The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 2, 2017, 01:18 PM   #1
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 542
Hilarious anti-gun buffoonery in New York City

If this new bill that NYC Dems propose passes into law, the NYPD would be required to hand out warning placards to everyone applying for a NYC firearms license. The placard, which states that having a gun in one's house will dramatically increase the risk of "violent behavior, suicides, domestic violence and homicides", will be included in the 17-page booklet that the application consists of.
http://nypost.com/2017/10/30/gun-per...ealth-warning/
Quote:
Gun ownership in New York City could soon come with a warning — it’s dangerous to your health.

The City Council Public Safety Committee voted 6-1 Monday to require the NYPD to hand out written warnings about the risks of gun ownership to new applicants for firearm permits.

“Just like the [Surgeon General’s] warning that you see on the side of cigarette packs have changed the perception of smoking, these gun warnings are the first step to changing the public’s conversation,” said Councilwoman Vanessa Gibson, a co-sponsor of the gun bill.

“We would be one of the first major jurisdictions to enact this type of legislation.”

A 2014 Gallup poll showed 63 percent of Americans believe keeping a gun in a home makes it safe.

But Gibson (D-Bronx) cited other studies that show a link between gun ownership to higher rates of domestic violence homicides and suicides.

Under the current system, the NYPD already hands applicants reading materials outlining federal, state and local gun laws.

The full Council is expected to vote on the bill as early as Tuesday.

The committee also approved two resolutions aimed at curbing gun violence, including one telling Congress the city opposes federal legislation that would allow gun license holders in one state to carry weapons into another state.

Steven Matteo (R-Staten Island), the Republican leader, was the only committee member to oppose the committee’s legislative package.
This is what the placard will read:
Warning: The presence of a firearm in the home has been associated with an increased risk of death to self and others, including an increased risk of suicide, death during domestic violence incidents, and unintentional deaths to children and others.

Quote:
Just like the [Surgeon General’s] warning that you see on the side of cigarette packs have changed the perception of smoking,
Ah..no. The reason why a lot of people have stopped smoking is because of the widespread availability of ENDS (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems), also known as Electronic Cigarettes, where in the recent years, have featured advanced, easy to use controls and are far cheaper than those smelly, sooty cancer sticks. For example, everyone I know, including me, are smoking (vaping) something called the JUUL now, and in my entire neighborhood in NYC, every retailer is backordering JUUL units, because of the high demand and popularity. So goodbye Winston and Marlboro. Just like leaded auto gas, you guys have served your time periods, now it is time to relax gracefully into retirement

Quote:
A 2014 Gallup poll showed 63 percent of Americans believe keeping a gun in a home makes it safe.
Umm, I am sure the number is much higher here. I live in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, and here I can safely attest that almost 50% of the residents believe strongly in gun ownership and out of the 50%, about 20-30%, me included, are gun owners.

Quote:
But Gibson (D-Bronx) cited other studies that show a link between gun ownership to higher rates of domestic violence homicides and suicides.
Yeah, ok. Ever since I started owning a gun, violent brawls and murders have taken place all around me and in my house. Wait. What?

Quote:
The City Council Public Safety Committee voted 6-1 Monday to require the NYPD to hand out written warnings about the risks of gun ownership to new applicants for firearm permits.
Arrrrrrrrgh! My poor unrepresented tax dollars!!!

Quote:
these gun warnings are the first step to changing the public’s conversation,” said Councilwoman Vanessa Gibson, a co-sponsor of the gun bill.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously, I don't think these people have ever worked in retail before, or shopped at a large retail center where employees are constantly hounding them to buy service plans or other nonsense for their brand new electronic gizmo. When I walk into a store, usually my mind is already made up on what I am going to buy. A worker constantly following me around and trying to pressure me to buy additional items will usually get a "NO" from me, and in the worse cases, might even cause me to leave that store and purchase the item elsewhere or online. Now, I have worked in retail in the past and have had the usual "orientation" pep talk where the manager urges everyone to "upsell, upsell, UPSELL!", while putting on the most false smiling face you can imagine. Now, other employees with me usually roll our eyes and the "upsell" instruction is largely ignored by us on the sales floor. Why? Because we know, from our own personal experiences shopping, that most people who walk into the store already has their mind made up and is not likely to change that.

So, do they really think that by issuing a warning placard with the gun license application bundle will somehow make the applicant change his mind about applying for the pistol license he has been yearning for and waiting for his 21st birthday since the age of 17? Or the avid hunter who can finally realize his dream of keeping his treasured Winchester Model 1886 .45-70 at his home in the city? Or the recent victim of a mugging/break in who realize that things could have turned out far worse and now they are looking for something serious to protect their family in the future?

Quote:
“We would be one of the first major jurisdictions to enact this type of legislation.”
Yay! Congrats! Want a cookie?
Rachen is offline  
Old November 2, 2017, 01:45 PM   #2
Psychedelic Bang
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2009
Location: FL USA
Posts: 332
I grew up in NYC. Guns were repressed back than. I can only imagine now its plain unconstitutional but they don't care.

Anyways, we all know who is armed in New York City: The cops, the mayor's bodyguards, the gangs, and the private security of the billionaires who live in Manhattan.

Everybody else get's a permit denied on the basis of, "they don't need a gun in the city limits." Cause irrc, that's the only way to have a gun in the city limits - show a need and get permission from the police.

Maybe that has changed? I dunno.

Anyways, we had rifles we kept at our cabin in upstate NY. I did not actually own or even fire a handgun till I moved down to Florida. I don't think I ever even touched a handgun growing up in New York.

Edit = I just wanted to add this in bold type: The gangs, the criminals, the muggers, thieves, robbers, and rapists of New York City are armed.

So good luck to you if you live in NYC. I do not miss it. I do not miss it.
__________________
"Was always kinda partial to Roy Rogers actually. I really like those sequined shirts..."
Psychedelic Bang is offline  
Old November 2, 2017, 02:12 PM   #3
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 542
Quote:
I grew up in NYC. Guns were repressed back than. I can only imagine now its plain unconstitutional but they don't care.

Anyways, we all know who is armed in New York City: The cops, the mayor's bodyguards, the gangs, and the private security of the billionaires who live in Manhattan.

Everybody else get's a permit denied on the basis of, "they don't need a gun in the city limits." Cause irrc, that's the only way to have a gun in the city limits - show a need and get permission from the police.

Maybe that has changed? I dunno.

Anyways, we had rifles we kept at our cabin in upstate NY. I did not actually own or even fire a handgun till I moved down to Florida. I don't think I ever even touched a handgun growing up in New York.

Edit = I just wanted to add this in bold type: The gangs, the criminals, the muggers, thieves, robbers, and rapists of New York City are armed.

So good luck to you if you live in NYC. I do not miss it. I do not miss it.
In the mid 2000s, I worked as an operational manager at a Staples store in Midtown Manhattan. I had already possessed a NYC Residence Pistol Permit but obviously I cannot carry my gun (Remington Model 1858 with Kirst conversion cylinder) into my store, per NYC instructions as well as Staples company policy.

Then the Mumbai attacks happened and that got me to thinking of what the hell is going to go down if something like that happens in Midtown, which is to terrorists as a field of dried grass is to a lit cigarette butt flung from a car window.

I brought in a Chinese military tactical folding longbow (65lb full draw, fiberglass and steel construction) and a case of 30 arrows all fitted with triple-bladed broadheads and kept it in the overhead office that overlooks the entire sales floor. Being from northern China, I had been trained in archery and bowhunting by my uncles since the age of 5. Guns are not the first weapon I was accustomed to, bows are, and I have owned, operated, and hunted with the Chinese army bow for almost 5 years. It is one of the most rugged and well made tools I have ever seen, built by a military force who is used to operating in almost inhospitable conditions. I am not Lars Andersen but I can hit a target right in the vitals within 50 yards. If some terrorist nutjobs were to barge into my store, they are not going to enjoy the results one bit.

The funniest thing about all this, is that NYC is so unhealthily obsessed with things that go BANG, but here is a device which can deliver the lethality of a hollowpoint or softpoint .308 out to 100-120 yards and do so with absolute silence and stealth, and yet no one bats an eye. But then, I have never seen any government, in ancient or modern times, attempt to ban bow building or ownership. Doing so will require the complete ban on all trees and automobiles(leaf springs are excellent bow limb material), as well as metallurgy in general (same reason, spring steel bar stock.

I never had to use the bow, or the pistol, in any defensive situation, but I take safety seriously and I have both weapons locked and loaded all the time in my home.

Last edited by Rachen; November 2, 2017 at 03:36 PM. Reason: There are no .308 flatpoints. I am always thinking about .45-70s
Rachen is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 12:12 PM   #4
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
..studies that show a link between...
Lots and lots of people use this phrase as their justification for doing X, Y, or Z.

And most of the time, its pure bovine feces.

"show a link" ?? Just WHAT is the link?? They are picking and choosing their so called facts, to create an untrue impression on the gullible.

Correlation is NOT causation!!!

Virtually every mass murderer ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days of committing murder. That's a link.

People who own or rent a home are at greater risk of home invasion than those who are homeless. That's a link.

You could "link" every crime committed ( by anyone, throughout the entire country) during the 8 years of the Obama Administration with the Democratic party. That's a link.

You can "link" ANYTHING, and everything that happens on planet Earth. The link can be strong, or it can be so tenuous as to be barely recognizable.

Just saying "there is a link" isn't anything but hot air (and that's as polite as I can get).

Better put all the babies in prison, because there is a link between babies and crime!!! (every criminal was a baby, who grew up... hey, its a LINK!!!, it must be true, I read it on the Internet!! )
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 01:23 PM   #5
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
Maybe they should also put a warning on cars, politicians and the streets in NYC.
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 01:59 AM   #6
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
Rachen , interesting stuff, thanks for sharing - could you post pics of this bow?
armoredman is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 04:09 AM   #7
mete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
There are and have been a group of anti-gun doctors who are using their position as doctors to further their anti-gun agenda.
I was born and raised in Brooklyn. My city high school had a shooting team and range in 1960s but in the strong anti-gun movement in the late '60 it all ended .There was never a problem with those teams !!
The Sullivan Law was started purely to deal with political opponents. Starting in NYC it unfortunately spread to the whole state ! Sullivan ? he ended his own life .
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver !
mete is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 11:28 AM   #8
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
The studies the anti-gun folks like to cite are the one by Arthur Kellermann and those like it. Kellermann and the folks who repeat his study over and over use case control methods to compare people who have something bad happen to them such as being killed in the home (Kellermann) or who commit suicide to controls who don't have something bad happen to them or commit suicide. The controls are randomly selected people in the same ZIP code who are the same age, race and etc.

This is what the National Academies of Sciences had to say about Kellermann (and those that do similar studies) and his conclusions:

Case-control sampling schemes matching homicide victims to non-victims with similar characteristics have also been used to infer whether owning a firearm is a risk factor for homicide and the utility of firearms for self-defense (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of the case-control methodology). Kellermann et al. (1993) found that persons who had a firearm in the home were at a greater risk for homicide in their home than persons who did not have a firearm (adjusted odds ratio of 2.7). Cummings et al. (1997) found that persons who purchased a handgun were at greater risk for homicide than their counterparts who had no such history (adjusted odds ratio of 2.2).
In light of these findings, Kellermann et al. (1993) ultimately conclude that owning firearms for personal protection is “counterproductive,” (p. 1087) and that “people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in the home” (p. 1090). This conclusion rests on the implicit assumption that the decision to own a firearm is random or exogenous with respect to homicide in the home (after controlling for various observed factors, including whether a household member has been hurt in a fight, has been arrested, or has used illicit drugs). Cummings and his colleagues (1997) do not draw such strong causal conclusions, but instead simply describe the observed positive association between firearms and homicide.
In the committee’s view, the exogenous selection assumption and the resulting conclusions are not tenable. While these observed associations between firearms ownership and homicide may be of interest, they do little to reveal the impact of firearms on homicide or the utility of firearms for self-defense. As noted by the authors, even small degrees of misreporting on ownership by either the cases or the controls can create substantial biases in the estimated risk factors (see Kleck, 1997, for an illustration of these biases). A more fundamental inferential problem arises from the fact that ownership is not likely to be random with respect to homicide or other forms of victimization. To the contrary, the decision to own a firearm may be directly related to the likelihood of being victimized. People may, for instance, acquire firearms in response to specific or perceived threats, and owners may be more or less psychologically prone toward violence. Thus, while the observed associations may reflect a causal albeit unspecified path-way, they may also be entirely spurious. As Kellermann and his colleagues note (1993:1089), “it is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide.”


In academic speak, that is a smack down.

Anti-gun folks like to quote these particular studies but they don't ever quote what the National Academy of Sciences Committee had to say about them.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 12:49 PM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
the decision to own a firearm may be directly related to the likelihood of being victimized.
This is not repeated nearly often enough. Kellerman (and his disciples) did their study(s) with flawed methodology, and were debunked decades ago.

Their basic premise (which they likely had before the study) was that having a gun in the home was the reason for the "increased risk", over non gun owning homes. This completely ignores the rather obvious, and common fact that people who realize they are ALREADY at increased risk often get a gun to use for protection.

It also ignores the fact that many, many people have guns in their homes, that are there NOT for personal protection, but for hunting and sporting use. Those guns could be, and likely would be used for defense if the need arose, but that's not why they are owned. My Grandfather's shotgun "lived" behind the kitchen door (loaded) for over 40 years and two generations of children. NEVER an issue with safety. Never needed for home or personal defense. There, if the need arose, but not there with direct personal defensive use as the primary reason. Defense of livestock (shooting the fox going after the chickens) and hunting was primary use,

Millions upon millions of people, generation after generation, have lived their lives peacefully with guns in their homes. The gun is NOT a cause of violence, though it may, or may not be a response.

I participated in a study at work, some time back, all the questions related to industrial safety, and work practices, with a few about personal behavior, such as do you drive within 5mph of the speed limit, do you wear seat belts, etc,. ONE (and only one) question asked "have you, or any member of your family been in a physical fight in the past year?" NONE of the questions asked anything about guns, in any fashion.

When the results came back one of their recommendations was that, to decrease the risk in our work lives, we should "avoid handguns".

That's right, I'm directly quoting their recommendation "avoid handguns" !

Not a single question asked about guns, but "avoid handguns" was their recommendation.

These people already had their mind made up about that, and clearly didn't want to be confused with the facts!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 01:44 PM   #10
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
Yep. Kellermann was comparing people who had been killed in their homes (some by police) to folks who had not been killed in their homes and thought he had something.



Let's say Rob is a 23 year old man who has a gun for protection and Todd is a 23 year old man that doesn't have a gun. Rob and Todd live in the same ZIP code. Both Rob and Todd like to drink a few beers and both have smoked pot in the past. Rob and Todd have similar levels of education.
Rob is killed in his home and Todd is selected as the control. At first glance, it might seem that the difference was Rob keeping the gun for protection caused Rob to be at greater risk than Todd.

But Rob happens to be a gang member that sells crack cocaine out of his house and sometimes shorts his customers has coaxed his neighbor's daughter into addiction and prostitution while Todd used his high school diploma to get a good paying job working at a warehouse for a large shipping company and married his neighbor's daughter. Rob keeps a gun for protection because he has had specific threats and he likes to threaten others with it. Todd is seen as a pillar of his neighborhood. Todd might buy a gun in the future but with his young daughter in the home, he wants to save up enough for a safe and while he lives in the same ZIP code as Rob, no one has threatened Todd or his family.

But the anti-gunners like to pretend that Rob keeping the gun made him less safe than Todd.

Last edited by Evan Thomas; November 5, 2017 at 08:28 PM. Reason: race is still irrelevant.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 02:24 PM   #11
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
You expect common sense from the NYC government ? I don't recall warnings on bottle of alcoholic beverages .
SIGSHR is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 06:32 PM   #12
curt.45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Location: Fort Wayne Ind.
Posts: 866
yeah and spoons caused me to get fat, not forks just spoons.

sorry a bit cranky i didnt get any 17 page pamphlet with my spoons
curt.45 is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 09:18 PM   #13
libiglou
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2017
Posts: 184
I wonder what the idiots in NYC will come up with next. After this week maybe they will ban pickup trucks. Thank god I live 20 miles away but its still bad. A pistol permit can take a year to get approved, you have to be interviewed and you can only carry to and back from the range. Hopefully in another 10 years I'm otta here.
By the way if our lovely governor(il duce coumo) decides to run for potus be very afraid, he has a way to pass legislation before anyone can react to it. Screwed NY gun owners with the SAFE ACT.
libiglou is offline  
Old November 6, 2017, 08:13 AM   #14
cecILL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2001
Location: central IL
Posts: 769
Hard to understand closed-minded people, facts and logic mean nothing.
cecILL is offline  
Old November 6, 2017, 11:01 AM   #15
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
Golly....gee... A warning like that would certainly stop me from buying guns....

Only in New York!
JWT is offline  
Old November 6, 2017, 03:02 PM   #16
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 542
Quote:
Rachen , interesting stuff, thanks for sharing - could you post pics of this bow?
I wish I could right now, but since my old Samsung flip cameraphone bit the dust last year, I have been using a Kyocera beater with no camera

But the bow in question is very similar to this Chinese (Hainan) produced model that this site right here is selling:
https://www.aliexpress.com/store/pro...1c4772d1q4jqxZ

It is practically the same thing except the one I have has a bit heavier tool-steel receiver. And it has no recesses carved into the frame, just a rectangular block of metal. Instead of the plastic wingnuts that you see in the new model that is used to lock up and free the limbs for deploying into service, the one I have uses an actual screw that must be manipulated using a separate screwdriver. That bow is one true piece of work though. I have had complete pass-throughs on hogs weighing as much as 300lb as well as elk. Similar effects on coyotes shot at ranges from 20 yards to 50 yards with a Montec 3-blade broadhead on carbon arrows that had been weighted by filling the cores with rosin-core soldering rods, adding up to 250 grains to their existing weights. Out of curiosity, I had fired from a standing position at stationary ballistic gel targets on a range just to see how far these arrow were capable of traveling, and the maximum effective range with lethal penetration seem to be around 300 yards aimed. Without aiming, and just firing like a howitzer from a 45 angle of tilt, the arrows have hit out as far as 600 yards on days with relatively calm weather conditions.

People think long distance shooting started out with the Creedmoor matches of the 1870s, and more avid gunnies know about the Schutzenfests of Germany around the 1500s, but in reality, long range shooting has been around since the Classical Era, with actual recorded documentation from the Han Dynasty about soldiers and hunters competing at sanctioned events with massive attendance, shooting specially made bows out to 1,000 yards. Some of those bows still on display in museums throughout China and Turkey were fitted with sights and sighting mechanisms that would make you really wonder how come the practical rifle was not invented much, much earlier.

On a tactical standpoint, this bow, and bows of similar types, would provide absolutely devastating performance when used defensively from a hidden or obscured position. I even made a couple of crude aiming posts from screws and glued them to either side of the receiver right above the arrow rest and dabbed some tritium sight-paint onto them for better target acquisition. Even when not deployed, the bow consists of a heavy one-piece metal bar, and was intentionally built this way for use as a close-quarters bludgeon, which it absolutely excels in as well. I have tested it on martial arts dummies and the thing is far more destructive than a tactical baton or a club.

There is an American company called Primal Gear Unlimited which builds a fantastic tactical survival bow that is almost identical in appearance to this Chinese model and I believe the Hainan company remodeled the milsurp bows that they had into the new version after seeing the PGU weapon. I ordered some spare limbs from PGU and found that they actually work on that old PLA warhorse.

Quote:
I wonder what the idiots in NYC will come up with next. After this week maybe they will ban pickup trucks. Thank god I live 20 miles away but its still bad. A pistol permit can take a year to get approved, you have to be interviewed and you can only carry to and back from the range. Hopefully in another 10 years I'm otta here.
By the way if our lovely governor(il duce coumo) decides to run for potus be very afraid, he has a way to pass legislation before anyone can react to it. Screwed NY gun owners with the SAFE ACT.
My application took 8 months and they interviewed me TWICE, as if they wanted to see if I would say anything different on the second time which could be used as grounds of dishonesty. Geez, I felt like I was a criminal suspect being interrogated. Now I know some jurisdictions, with New Jersey and Massachusetts being the most notorious, would deliberately prolong the wait times for applications in order to allow the applicant to "cool off" in case he was intent on getting a gun in order to settle a fight or take revenge on someone, which by itself is absurd. I have not known of anyone intending to use a weapon for immediate violent intent going through a legal permit process.

Quote:
You expect common sense from the NYC government ? I don't recall warnings on bottle of alcoholic beverages .
They do. Usually all containers of beer and liquor have small blurbs near the barcode warning about drinking and pregnancies or something similar. It is a lot like the warning labels on ciggie packets.

Quote:
Yep. Kellermann was comparing people who had been killed in their homes (some by police) to folks who had not been killed in their homes and thought he had something.



Let's say Rob is a 23 year old man who has a gun for protection and Todd is a 23 year old man that doesn't have a gun. Rob and Todd live in the same ZIP code. Both Rob and Todd like to drink a few beers and both have smoked pot in the past. Rob and Todd have similar levels of education.
Rob is killed in his home and Todd is selected as the control. At first glance, it might seem that the difference was Rob keeping the gun for protection caused Rob to be at greater risk than Todd.

But Rob happens to be a gang member that sells crack cocaine out of his house and sometimes shorts his customers has coaxed his neighbor's daughter into addiction and prostitution while Todd used his high school diploma to get a good paying job working at a warehouse for a large shipping company and married his neighbor's daughter. Rob keeps a gun for protection because he has had specific threats and he likes to threaten others with it. Todd is seen as a pillar of his neighborhood. Todd might buy a gun in the future but with his young daughter in the home, he wants to save up enough for a safe and while he lives in the same ZIP code as Rob, no one has threatened Todd or his family.

But the anti-gunners like to pretend that Rob keeping the gun made him less safe than Todd.
DING DING!!! Excellent example right there. A nice verbal knockout, Mayweather style, right to the antis' flawed notions. They could have based the results of their "research" about the "risks on gun ownership" on all those gangbangers and drug sellers/users with guns, and obviously, since these folks are far more likely to shoot each other and themselves, get into gunfights with the police, and commit violent acts to get monetary support for their vices, it is just too easy to point out that "OOhhh, you see, people with guns are far more likely to instigate or become victims of violent acts". They just conveniently left out the part about the high risk lifestyles that "these people" they use in their "study" happen to be involved in.
Rachen is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07182 seconds with 10 queries