# Trump says Frenchies shoulda had guns



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

He said If they had been allowed to carry, those who might wish to, the outcome would have been way different with many less lives lost.
He said its the same here. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, and they have one of the highest kill rate of people. Gotta like the man even if one dosent love him.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Trump is a bad joke...

But this one time, he *May* have been right...

This was a well planned, well executed plan of attack with military grade weapons & explosives, with expendable people carrying it out.

The problem with 'Extremists' of any kind, (no matter the 'Religion'),
If they are willing to die to carry out an assault, it's VERY HARD to stop them.
Trading their lives for the lives of their targets is always a very difficult situation...
(Ask any troop that has had to deal with suicide bombers... Or the Secret Service when it comes to protecting political figures...)

To stop a suicide attack, you MUST have separated lines of defense,
Rings of security, Disconnects/Shields between rings.
That isn't something that is built into civilian buildings...

Throwing a 'Civilian' with a firearm against a trained MILITARY shooter with military grade firearms is going to cause problems no matter where it's going down...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Throwing a 'Civilian' with a firearm against a trained MILITARY shooter with military grade firearms is going to cause problems no matter where it's going down...


"Trained military shooters" react the same and "civilians" to a shot to the head.
To say an armed good guy is of *no* use is unrealistic.

Their "military grade" firearms were just AK's

The last attack by a guy with a "military grade weapon" was stopped by three UNARMED people


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Trump is a bad joke...
> 
> But this one time, he *May* have been right...
> 
> ...


Mr Murphy said it: Professionals' are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs.

Unless someone is VERY well trained any kind of incoming fire is going to cause him to pause and change his plan. The greater the volume and the more directions its coming from increases the probability they will abandon their plan all together.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

A military strategist centuries ago said the two most deadly forces in a state of war are not the professional soldiers but rather the rebels of the war as they are uprising because they have nothing to lose and the determined non combatants caught between the two opposing forces as they consider their families and person possessions regardless how meager and will fight both the professional soldier and rebel to the death if necessary protecting it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

It all goes back to it better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.
The rest of the discussion is for armchair quarterbacks.


----------



## the old dude (Feb 29, 2012)

in 1986 when Reagan wanted to bomb Libya the French wouldn't let us fly over their country so we flew around them, then when Bush wanted them to join his coalition they wouldn't, at that time we hated everything about France , some people even wouldn't say French fry, how fast we forget and times change, maybe France should have went with us back in 86, they just might not have such a problem today..
about the French civilians having guns even if they were ex military, there would have been more deaths and many more wounded, ISIS wasn't there to sell avon, they wanted to kill people.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

the old dude said:


> in 1986 when Reagan wanted to bomb Libya the French wouldn't let us fly over their country so we flew around them, then when Bush wanted them to join his coalition they wouldn't, at that time we hated everything about France , some people even wouldn't say French fry, how fast we forget and times change, maybe France should have went with us back in 86, they just might not have such a problem today..
> _about the French civilians having guns even if they were ex military, there would have been more deaths and many more wounded, ISIS wasn't there to sell avon, they wanted to kill people._




Huh? How would armed civilians have resulted in more deaths? The radicals kept killing people until they were killed. Armed civilians may have killed them sooner, saving lives. 

France has been our ally sometimes. Other times they have not gone along with the US. This has nothing to do with our sympathizing with them over the attacks.


----------



## the old dude (Feb 29, 2012)

Nimrod said:


> [/I][/COLOR]
> 
> Huh? How would armed civilians have resulted in more deaths? The radicals kept killing people until they were killed. Armed civilians may have killed them sooner, saving lives.
> 
> France has been our ally sometimes. Other times they have not gone along with the US. This has nothing to do with our sympathizing with them over the attacks.


 . wake up, they may have shot one but it'd be a lucky shot, when some one starts raking the crowd with an AK, people hit the ground, they don't pull their pistol and look around for the shooter


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

the old dude said:


> . wake up, they may have shot one but it'd be a lucky shot, when some one starts raking the crowd with an AK, people hit the ground, they don't pull their pistol and look around for the shooter


I'd rather take my chances with a gun than without.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

you just hope there are enough people carrying that one or two lucky people are behind the shooter when he opens up and can pop him in the back of the head while he is concentrating on what is in front of him

or take concealment and take the shot if it presents it's self


----------



## the old dude (Feb 29, 2012)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> you just hope there are enough people carrying that one or two lucky people are behind the shooter when he opens up and can pop him in the back of the head while he is concentrating on what is in front of him
> 
> or take concealment and take the shot if it presents it's self


exactly right and guy with the pistol may have to use his dead or wounded wife or kids body as a shield, and their well being would be the first thing on our minds, not getting in a clear shot. Trump or we will never know, things like that happen so fast, they knew what they wanted to do and the people were taken by surprise, I believe in carrying protection all the time but getting to use it could be another problem.


----------



## reartinetiller (Nov 19, 2015)

Ya I rather be packin then lackin. Roy


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

the old dude said:


> exactly right and guy with the pistol may have to use his dead or wounded wife or kids body as a shield, and their well being would be the first thing on our minds, not getting in a clear shot. Trump or we will never know, things like that happen so fast, they knew what they wanted to do and the people were taken by surprise, I believe in carrying protection all the time but getting to use it could be another problem.



that's why in a free country you get to make your decision and I get to make mine 

let everyone have the option and let them decide 

trump is big talker , and not what I consider presidential material but we may end up with him any way , there are worse options a , a bunch of them

what he does have is the backbone to say something right or wrong and not pander to the politically correct all the time. people are so sick of politicians worrying more about what will offend no one that they offend everyone in the processes


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

the old dude said:


> . wake up, they may have shot one but it'd be a lucky shot, when some one starts raking the crowd with an AK, people hit the ground, they don't pull their pistol and look around for the shooter


Some people duck and cover, some run and scream, other's hide. Some take up arms and find cover while others take up arms and head toward it. Depends on the person and the situation.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Most freeze in place.
Military training is specifically designed to get you MOVING when something bad happens, with as little 'Lag' time as possible.

Most people don't understand what they are seeing, can't believe it's going on, ect.
Stone cold 'Professionals' freeze up, the Seattle cops for instance...

Then, you have a bunch of amateurs slinging lead in all directions... 
Another factor to consider.
Doesn't matter which firearm the bullet came from, it will still kill you.

Then you have a bunch of adrenalin pumped amateurs shooting, how do you differentiate the 'Bad Guys' from the other shooters?
A shooter is a shooter, can you tell the difference in a split second when everyone is in civilian clothing?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

JeepHammer said:


> Most freeze in place.
> Military training is specifically designed to get you MOVING when something bad happens, with as little 'Lag' time as possible.
> 
> Most people don't understand what they are seeing, can't believe it's going on, ect.
> ...


All true, but so what? An armed good guy, even if he had not hit a single bad guy, might have slowed the bad guys down. The bad guys suffer from the same weaknesses you describe and someone shooting back MIGHT have saved lives. There was no perfect solution once the Paris terror started.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nimrod said:


> [/I][/COLOR]
> 
> Huh? How would armed civilians have resulted in more deaths? The radicals kept killing people until they were killed. Armed civilians may have killed them sooner, saving lives.


unfortunately, we are all still forced to live in the real world.

1500 people - many are armed, are attending in a wild, dark, rambunctious, "death metal" concert, in a crowded venue. People might be drinking and doing drugs, (No chance of problems with this scenario, as is)

Then, people burst in - looking like everybody else, detonate grenades and start shooting. Absolute pandemonium ensues.

Now what?

It will only be the perps, taken out, when the guns are drawn?

It's just like arming every person in Chicago. Some will be safer - most will not.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> It's just like arming every person in Chicago. Some will be safer - most will not.


this is the same canard that has been repeated over and over, yet is always proven wrong in the real world which you claim to live in. You can attribute it to lots of things, but with great consistency, as cities, states, and the country have added more and more guns, there have been fewer and fewer crimes. 

In cities where virtually everyone is armed, or at least have a gun in their home, crimes rates are very low.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> this is the same canard that has been repeated over and over, yet is always proven wrong in the real world which you claim to live in. You can attribute it to lots of things, but with great consistency, as cities, states, and the country have added more and more guns, there have been fewer and fewer crimes.
> 
> In cities where virtually everyone is armed, or at least have a gun in their home, crimes rates are very low.


The key word is "crimes".

ISIS is not robbing liquor stores or a home invasion, at grandmas, where a gun could absolutely help. 

Most of Libya now packs heat and that works out pretty well. 



> Libyan militia attacked white-flag-carrying protesters demanding the disbanding of the country's rampant armed groups on Friday, killing at least 31 people as they opened fire on the march with heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/15/libyan-militiamen-protesters-tripoli

There are an estimated 70,000 gang members in Chicago alone.

Please explain how arming them (and most of the other 2.5 million) will make the City safer?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

pick a subject, Rolleyes-boy. Don't keep changing it every time you are proven wrong. 

There is no magic solution for all that ails Chicago. Anti-gun Dems have controlled it for 80 years and created a huge stinkin mess. Denying the good citizens of Chicago the right to self protection is part of the cause of that mess. If you want to explain how putting all people in more danger makes them safer, have at it. You'll be qualified to be Chicago's next mayor.

I said "arming every person in Chicago" was a canard, I didn't say it was my proposal. If you don't understand what that means, just ask. I'll happily explain. Or, you can continue to respond in a...well... laughable way.


----------



## the old dude (Feb 29, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> All true, but so what? An armed good guy, *even if he had not hit a single bad guy, might have slowed the bad guys down. * The bad guys suffer from the same weaknesses you describe and someone shooting back MIGHT have saved lives. There was no perfect solution once the Paris terror started.


 in most cases, the good guys want to live, in this case the bad guys had a one way ticket to the shooting and it looks like they really didn't care if they went home or not


----------



## the old dude (Feb 29, 2012)

There are an estimated 70,000 gang members in Chicago alone.

Please explain how arming them (and most of the other 2.5 million) will make the City safer?

don't you think most of the shooting here are being done by drug dealers and cowards, maybe if the rest of the population were armed and were given back the rights to protect themselves and some druggies were killed, some of the rest may find another line of work, right now they know that they're protected by the liberal courts, some states you get for DWI and texting than you do for mugging an old lady.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

the old dude said:


> There are an estimated 70,000 gang members in Chicago alone.
> 
> Please explain how arming them (and most of the other 2.5 million) will make the City safer?
> 
> don't you think most of the shooting here are being done by drug dealers and cowards, maybe if the rest of the population were armed and were given back the rights to protect themselves and some druggies were killed, some of the rest may find another line of work, right now they know that they're protected by the liberal courts, some states you get for DWI and texting than you do for mugging an old lady.


If you think the gang members in Chicago follow the law and don't have guns already, I want some of whatever you are smoking. 

Your last paragraph sounds like you are in favor of allowing citizens to carry guns and defend themselves. Kinda thought from previous posts you are against arming the citizens.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

the old dude said:


> There are an estimated 70,000 gang members in Chicago alone.
> 
> Please explain how arming them (and most of the other 2.5 million) will make the City safer?
> 
> don't you think most of the shooting here are being done by drug dealers and cowards, maybe if the rest of the population were armed and were given back the rights to protect themselves and some druggies were killed, some of the rest may find another line of work, right now they know that they're protected by the liberal courts, some states you get for DWI and texting than you do for mugging an old lady.


Yes, but considering them "cowards", whitewashes the reality that they are not afraid to shoot a gun at somebody else. If someone shoots back, oh well. 

They are not even afraid of the Cops.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRyNM_v4CDlGdsJ6jcIqcErG0eI9hZPYA

There is no way to arm the good public, without arming the thugs also.

That just the way it works.



> Chicago's murder numbers have hit that magic 500. Baltimore's murder toll has passed 200. In Philly, it's up to 324, the highest since 2007. In Detroit, it's approaching 400, another record. In New Orleans, it's almost at 200. New York City is down to 414 from 508. In Los Angeles, it's over 500. In St. Louis it's 113 and 130 in Oakland. Itâs 121 in Memphis and 76 in Birmingham. Washington, D.C., home of the boys and girls who can solve it all, is nearing its own big 100.
> 
> 
> Those 12 cities alone account for nearly 3,200 dead and nearly a quarter of all murders in the United States. And we haven't even visited sunny Atlanta or chilly Cleveland.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/171576/america-doesnt-have-gun-problem-it-has-gang-daniel-greenfield


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nimrod said:


> If you think the gang members in Chicago follow the law and don't have guns already, I want some of whatever you are smoking.
> 
> Your last paragraph sounds like you are in favor of allowing citizens to carry guns and defend themselves. Kinda thought from previous posts you are against arming the citizens.


I'm not smoking anything and I know they break laws and have guns, but I also know, that if it becomes easy to purchase guns, gangs and criminals will buy many many more guns and if - for some reason they can't, their straw purchasers will.

I _am_ for gun ownership for protection and sport - whatever, but I believe, *in some instances*, it will cause more problems than it cures.

I realize that may not seem fair, but life is not fair.

Never has been.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> pick a subject, Rolleyes-boy. Don't keep changing it every time you are proven wrong.
> 
> There is no magic solution for all that ails Chicago. Anti-gun Dems have controlled it for 80 years and created a huge stinkin mess. Denying the good citizens of Chicago the right to self protection is part of the cause of that mess. If you want to explain how putting all people in more danger makes them safer, have at it. You'll be qualified to be Chicago's next mayor.


I though I already did - clearly.

If the "good people" of Chicago are allowed unlimited access to guns, there is absolutely nothing to stop _gang bangers_ from stocking up also.

I honestly don't know how that could make any big city, with a violence, drug, poverty, problem "safer". I could be armed and someone pulls up next to me, at a stoplight and shoot me in the head. 



DEKE01 said:


> I said "arming every person in Chicago" was a canard, I didn't say it was my proposal. If you don't understand what that means, just ask. I'll happily explain. Or, you can continue to respond in a...well... laughable way.


You might want to dig up a dictionary, but otherwise laugh all you want.

We are "safer" if everyone who wants a gun, has one?

For instance, here in America Google news "road rage" and peruse the 3.7 million hits. Then google news "road rage shooting" and check out that fun. 

What about accidental shootings and "crimes of passion", suicides etc.

I just think that overall, we (and even France)will be much less safe than now, if everyone was armed.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> I'm not smoking anything and I know they break laws and have guns, but I also know, that if it becomes easy to purchase guns, gangs and criminals will buy many many more guns and if - for some reason they can't, their straw purchasers will.
> 
> I _am_ for gun ownership for protection and sport - whatever, but I believe, *in some instances*, it will cause more problems than it cures.
> 
> ...


Why are you replying to my reply to another poster like I had replied to you? Is Old Dude your evil twin?

The hood rats in Chicago can currently buy any, and as many, guns as they want. It's time the law abiding citizens have the same right.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> If the "good people" of Chicago are allowed unlimited access to guns, there is absolutely nothing to stop _gang bangers_ from stocking up also.


If you didn't care about 2A rights, that might make sense. But since the gang bangers are already stocked up, not so much. You're arguing that we should close the barn doors when the horses are already in the next state. 



> I honestly don't know how that could make any big city, with a violence, drug, poverty, problem "safer". I could be armed and someone pulls up next to me, at a stoplight and shoot me in the head.


you are committing yet another logic error. The fact that being armed would not save you from all gun crimes does not prove in any way that being armed would not make you safer. 




> You might want to dig up a dictionary, but otherwise laugh all you want.


Again, if you do not understand what a canard is, I'm here to help. But first you have to want help. 



> We are "safer" if everyone who wants a gun, has one?
> 
> For instance, here in America Google news "road rage" and peruse the 3.7 million hits. Then google news "road rage shooting" and check out that fun.
> 
> ...


Repeating the canard doesn't make it less of a canard. Why do you keep trying to argue this point? With whom are you arguing this point? Not me. Why don't you bring it back into the realm of the real world which you claimed you live in? After a couple of decades of relative freedom, less than 2% of the general public has CCW and depending on who you believe, far less than 1% routinely carry. Of the many who keep their guns secure in their home, none of those guns are used in road rage, gang bang, or armed robbery. There are a relative few thefts and accidents, but again, the argument is safer, not free from all risk. You seem to be having some problem distinguishing between the two. 

Maybe all that rolling of your eyes has made you dizzy.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

JeepHammer said:


> Most freeze in place.
> Military training is specifically designed to get you MOVING when something bad happens, with as little 'Lag' time as possible.
> 
> Most people don't understand what they are seeing, can't believe it's going on, ect.
> ...


I've often wondered just how many would-be defenders got most of their tactical training via TV/movies?

I know how to clean a gun and fire a gun and I can hit my target with a pretty high degree of accuracy, but I'll be the first to admit that if I suddenly found myself in a Paris-style situation, I honestly do not know how I would react. I'd like to THINK I'd do what was necessary (drop the bad guy without hurting anyone else and actually live through it), but as I've not had any sort of actual training for "what to do when you hear the first gunshot"...I just don't know. 

I'd hazard a guess that "most" gun owners are pretty much in the same boat...they can own a gun, but there's nothing to say they have to learn how to "behave" with the gun.

What I do know is that I hope and pray I never have to use a gun on another human being.


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> There is no way to arm the good public, without arming the thugs also.
> 
> That just the way it works.


THE THUGS ARE ALREADY ARMED!

Good, law abiding citizens are at their mercy until the law is changed, or preferably removed, to allow them to legally arm themselves.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

tamarackreg said:


> THE THUGS ARE ALREADY ARMED!
> 
> Good, law abiding citizens are at their mercy until the law is changed, or preferably removed, to allow them to legally arm themselves.


So, if guns were legalized, in their neighborhoods, only the good citizens would be arming up?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> If you didn't care about 2A rights, that might make sense. But since the gang bangers are already stocked up, not so much. You're arguing that we should close the barn doors when the horses are already in the next state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> After a couple of decades of relative freedom, less than 2% of the general public has CCW and depending on who you believe, far less than 1% routinely carry.


So, then why these numbers?










FWIW It my always been belief that the very restriction to guns, tends to keep them in the hands, of the more responsible.

But I'm sure I'm wrong on that too.

But, Go right ahead and arm LA and Chicago, we don't live there. I'm sure it will all turn out much to be much safer, for everyone.

Things should much better in a well armed France, as well. They seem peace loving and no guns will go into the hands of ISIS, or other terror groups.











http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/france-has-a-history-of-anti-semitism-and-islamophobia/

I'm not against guns, i just believe that a well armed Mayberry, is a little bit different, than a well-armed Compton.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> So, then why these numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was all that in response to my post? In spite of being repeatedly told that I'm not arguing that everyone should be armed are you STILL trying to argue that point? You need to find a hobby.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> pick a subject, Rolleyes-boy. Don't keep changing it every time you are proven wrong.
> 
> There is no magic solution for all that ails Chicago. Anti-gun Dems have controlled it for 80 years and created a huge stinkin mess. Denying the good citizens of Chicago the right to self protection is part of the cause of that mess. If you want to explain how putting all people in more danger makes them safer, have at it. You'll be qualified to be Chicago's next mayor.
> 
> I said "arming every person in Chicago" was a canard, I didn't say it was my proposal. If you don't understand what that means, just ask. I'll happily explain. Or, you can continue to respond in a...well... laughable way.


_If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim._
Jeff Cooper


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> I'm not smoking anything and I know they break laws and have guns, but I also know, that if it becomes easy to purchase guns, gangs and criminals will buy many many more guns and if - for some reason they can't, their straw purchasers will.
> 
> I _am_ for gun ownership for protection and sport - whatever, but I believe, *in some instances*, it will cause more problems than it cures.
> 
> ...


This sounds like what every gun control org has said every time a state talks about relaxing its CCW permitting. The problem is it never works that way. 

Look at how well the current laws are working in Chicago, Mexico and now France. Look at how well laws protected the people in the PP clinic. 

_If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim._
Jeff Cooper


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> I though I already did - clearly.
> 
> If the "good people" of Chicago are allowed unlimited access to guns, there is absolutely nothing to stop _gang bangers_ from stocking up also.
> 
> ...


The problem is your theory doesn't hold up when you look at facts. When the laws restricting citizens from either owning or using firearms to defend themselves are relaxed the number of violent crime in general and gun crimes in specific go down. Check the stats in FL and TN before and after they relaxed their CCW laws.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

hippygirl said:


> I've often wondered just how many would-be defenders got most of their tactical training via TV/movies?
> 
> I know how to clean a gun and fire a gun and I can hit my target with a pretty high degree of accuracy, but I'll be the first to admit that if I suddenly found myself in a Paris-style situation, I honestly do not know how I would react. I'd like to THINK I'd do what was necessary (drop the bad guy without hurting anyone else and actually live through it), but as I've not had any sort of actual training for "what to do when you hear the first gunshot"...I just don't know.
> 
> ...


Training may help but it doesn't really mean squat. You don't know how you, or anyone else, will react until they see the elephant. 

I've seen a LOT of people who have been trained and trained and trained on the proper corrective action for a fail to fire in a semi auto weapon, known around here as playing slap and tickle. Yet if you put a dummy round in a magazine when they are doing a live fire training ex 8 times out of 10 when the weapon goes click their first reaction is to pull the trigger again or to look it the weapon like it had grown wings.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> So, if guns were legalized, in their neighborhoods, only the good citizens would be arming up?


The fact is there are more good guys than bad guys. This has been true through out history. Therefore if you arm everyone the good guys will be out numbered.

One armed good guy quite often is all that is needed to make several armed bad guys decide to find another place to rob. There are many videos on youtube which show this.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I have seen many posts that ran to

IF we arm every good person, we will eventually be arming the bad guys also.

Is there ANYBODY who believes that a ganger becomes one without having his own gun at that time.
Whaddia u think they say. Hey Im 14, and I wanna be a gansta, but I need to borrow a gun?? Alphonse, could you loan me a gun so I can stick up granmas candy shop??

HELL NO. When they step over that line, they already have a gun.

When I donated plasma in Tulsa, there were ALOT of black people also doing so. I heard them talk a lot as I would try to be the first one their so as to try to be the first one out. Many times there would be 2 doz people waiting for the door to open. I heard them tell that many know where a gun is hidden in their area. IF a guy wants to use it, he goes there gets it, uses it, wipes it down good and returns it to the hideing place.
In THAT instance, ganger wannabies don't have a gun OR they don't want to use their own gun to do some harm with. BUT, I say that anybody who is running drugs, numbers, protection, WHATEVER, has their own guns. Watch Drug Inc on the Explorer channel on, I think Weds to get a feel of the minds of these people.


----------

