Far more college kids have been and will be hurt by drinking than by guns.

Once you accomplish Prohibition 2.0 then you can start on guns.

What makes you think it would be a problem?

Since he's in the next town over from my home town, I'll ask him next time I'm on leave.

Ignorance that agrees with yours does nothing to prove you right. But I don't expect you to know that...

And it seems you are again advocating the Police State, by endorsing only the government have weapons.

Appears to be a reflex for you. You might want to examine that.

them at home until the revolution starts.

The signs and stickers on doors prohibiting guns have never stopped a college killer. Time the try a better solution instead of a strongly worded sign.

Now why don't you cite an example or two where a CCW permit holder went crazy and shot up a campus?

How about even one example?

Or are you gonna go with your generic "It creates a bad culture/atmosphere" response?

Then there is Suzanna Hupp who went unarmed ON PURPOSE to a cafeteria. The result is her family died because she left her gun in the car.

So, all you have to go with is your generic "guns are pollution" argument?

You sound just like the "do gooders" back in the '50's ranting about how "pornography" like Playboy and that evil Esquire that were going to ruin our youth and needed to be censored because it polluted and corrupted their minds...for their own good of course.

They weren't comfortable with anything but their interpretation of a highly flexible 1st amendment, and you aren't comfortable with anybody's interpretation of the 2nd but your version either.

Not a shred of evidence, but we should just trust you that you're doing the right thing and we should be willing to ignore the Bill of Rights and multiple court decisions because you said so?

On the good side, they were all eventually laughed out of town too.

I really get the scary feeling from you and some of your fellow control supporters that you will all be terribly disappointed if crime and violence continues to fall. I have yet to see a single gun control supporter actually saying that the lower crime rate is a good thing.

And we saw what happened to this country when advocates of Temperance got their way. The Temperance movement is right where it belongs, which is in the ash heap of history.

What you aren't willing to accept is the reality of your Gun Prohibitionist ideology is also deservedly headed to the ash heap of American history. And there's a word for people who refuse to accept reality, it is delusional.

As Paul Barret said most eloquently over here The Glock, From 'Handgun Tupperware' To Top Pistol

This is the modern age. We prove our points with science and can predict the future with it.

How about you actually describe the problem(s) you keep alluding to?

Great minds and all that...

...self-centered thinking on the other hand is - try ask them how criminals get guns or what ends up happening to all these guns - don't expect much of an answer.

Which is why guns keep proliferating and gun control bills go nowhere for many years running.

I don't get it. If gun control was really so mainstream and popular, why aren't groups like the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center flush with members and money?

Why does the pro-gun side have millions of members and lots and lots of money, whereas the gun control side only boasts tens of thousands of members and a fraction of the money?

Something doesn't add up...

...plus it's easier to build a movement dedicated to hugging guns than it is to prying people away form them...it's a vested interest group.

Gun Free Zone:

After all, he says they sometimes miss. And clearly, if guns aren't a 100% solution all the time, then they're totally useless... right?

This is just more flabber and fearmongering by the Boston Globe, an outlet with an axe to grind. You might as well ask Newsmax for an accurate opinion on the President. Ask the many, many other states which don't ban guns on campus. What you'll find is that the people who obey rules not to bring guns on campus aren't the ones who you have to worry about, it's the guys who do it even though it's illegal.

I think your average gun owner is not. Also, it's a columnist, not an editorial. Sheesh.

we know.

...to start with the snark. I'm a master of snark.

most cops go to the range only when they have to. Their training is also about what I got from my mom when I was a kid (and re-enforced in boot camp.)
Many of us go to the range about once a week. I don't know what you are calling average, but I doubt you are basing it on personal experience or empirical evidence.

Training on when and when not to pull the trigger is huge.

and different laws. I agree that laws should be explained as part of the training classes, since non cops are held to a higher standard. Even with that, cops are more likely to have "bad shoots" than someone defending themselves. Cops show up not always knowing who the bad guys are. A CCW (or even more so, some guy in his house) there is no doubt.

...I would wager that police find themselves in more situations by the very nature of the goal where "shoots" in general are likely to occur rather than your average toter who's just doing it for show.

if it is concealed? Superman's x-ray vision?

If someone is actively trying or threatening to try to do me such serious bodily harm that I might die or be very seriously injured then I can use deadly force in my defense. If it is a threat then the threat must be credible and immediate.

really being a master of snark.

...is in part being aware of the range of available snark that is out there. In this case, I think Mr. Carlin aptly sums up the sickness that pervades the Gungeon.

On the outside they are beat to hell for being carried every day through hell and back.

On the inside they are almost brand new for hardly ever being used to fire a shot.

That is your 'well trained'.

How long has it been legal in PA?

How many incidents did CCW'ers cause in that time frame?

Keep in mind about 12% of the adult population the last time I checked has a license to carry.

You have a link for that? 1 in 8 adults has a carry permit? Are you talking nationally? I know hundreds of people all over the country. None even own a handgun. Where are all these folk?

I'm on the iPhone at the moment, but I'll see what I can dig up for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=399901#400429

I don't have links to the data handy, but if you go to the post you'll get a good idea of the volume of permits in PA.

so much so that it's hard to credit.

Did you ask each of them, individually, if they had guns? Are they all convicted felons or insane? Are they all committed pacifists? Did you search their houses, vehicles, boats and lockers?

Are all of them convinced that it's your business whether they own guns? Are all of them honest to a fault? Did you use a lie detector or are you such a well trained police officer that no one can get a lie past you?

I can't see how your assertion is any more than a guess.

1 is Vietnamese and the other is Korean.

The Vietnamese gentleman owns a firearm and has a license to carry. The Korean lady does not own a firearm nor have a license to carry. From this I can deduce the following.

1/2 of all Asians own and are licensed to carry a firearm.
All Vietnamese people own firearms and have a license to carry.
No Koreans have firearms or licenses.
All Vietnamese people are men.
All Koreans are women.
Both make very tasty food.

Of course I asked them personally, or knew them well enough to not need asking. I didn't need to search. It's a subject I bring up in conversation regularly, when talking to friends. I'm fascinated by the claims made here on DU, so I conduct my own surveys among those I know and those I meet. I have known 3 individuals who own handguns. One is certifiably insane (haven't seen him in 15 years), the other 2 are acquaintances and both are Republican. Why would someone lie about it? I have several friends and family who own hunting rifles and shotguns and hunting bows. Not handguns.

That's the way most people are.

I personally know a few hundred folks with guns and several with Concealed Handgun Licenses. And probably several others that have CHLs but the topic has never come up. I know several who carry every day, all the time.

BTW - The church that I attend has just had a CHL class with over twenty members attending the class.

...

Same thing that happens when the criminal misses.

Almost always, a bullet hole in a wall, tree or the ground.



I don't see anybody pulling guns from cops (who draw their guns FAR more often then CCWers) because of the potential, and the police chief admits on the record that cops miss their targets.

It's a non-issue.

At best, only college seniors and graduate students will even have the option to legally carry, and only a tiny fraction of that small pool will opt to carry concealed. It's a non-issue.

It's right up there with gay marriage and pot legalization. Lots of hand-wringing and "what about the children" tears, then it passes, and nothing happens.

...if we had a sane majority in this country we would have much more stringent gun control.

I think police on average are much better trained and screened that your average CCWer. I'd like to change that - I think both should be well trained, but then again I think firearm ownership is inherently connected with service in the Militia and should be "well-regulated."

A lot of their training is on things like room-clearing, holds, frisking procedures, taser and pepper spray deployment, crisis management, etc. Of course, they're also trained and expected (but not required to) run into danger to protect the innocent.

As a private citizen I have a different responsibility... it's to protect myself and my loved ones by avoiding danger if possible, by lethal force if needed.

I don't object to basic training requirements for CCW, but if the powers that be want me to be trained like a cop they'd better make the training cheap or free. Open up the same training that cops use to the average joe.

But I doubt that the anti-gun forces would support spending that kind of money for gun training to anybody that wants it. You see, we can advocate for socialized university education and socialized health insurance, but not socialized gun training.



As to the Militia, well, I'm in the militia and I perform all my militia-related duties as required.

Why should society subsidize a privilege?

Better luck next time.

B. I have already been a member, and will be again when I retire from active duty.

C. Don't try to teach your Granny how to suck eggs.

D. Start using a less juvenile tactic than reposting idiotic cartoons, if you want to be taken seriously.

but since you continually outdo your own ignorance, I'll stick around for the show.

Just the same as slavery was made illegal by the Constitution and the KKK never gave up with racist activity, so do anti-gunners continue to hide thier illegal desires and goals.

What the heck are you blathering about?

I thought that spending money was better than spending lives?

We already have a Militia - the National Guard - and a strong National Military - why such a service shouldn't be subsidized through additional taxation on weapons is beyond me...

...without any help at all from the government?


Yeah, that's fair. Just like a literacy test to vote, right?

I saw one of the test that a Georgia county used in the 50's. You needed to have lawyer training to pass the test, and you needed to acquire it on your own. Of course, we could put on a poll tax to pay for the education...

...you should have additional training. There are pretty strict requirements for hunters too. I don't see how that's unreasonable. Let's weed out the crazies and the trigger happy.

The courts have been clear - you have no legal right to carry without restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Legal_issues

They are expected, as competent adults, to know the rules and know the equipment without having to, say, go through training that is suitable for a professional dangerous-game hunter.


I have never said that restrictions are illegal. I'm questioning your assertion that, before I can carry concealed, I have to be as good as a professional law-enforcement officer in terms of combat skills and tactical awareness.


Since CCWers are already a pretty safe and law-abiding group, since there are only a relative handful of justifiable self-defense shootings a year, and since only a handful of those involve innocent bystanders, then all this training you want to mandate, and all this money you want spent would save at best... what, a dozen lives a year?

How about we make drivers meet the standards that cops have to meet instead? Car accidents kill almost 40,000 a year, as opposed to a couple of hundred of gun accidents. Seems to me that requiring police-level training for drivers (remember, driving is NOT a constitutionally-protected right, but a privaledge granted by the state) would save far more lives than fussing about CCWers.

No, the fact that you're hot and bothered to make people spend large amounts of money for the priviledge of carrying concealed means that your goal is to use the power of government to strongly discourage CCWers.



And quite frankly, if lots of people DID pay the money and get the police-level training and skills to get a CCW permit, there a lot of people in the Gungeon that would say that this level of committment is de facto proof that the person is NOT mentally capable of responsible concealed-carry.

"They spend all their time thinking about killing people! Discussing the best way to kill a person! Frothing over weapons of death! Discussing which bullet will kill somebody the fastest! Which one will blow the biggest chunks of flesh out of a person! OBVIOUSLY they shouldn't own a gun, much less carry one in public!"

What's wrong with training? How much could it possibly cost? It'd be a jobs program

You guys obviously have money for multiple firearms so what's wrong with spending a little bit more on training to exercise the privilege of carrying?

I'm in favor of public safety, don't get me wrong, when I see a sustainable program that would have some effect (reduction in theft is also likely), I think it's a worthwhile idea to consider. But what I hear from the Gungeon is that pro-gun people are a party of no - no reform, no new ideas, no consideration of public safety - no to government, we can take care of our own. I think that's a lousy approach to have to any topic, including driver safety. What I see here is hatred of reforms, hatred of anyone who dares to make the assertion that something is failing in our gun control policy and something can be done about that is responsible and common sense. What you're saying is that we can't get better, and I for one, couldn't disagree more.

Your question has about as much relevance to reality as talking about warp drive on star trek. This issue has been settled by the Supreme Court. Any kind of 'militia' requirement for gun ownership is illegal.

Try $800 a class... plus ammo (about 800 rounds, $200+), not including travel, food, and lodging.

You're talking a $1,500, minimum, if the place is within reasonable driving distance. Not to mention time off of work.

Per person.

http://www.thunderranchinc.com/cost.html.


Compared to buying a decent NEW handgun for $500.

And how often would the training need to be renewed? Yearly? Bi-yearly?

So what's your goal here? Require everybody that wants a CCW permit spend 3x the cost of the gun to get a permit?

Or by adding several million customers to a limited supply of tactical learning centers, to effectively bar people from getting a permit through long queues at approved training centers?

Think about it... there are about 800,000 police officers in the US. Florida alone has 800,000 active pistol permits!

Or is your plan to open up a new field for wealthy investors to play in, after they've gotten tired of investing their wealth in oil, strategic minerals, real estate, and funeral-home chains... tactical-training franchises?

And how will the historically anti-gun states deal with the issue of having enough training facilities to meet demand? Do you imagine that, say, New Jersey will be quick and responsive to requests for permits to build these facilities?

I imagine a 15-year legal fight through the courts and NIMBY and the EPA and the anti-gun groups, followed by deliberately underfunded and unresponsive state bureaucracy. Same for California, Massachusettes, New York, Maryland, Illinois, and a bunch of other states.



Upon further reflection, I don't think it's workable at all, either your idea or mine, at least, not without massive increases in the training facilities available for this kind of full-on tactical training. The kind of training where you practice room-clearing and close-quarters combat with real guns and real ammo (or sim-munitions) in real low-light situations.

Sure, the NRA has the basic pistol safety-classes... those are pretty common, I believe. But tactical training is another animal altogether. And a much more expensive!


And regarding the "no"... look, this isn't a numbers game. You throwing out a bunch of ideas until one of them gets agreed on out of sheer exhaustion or a desire to compromise isn't going to work.

Bush played this game with our civil rights and our constitution and the Democrats, playing politics by gambling that the Democrats will be forced by politics and opinion to agree to at least SOME of what he proposed simply by asserting that the Dems can's say "no" all the time.

There is no doubt AT ALL that things can be reformed. As iverglas has pointed out, at least one, and most likely several, are doing shitty jobs with record-keeping, meaning people that are disqualified from gun ownership aren't in the system. That's something that can be fixed... except that "austerity measures" will probably result in it not being fixed.

Something that you can try is: asking instead of telling us what should be done. Try it; it might work.


Finally... "public safety" is not the end-all, be-all of existence. It is not our most valued concept. Remember all the things we were told were in the interest of public safety during the Bush Administration?

Did you agree with them in their entirely? The DHS, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, the TSA, backscatter body scanners and intrusive pat-downs, torture of prisoners, indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, Guantanamo Bay and Baghran Air Base? How about mandatory police checkpoints, where you have to have your ID scanned to pass through? Public-area surveillance cameras?

The police have developed a new radar that lets them peer through concrete walls and detect what's behind it from 50 meters away or more. Is it okay if they use things like this to peer through houses at random?

How about things like tattooing barcodes on our faces, or inserting those injectable ID chips in us like they put in cats and dogs?


If you failed to agree with even ONE of these things, then "public safety" isn't your highest priority. Even if you object based on "it probably wouldn't increase safety", nonetheless, it MIGHT increase safety, and certainly wouldn't decrease it!

And by not agreeing with everything I've just outlined above, you're proving that "public safety" is not the end-all, be-all of civilization.


And, finally, I'll say it again... if you want to reduce violence (including gun violence), then legalize the damn drugs!

You still aren't refuting my argument that since there is so much money for new guns there's no money for training.

I think once every ten years or something like that would be reasonable...

"Something that you can try is: asking instead of telling us what should be done. Try it; it might work."

I've tried that - some posters here give reasonable responses - more than a few don't.

"You throwing out a bunch of ideas until one of them gets agreed on out of sheer exhaustion or a desire to compromise isn't going to work."

This is DU - Not Mitt Romney's quiet room for class warfare discussion.

"Did you agree with them in their entirely? The DHS, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, the TSA, backscatter body scanners and intrusive pat-downs, torture of prisoners, indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, Guantanamo Bay and Baghran Air Base? How about mandatory police checkpoints, where you have to have your ID scanned to pass through? Public-area surveillance cameras?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#United_States - I've already stated I'm for the Patriot Act (as is Barbara Boxer I might note, I'm for DHS, for extraordinary rendition (I would have done the same as Obama on Osama - not the Ron Paul position), I think TSA could be run much more effectively, I'm against torture of course (doesn't work), against indefinite detention (for trials), Guantanamo Bay (the politics are difficult), think we need to rethink our Afghanistan strategy, for police checkpoints in emergency situation, for National ID (I think we basically already have it), and we already have public-area surveillance cameras in many major cities (for). Basically, I share the same position as the President - so shoot me

Again, I think we need to be common sense about gun control, what we have now, we all agree isn't reasonable, and isn't really effective (except for our more "libertarian&quot posters.

You are the first one around here to defend some Bush's worst worst and unAmerican polices.
That puts you closer to ............... nowhere near Gandhi.
http://politicalcompass.org/index

Oh yeah, extraordinary rendition=disappearing

Extraordinary rendition is not the same thing as "disappearing" - and we're not talking about U.S. citizens (plus I state I'm against indefinite detention and torture) , the police already have the power to set up checkpoints = http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/da-accused-serial-killer-intentionally-drove-through-checkpoints.html - so basically you're just blowing smoke...

This has nothing to to do with the OP - if you just want to misrepresent my position I'm done.

...is much cheaper than getting comprehensive tactical training. Which, incidentally, isn't much good if it's not refreshed on a schedule a lot more frequent than once a decade.

You're proposing $600 to buy a decent handgun, and $2,000 a year to keep a pistol permit, assuming refresher training once a year.



I've tried that - some posters here give reasonable responses - more than a few don't.

Welcome to DU!


This is DU - Not Mitt Romney's quiet room for class warfare discussion.

Regardless, the attitude exists. "But why can't we do X? How about Y? Z? How come you're being so unreasonable?"


I've already stated I'm for the Patriot Act (as is Barbara Boxer I might note, I'm for DHS, for extraordinary rendition (I would have done the same as Obama on Osama - not the Ron Paul position), I think TSA could be run much more effectively, I'm against torture of course (doesn't work), against indefinite detention (for trials), Guantanamo Bay (the politics are difficult), think we need to rethink our Afghanistan strategy, for police checkpoints in emergency situation, for National ID (I think we basically already have it), and we already have public-area surveillance cameras in many major cities (for). Basically, I share the same position as the President - so shoot me

So you're willing to sacrifice liberty for security. Okay, fair enough. Although not all of it. You're not okay with 24/7 police checkpoints and torture, even though one or both would definitely increase national security and neither would harm it, and you're okay with tossing the 4th Amendment in the shredder.

And saying you're sharing the same position as the President, which reminds everybody that the President's record of continuing and expanding Bush's unitary executive theory, and of not investigating or prosecuting the people that crossed even the new, looser line. So whatever you want to allow law enforcement to do, keep in mind they will go far beyond that without fear of reprisal.


Obama eyes 'common sense' US gun control
(AFP) – Mar 13, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says it's time for US lawmakers to tackle the divisive issue of gun control in hopes of preventing tragedies like the Tucson shooting spree that killed six people.

In an opinion column published Sunday in the Arizona Daily Star, the main Tucson newspaper, Obama argued that improving the system of background checks on gun purchasers should be the first "common sense" step that neither side of the gun debate should oppose.

*****************

That's my position and I'm sticking to it.


Improving the background check system is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, much of the problem seems to be with the state bureaucracies, not the federal one.


P.S. Good work on the DUzy's, yet again.

Thanks!

...have some basic training in what they're doing should they have to use their weapon in public is really not that much of a reach.

2. The sooner we stop fighting this culture war amongst ourselves the sooner we can end it with the pukes.

3. "You're not okay with 24/7 police checkpoints and torture, even though one or both would definitely increase national security and neither would harm it, and you're okay with tossing the 4th Amendment in the shredder."

Not a single academic study on torture has ever shown that it is effective in extracting information...and 24/7 police checkpoints are also probably counterproductive. I'd figure you would know the former - in fact, torture makes us less secure.

4. Well the state bureaucracies aren't going to fix themselves.

I used to have a concealed-carry permit issued by South Dakota. All they did was run my ID, then they gave me a permit. The card didn't even have a picture of me on it, nor my signature. They didn't even ask me if I could see!

So, yeah, I don't think "basic" training is unreasonable as a requirement. I think that "advanced" training is.

There's a reason I didn't carry concealed in South Dakota...I didn't want the responsibility. I just wanted to avoid the 48-hour waiting period and the extra round trip (4+ hours of driving) to get the revolver I wanted. The permit was $10, the extra gas would have been about $20, plus lunch.

2. Nearly all the 'pubes are pro-gun, as are half the democrats. So who should stop fighting?

3. I "believe" the former, that torture is ineffective on hardened criminals and terrorists. However, it is effective on non-hardened criminals and terrorists, and any organization has in it people that have knowledge but, due to political influence and such, have not experienced the conditions that make them proof against torture. Besides, the "harm" from torture is to our reputation, which is so much in the shitter to them that it no longer matters. So I've established that torture, intelligently applied, will definitely help and not really hurt our public safety.*

*This is the argument that I'm making for this discussion. Do not confuse this with my real position on torture, which aligns nicely with yours

As to the police checkpoints 24/7, hey, if it can stop contraband from entering the US from overseas, why not do it internally? Think about it... it would reduce commuting and car pollution, as people would be forced to live near their place of employment rather than wait long lines at security checkpoints twice a day. People would be encouraged to use public transit, which could be set up with TSA-style pat-down points and bag inspections and K-9 dogs. Before you go through the turnstile, you get quickly frisked, your bag checked, and your entire person sniffed before getting on the subway.

A cop could have a portable, wireless-networked fingerprint checker and go down the lines taking thumbprints or whatever to look for people with warrants issued for their arrest. And of course, security cameras and facial-recognition software would be used.

It's would catch a lot of wanted criminals, drastically reduce the number of people carrying guns and knives, limit the free flow of weapons and drugs from inter- and intra-state sources, and really make people safer.

4. Then we have to get Democrats elected... which requires election victories, which requires running on things and political messaging that gets us elected... which DOESN'T involve running on assault-weapons bans or assault-magazine bans.

And that does not automatically mean the Democratic side, as anyone familiar with Mitt Romney's actual record on guns knows.
Associational fallacies can run in more than one direction, it seems.

Bedamned if I'll back off and make things easier for Mittens to say: "See, I'm a centrist"!

Why anyone would think these are all the same is beyond me.

we should have a militia system like Switzerland, complete with draft. I would also draft both men and women. Norway and Israel does. UK and USSR did during WW2, why not?
Your opinion is your opinion, but is no more/no less valid than anyone else's.

I believe the 'nothing happens' refers to when a restriction is relaxed, and the sky doesn't fall.

Such as 'shall issue' concealed carry, relaxing restrictions on carry in hospitals in Texas, or restaurants that serve alcohol in various states.

You are already in the militia. No law, congressional act, or presidential directive required.

YOU will be required to train.
YOU will be required to keep a weapon at home.
YOU will be deployed overseas.
YOU will take orders from people like me.

Do you really want to go that route?

I don't see what the big panic is all about.

and we drilled in uniform. Fortunately, we were not allowed to leave school with any of that hardware.

do anything with the M1 carbines they had in the 'armory' except to drill with them and take the poor old things apart. There was no .30 ammo nearby anyway. 3 of us who came from the same high school tried to tell the idiot Commandant we were perfectly competent to shoot them but he had orders, apparently. Sheesh.

"“Even police officers who are excellent shots miss."

Is not the same as “Even police officers, who are excellent shots miss."

The fact, which I am betting he knows, is that being a cop is not by any stretch any guarantee of expertise in the use or misuse of firearms. Most police academies dedicate a couple of hours to the subject in 'basic training' and very few have any recurring official qualifying or practice requirements.

Because we haven't seen any tragedies on campuses where guns are allowed, but we have seen at least once instance of them saving lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

There are man college campuses in the US that allow guns on campus and the older (21+) students that would be allowed to carry are mature enough to do so. A law that bans guns from campus would not prevent someone from carrying a gun on campus (as we have seen many times before).

pretty funny:

“Even police officers who are excellent shots miss..."

I shoot competitively and the vast majority of LEOs who I shoot and have shot with are usually at the bottom of the standings at the end of the event.

Some small PDs the officers have to buy ammo for training. At 12-17 dollars for 50 rounds, they are not going to be buying lots of ammo.

Then these are the guys gun control advocates want us to call to bring guns to save us.

...to pay to better train the police.

...no taxation without representation was much more about representation than taxation right?

Some for as long as 20 years or so.
I am sure that you could google all of the mass shootings that have happened there.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas