

Today’s role model shows us why firearms, anger and alcohol are always a bad mix.  Our friend Robert Foote was happily target shooting  while under the influence (of course) when an argument began with his estranged wife.  Lets stop there for a moment: using firearms under the influence of any form of drugs and alcohol creates a huge potential for disaster.

First, alcohol and drugs inhibit your  decision making skills,  they make you more emotional (contrary to the drinking your cares away stereotype, alcohol actually makes your feelings more intense), breaking rule #2

I will strive to maintain emotional control in any situation.

When the goal is to maintain control in tough situations is is never a good idea to start out with your emotions out of control, and being under the influence means your emotional control will deteriorate even faster than normal.

Next we have a violation of Rule #5:

I will do my best to prevent or de-escalate a fight whether I have started it or not.

No mind you Robert is already under the influence, limiting his self-control and making a fight easier to get into.  The alcohol makes this situation worse because while the may have been a possibility he could suppress his anger long enough to get out of the fight, the alcohol makes him even less likely to inhibit his anger and end the fight.

Now that we know Mr. Foote was already in trouble by being inebriated and armed and in a fight we can learn that while thus impaired his estranged wife tries to leave in her car with their daughter and our stellar specimen of intelligence and control tries to stop his wife by grabbing their daughter though the car window and re-holstering his firearm.

Let’s break it down, since this guy is REAL talented, he is:

  • Under the influence
  • Angry
  • Fighting with his wife
  • Reaching though a car window
  • Garbing his daughter
  • Holstering his firearm

All at once!  There is an inevitable conclusion to this: somebody is going to get shot.  Fortunately for (most of) the people involved our Darwin award nominee only shot himself in the foot leg. (The irony would have been rich if he HAD shoot himself in the Foote, right)  So the moral of the story here?  Don’t drink while shooting your firearms and fighting with your ex about your daughter!  DUH!

See Also:

TTAG IGOTD Article Article

Technorati Claim Token


In order to be listed on Technorati we have to post this token.  If you are not Technorati you can just ignore this post.  Thanks.

The Code (Not) In Action – Lindsay Lohan

Don't EVER do this!

Don’t EVER do this!

Not a day goes by that someone doesn’t do something STUPID with a firearm.  Honestly, I don’t think a day ever will.  Usually, these STUPID things end harmlessly and hurt no one (thankfully), like today’s guest.  Today’s guest star is Lindsay Lohan!  That’s right, the epitome of ‘don’t do that’ has struck again, this time with a firearm.

I take the

The Code

very seriously and any of the firearms owners I know take firearms safety more seriously than a heart attack (I know this by their diets) and would never let any one put a gun in their mouth under any circumstances.

(Just for the record there is a pic of her putting an empty magazine in this firearm making me believe the firearms is real)

Let’s break it down:

#6 – I will not allow my firearms to fall into the hands of those who are restricted or otherwise unqualified to own/use/posses them.

If there was ever a poster child for don’t give them a gun, this drug addict, attention seeking, narcissist is it.  While this isn’t  LiLo who broke this rule, the photographer Terry Richardson deserves a smack to the head as we assume it’s his firearm in the picture.

#8 – I will treat all firearms as loaded, unless redundantly proven otherwise and done for a specific purpose.

Now some people will say that I’m  wrong, the clip is clearly empty and she had a specific purpose for doing this.  But let’s be clear – THERE IS NEVER A REASON TO PUT A FIREARM IN YOUR MOUTH – EVER!

#9 – I will never let the muzzle cover anything I am not willing destroy or kill.

While it could be argued that Lindsay Lohan was willing to kill herself (she’s arguably destroyed herself years ago) there again is NEVER A REASON TO PUT A FIREARM IN YOUR MOUTH – EVER!

#10 – I will keep my finger off the trigger until my sights are on target and I have made the decision to destroy or kill what my firearm is pointed at.

Again, she may be suicidal (still, again?!?!) but (all together now!) THERE IS NEVER A REASON TO PUT A FIREARM IN YOUR MOUTH – EVER!  We also know from other pictures that she has poor trigger-finger control.

This is such an obvious rule that it’s not in

The Code

because it is really obvious to any one with half a brain or any firearms experience at all:


I keep saying it because it’s true, don’t do it!  Don’t do it if you are a movie star, donn’t do it of you are a washed up star, don’t let someone else do it if you are a photographer. (One last time everyone!)  THERE IS NEVER A REASON TO PUT A FIREARM IN YOUR MOUTH – EVER!

See Also:

Movie Line Article Article

The Code (Not) In Action #3 – Daniel Collins

Fart Hater

Daniel Collins – Fart Intolerant Gun Owner

Today’s role model is Daniel Collins: Firearms owner and fart-hater.  Yep, he’s different because he doesn’t like farts.  So lets set the stage:  He’s in his apartment minding his own business when his manners-challenged neighbor toots hi butt-trumpet right in front of his door!  Evidently this is not the first time he’s done it and our good friend Danial Collins has been pushed over the edge and can take it no more.  He confronts Mr. McMannerless in the vestibule like any sensible gun owner would.


So here’s the rub:  Would you confront someone who repeatedly farts in front of your door? Maybe.  Would you do it at gun point?  I think not. 

The Code

covers this situation quite well:

#1 I will never THREATEN to use my firearm unless I feel the need to use it.

Drawing your firearm is a threat.  It’s that simple.  And no fart (no matter how noxious) is threatening enough to need a firearm to defend yourself with.

#2 I will strive to maintain emotional control in any situation.

This is exactly why this rule is here:  People get upset of STUPID things (like farts) and the do STUPID things like drawing a gun on someone.  While the situations we need a firearms for will put our emotions to the max (and perhaps over the edge) we need to maintain that emotional control as long as possible to ensure that we make sound decisions.

#3 I will comply with all regulations regarding my firearm.

Threatening people with a firearm without good cause is against the law. DUH!

#5 I will do my best to prevent or de-escalate a fight whether I have started it or not.

In this case he could have prevented the fight by not worrying about his neighbor’s harmless actions.

#9 I will never let the muzzle cover anything I am not willing destroy or kill.

If he was really willing to kill his neighbor over a fart, then he doesn’t have the mental capacity to own a gun.  Sorry.

Thankfully, he didn’t fire his weapon, that saves me from quoting another 3 rules and will lessen the jail time he will receive.  Fortunately for us he will probably never be allowed to own another gun, which is good because then he would probably act stupid again and contribute to the Brady’s campaign statistics, and we wouldn’t want them to have honest numbers to fight us with, would you?

See Also:

TTAG Article Article

The Brady Campaign ‘Assault’ Assault

Brace yourself for a flash of the obvious: The Brady Campaign is out to get our firearms.  All of them.  There is not denying it.  To those of you who have owned a gun for more than a few hours this is no surprise.  Personally it doesn’t worry me that they feel that way.  It is a free country and they are free to their own opinions on how things should work(dangerous words, I know.)   What really worries me is the way they are going about it.

The Brady Campaign is deliberately misusing firearms terms to mislead the less firearms educated.  This is evidenced by their blatantly incorrect use of firearms terms like clip, magazine, assault weapon/rifle and sniper rifle.  Anyone with access to Wikipedia is able to learn that a clip is:

A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm.

and a magazine is:

A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm.

The next on the list are ‘sniper rifles’.  The media seems to have picked up on this one as it captures the viewer’s imagination and glues them to the screen until they are sure that they are out of range of whatever .22-caliber ‘sniper rifle’ with a 1.5x scope was last found.  To hear the Brady Campaign talk any rifle with a ‘sniper scope’ is a ‘sniper rifle’ capable of indiscriminate one-shot kills at world record ranges.  This term is contagious as I have seen no less than three ‘sniper sawed-off shotguns’ on the news in the last few years!

The Brady Campaign is deliberately inventing scary phrases to scare the uninformed.  We need no further proof of this than this piece about ‘Assault Clips’.  They warn us about assault clips with capable of  ‘holding 30, 50, or 100 bullets’.   Have YOU ever seen a stripper clip for a M1 Garand that holds 100 rounds?  In truth it’s more nonsense about so-called ‘high-capacity magazines’ but the methodology they use to get their point across both their greatest weapon and their greatest weakness.

The Brady Campaign like so many others have discovered that if you make something scarey by mis-applying scarey words to otherwise benign words.  Try it our for yourself:  “We need to protect our children from pens carried by other children in school!”  Sounds ridiculously harmless don’t it?  Now try this:  “We need to protect our children from ASSAULT-pens carried by other children in school!”  With the simple addition of a word you make otherwise benign pens into dangerous weapons seemingly designed to do only one thing.

I said earlier that this is their greatest weapon and weakness.   It’s a good weapon because fear works.  Fear will make you do  things (like allowing your wheelchair bound mother to be strip-searched) that you would normally never even consider.  Fear, however has a weakness: it must be reinforced, and each subsequent reinforcement must be stronger than the last because people slowly become numb to specific fears.  Don’t believe me?  Ask a veteran roofer who was once afraid of heights.  Over time without sufficient reinforcement people become desensitized to fear.

The Brady Campaign’s tactics will not work forever and we are already seeing it weaken as they are dealt blow after blow these days.  Knowing this and the rest of their usual bag of tricks puts us at a distinct tactical advantage against them and it allows us to formulate a solid plan to beat them at their own game:

  • Be honest about guns: With the Brady Campaign rapidly loosing touch with reality we as gun owners can undermine the enemy’s credibility while increasing our own.  If we stay true to our cause we can show the increasing gap between The Brady Campaign’s fabrications stories and reality.
  • Introduce others to firearms: The more people with at least a passing understanding of firearms the less the lies will work.  The more full converts to firearms we get the fewer people the lies will work on and the greater the diminishing returns the Beady Campaign will see.
  • Let people see what real gun owners are like:  This one goes hand in hand with above.  If you introduce people to shooting, even if they ultimately aren’t interested, they will most likely walk away saying: ‘Those gun guys are OK’.  While I want converts, I will settle for people who are apathetic towards guns and gun control.  To paraphrase: “If they ain’t against us, they’re for us.”

The Brady Campaign cannot possibly be interested in the  greater good because of the underhanded and dishonest tactics they use.  And that there ladies and gentlemen is the reason they won’t succeed.  As more people get into firearms, the more their underhanded tactics will turn people ways from them.  A person who will stop at nothing to see a task through (no matter how noble initially) will eventually subvert himself and his cause.  If we are patient, open and honest  our course will win out since we started with a noble cause and have never needed and never will need to stoop to dishonest tactics to win our cause.

Revised Safety Rules

After our review by the folks at


in their article:

Question of the Day: Firearms Code of Conduct

some people pointed out that Col. Cooper’s firearm safety rules were not quite on par with reality (for example some people like to dry fire and so they would break rule #1: All firearms are always loaded)  So the question posed was how the  firearms safety rules in the code should be improved to fit better than before.

So here are our revised firearms safety rules:

  1. I will treat all firearms as loaded, unless redundantly proven otherwise and done for a specific purpose.
  2. I will never let the muzzle cover anything I am not willing destroy or kill.
  3. I will keep my finger off the trigger until my sights are on target and I have made the decision to destroy or kill what my firearm is pointed at.
  4. I will be sure of my target and what is beyond it.

Also, since it is awkward to refer to the rules as ‘rule 5-1′ or whatever, I am making these rules in their own right as #s 8-11.  (Thus explaining the weird layout here.

Special thanks to David ‘Rabbi’ Kenik of ArmedResponseTraining for his guidance both on the code and especially on these rules as they  are directly based on his recommended rules.

Gun Safety and Responsibility

In light of the recent events at Virginia Tech and the Ohio school shooting (and not so recent events like columbine) we have all been thinking about gun safety and responsibility, especially when it involves children.   But what can we, as gun owners, do?  A lot believe it or not, and without giving up any of our rights, freedoms or personal safety.

The standing advice from many sources is to keep all firearms locked away, unloaded and with the ammunition stored in another room.  Most of us (especially with a self-defense bent feel this is a little extreme).  So let’s look at this, piece by piece:

  • Keep all firearms locked away: I actually think this is a good idea, while many would point out that this makes it difficult to get to a firearm quickly in a situation where you need to defend yourself or home, that can be mitigated.  Also take into consideration how many incidents, injuries and deaths could have been prevented if a loaded firearm wasn’t left out.  There is no reason for leaving a firearm out when you can make it safe while still keeping you safe.

    Given today’s technology like the GunVault MiniVault you can store your firearm securely and have access to it almost instantly.  The design of this safe has no number keys to mash in a hurry and no keys to loose or fumble with.  The important part here is that you should practice with it (see below).  So, yes keep all the firearms you are not carrying on you locked up!

  • Keep all firearms unloaded:  This is where it gets dicey.  For the firearm you  intend to use for home defense,  I would say either keep it loaded or keep the clip loaded in the safe next to it.  The important part of a home defense firearm is that it is ready for instant use and it isn’t ready for instant use then it isn’t much use for your defense.

    For hunting rifles, plinkers and other firearms you don’t intend to use for home defense keeping them unloaded is not a bad idea as the need for quick access to these guns is not a necessity.  I have friends who claim they need every firearm unlocked and loaded in case they might need it, but think about it, if you haven’t stopped the bad guy by the time you are out of ammunition for your primary home defense firearm, the bad guy has probably already stopped you.

  • Keep ammunition stored in a separate room:  For just bout everything I think this is absurd!  Where you store your ammunition in any case if largely irrelevant.  The children (the main people we are trying to protect here) already know where you keep all your firearms and the ammo.  Spreading it across the house not only doesn’t make it any safer but makes it harder for you to keep tabs on your firearms and ammo.

    Then there is the self defense side of it, in this scenario your firearm is in the bedroom at one end of the house and the ammunition for said firearm is at the other end.  You have to run across your house not once but twice and PRAY that the bad guy doesn’t catch wise to your antics and beat you to death with your BRICK of a firearm because it’s not loaded.  I know some people will have me for this but: store your ammunition near your firearm.  For self defense firearms keep it in the case with the firearm at the minimum preferably in the clip and keep your spare clips loaded too.  Other ammunition is fine to store anywhere that is locked up in some way.

So here it is:

  • Keep your home defense firearm locked in a quick access safe with a loaded clip with it.
  • Keep non-home-defense firearms locked up and unloaded.
  • Keep your ammunition locked up.

Practice, Practice, Practice!

All of the above predicates on using a quick access safe to allow you to keep your home defense firearm secure and still available to you for instant use.  Like any part of self defense you should practice.

  • Every few days or so you should make it a point to rush at top speed across the house, open the safe, grab and check your firearm for use.  Time yourself, push yourself, HARD.  This will help you be better prepared for the time you may need your firearm by hyping you up and fraying your nerves a bit.  If you don’t feel this way when practicing you are not trying hard enough.

A firearm that takes you a minute or more get to, un-secure, load and present (read aim at the bad guy) is not a very good defensive firearm.  Once you are in the room with your firearm it should take less than 10 seconds to be ready to defend yourself, 5-seconds once you are within arms reach of your safe.  With only a little practice this should be a simple matter and if you aren’t serious enough about self defense to practice with your safe a bit then you really aren’t serious about self defense.

Question of the Day at TTAG

Our friend Robert over at The Truth About Guns has featured the Firearms Code Of Responsibility as their question of they day.  This is great since it will let me get some much needed input from others people.  The debate has been intense and no punches have been pulled.  The comments have not really been all that positive and as a result some would say the code is a waste of time (and some have) but I look at it as a sign that I’ve made people think and as pointers on ways that I can improve it.  So here goes what have we learned:

  1. People think that the prohibition on threatening to use ones firearm includes the times when you are about to use it.  So I will update the code to say “I will only threaten to use my firearm when I feel I will need to use it.”
  2. This one was (in retrospect) too optimistic and perhaps not realistic enough as it doesn’t take into consideration human nature and the situations that we may actually face.  I think that striving for as much emotional control as possible in any situation is a good thing I think I will drop rule #2 altogether until I find a good way to say what I want it too.
  3. No one in their right mind likes the idea of following the law when it gets in the way of their firearms, this is almost universal, but what I know from the people I personally know that 95% of firearms enthusiasts do follow the law, no matter how much they complain about it.  It’s easy to claim otherwise on the internet but if we checked most people we would see they DO follow the law.  So I’m only going to revise it to say ‘I will comply with all regulations regarding my firearm’ to drop the part about agreeing with them, because we’re all law biding citizens right?
  4. Some people think this rule endorses a Hero complex while others (a disturbingly high number) feel that they own nothing to no one and claim they would leave most people to fend for themselves rather than endanger themselves to protect a stranger.  It saddens me that we are either that selfish or that concerned about whether they may be putting themselves at risk when another life is on the line.  I may be too idealistic or these comments may be internet bravado but I can’t abide by this logic.

    Make no mistake Rabbi (aka David Kenik at made the very valid point that involving yourself in another’s business, especially at the point of a firearm, is extremely hazardous.  Once I revise the code I will expound on this topic.  In the mean time the article ‘Heroic Consequences‘ by Rabbi himself is a very good article well worth the read.

  5. A couple people figured #5 was saying it’s ok to start a fight if you are not armed.  This is simply not true but it does seem to create some confusion and I was going to revise it to avoid confusion but rabbi had a suggestion for #6 that covers it much better.  So it’s history.
  6. No one really took issue with this one but Rabbi (again, a man I think I like) suggested an alternate version: “I will do my best to prevent or de-escalate a fight whether I have started it or not.” I think this one covers the intent of the original and covers both #5 and #6 better than the two rules said it before.
  7. A person named Joseph suggests that the method of allowing an unqualified individual to posses your firearms is important.  With the exception of it being forcibly taken from you, there is no difference who or how they get your firearm if they are not qualified to posses it and you didn’t use reasonable methods to prevent them from getting it.  So this rule stays put, as is.
  8. I do need to revise my rules of firearms safety as Jeff Cooper’s are too restrictive and don’t take into consideration some real life situations where you may safely break those rules.  Revision to come later.
  9. It was pointed out that when asked to not carry in a business it’s only natural to resent them for infringing on ones right to bear arms.  This is very true, so while I will keep the bulk of this rule and drop the reference to resentment to reflect that and also drop 9-3 as it is just redundant.
  10. A lot of people surprised me with their intense dislike of people less gun tolerant than they.  Some went so far as to say they would purposefully allow someone to come to harm if they weren’t pro-gun.  Seriously!?!?  I find that ridiculous.  Sure am I going to bend over backwards for a person who dislikes my views?  Probably not.  But I could never condone or allow someone to come to harm (or death) because they disagree with me.  That is not the American way nor is it right.  This is why I really hate to change this rule, just on principle of defying these people who would dare suggest someone is less deserving of life because they disagree with me.  On that not I am dropping this one from the rules as it is redundant and is really covered under #4.  Anyone who dares suggest #4 does not apply to someone because they share a different opinion than you may just be a sociopath and would be one of those unqualified people in #7.  Human life is ALWAYS more important than your opinion on ANYTHING!

I will never start a fight (verbal or physical) while armed no matter how right I may be.

IGOTD – The Code (Not) in Action – #2

Our good friends over at The Truth About Guns have a little feature they call the Irresponsible Gun Owner of The Day (or IGOTD for the acronymically inclined) where the tell us about people who do boneheaded, stupid and/or unsafe (and usually all three) things in the news. These articles (or more accurately, the people in them) are the perfect fodder for me to use to show what happens to people who fail to follow the Firearms Code of Responsibility.  So without further ado let me introduce:

Read more

Return top