Meanwhile in Chicago: 7 Dead, 32 Wounded in Weekend Violence

Darthlawsuit

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
3,530
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I thought gun control was suppose to stop people from being shot. Seems to me like the gangs have not heard that it was illegal for them to own a gun, maby we should hand them some fliers and educate them on the law. We could also teach them that killing, stealing, and threatening others is against the law, perhaps they will change their ways and reform themselves XD

Seven people were killed and at least 32 others were shot in violence that plagued Chicago over Father's Day weekend.

Six of the fatalities and 13 other shootings occurred overnight Saturday leading into Father's Day, including the fatal shooting of a 16-year-old boy.

On the Southwest Side, five people were shot, one fatally, in two shootings in the Little Village neighborhood.

At 10:50 p.m. Saturday 21-year-old Ricardo Herrera was killed and two others were shot in the 2500 block of South Ridgeway Avenue, police said.

The two injured were taken to Mount Sinai. Their condition was not immediately known.

At 12:30 a.m. Sunday, an 18-year-old man was shot in the head, chest and shoulder in a drive by shooting that also injured a 22-year-old woman in the thigh near 31st Street and Pulaski Road.

The man was taken to Mount Sinai in critical condition, according to Police News Affairs Officer Mirabelli.

At 11:45 p.m. Saturday a 16-year-old boy was shot by a gunman on a bicycle in the 4100 block of West North Avenue, police said.

The boy tried to flee but collapsed a short distance from where he was shot.

He was pronounced dead at Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center at 1:37 a.m. after sustaining gunshot wounds to the left arm and back, Mirabelli said. The teen was later identified as Kevin Rivera of the 1500 block of North Keystone Avenue, according to the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office.

Chicago Police news affairs confirmed Sunday the teen had gang affiliations.

His death was ruled a homicide but police had no one in custody as of Sunday morning.

Just after midnight Sunday, someone opened fire in a nightclub in the Chatham neighborhood, killing one man and injuring three others.

Todd Wood, 40, was killed in the shooting and three others were treated for gunshot wounds at area hospitals. One person is in critical condition, officials said.

No one was in custody for the shooting as of Sunday morning.

Around 1:15 a.m. Sunday, police responded to a call of a man shot in the 7400 block of South Parnell Avenue. They found a 19-year-old man bleeding from the chest, stomach and shoulder, Mirabelli said.

The teen, identified as Jamal Jones, of the 8800 block of South Yale Avenue, was later pronounced dead at Christ Hospital, according to the medical examiner's office.

Minutes after, a man was killed and a woman was wounded in the 200 block of South Keeler Avenue on the city's West Side, police said.

Cortez Wilberton, of the 200 block of South Lavergne Avenue, was pronounced dead at Loretto Hospital, according to the medical examiner's office.

The wounded woman was treated for a graze wound to the face at Loretto Hospital. She was listed in stable condition as of Sunday morning.

Less than an hour later, a police-involved shooting killed one man in the Lawndale neighborhood.

Officers attempted to pull a car over several times when the passenger jumped out and started running in the 1600 block of South Springfield Avenue around 2:30 a.m., police said.

The officers chased the man down an alley when they noticed a gun in his belt, according to police.

The man allegedly reached for the weapon and police opened fire. No officers were injured in the incident and the matter is under investigation by the Independent Police Review Authority.

The latest shooting occurred around 4 p.m. Sunday on the 500 block of North Leclaire Avenue when two people were shot, according to Chicago Police news affairs Officer Veejay Zala.

A 25-year-old man was shot in the back and abdomen and a 21-year-old woman was shot in the finger, Zala said.

The man was taken in serious condition to Mount Sinai Hospital and the woman was taken to West Suburban Hospital, police said.

Details surrounding the shooting were not immediately available.

At 4:10 a.m. in the 3400 block of West Walnut Street a 34-year-old man was shot in the head, back and leg. He was taken by a friend to Mount Sinai Hospital but was not cooperative with police, Mirabelli said.

The weekend's first fatality occurred around 11:34 p.m. Friday in the 5500 block of West Quincy Street when two men were shot during a "dispute," officials said.

One man, 24, was taken to Loyola University Medical Center where he was later pronounced dead. The other man, 23, was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital with a wound to the stomach. His condition was not immediately known.

Shortly after, two people were shot blocks away in the South Austin neighborhood near Leclaire Avenue and Madison Street around 12:45 a.m. Saturday, police said.

A man in his 20s was wounded in the neck and buttocks after he was shot standing outside, according to Officer Mirabelli.

The man was transported to Loyola University Medical Center and a woman, who was also wounded in the shooting, was taken to West Suburban Medical Center with gunshot wounds to the thigh.

Across the city, 16 others were wounded in shootings throughout the weekend.

Around 9:45 p.m. a man in his 20s was shot in the buttocks and thigh in 9400 block of South Loomis Street, police said.

The man was standing with a group of friends when gunman began shooting from a dark-colored minivan.

He was transported to Christ Hospital in stable condition and no one is in custody for the shooting.

At 9:30 p.m., two people were shot in the 7700 block of South Homan Avenue. A 21-year-old was injured in the leg and arm and a woman was injured in the thigh. Police did not have any further details on the shooting as of Sunday morning, but the Chicago Tribune reported a third person was also injured.

In the Marquette Park neighborhood Saturday afternoon two shootings occurred blocks away from each other.

The first shooting happened around 2:15 p.m. in the 7200 block of South Artesian Avenue where at least three people were wounded, officials said.

Two people were listed in critical condition at Advocate Christ Medical Center and a third was in stable condition at Holy Cross Hospital.

The other incident occurred near 74th Street and Maplewood Avenue, where one person was shot.

The victims were not cooperating with police, officials said, but one person was taken into custody after the shooting.

Around 6:10 a.m. Saturday in the 7600 block of South Ashland Avenue when a man was shot in the arm during a carjacking. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center and was listed in stable condition as of Sunday morning.

Hours earlier, a man was reportedly dropped off at John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital with a graze wound to the face around 3:30 a.m., but would not cooperate with police to determine where the shooting occurred, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Around 12:40 a.m. a 31-year-old man was shot in the back in the 1500 block of South St. Louis Avenue. The man was approached by a group of men when one fired shots at him, Mirabelli said. No one was in custody as of Saturday morning.

In the Little Village neighborhood, a 23-year-old man was shot around 10:40 p.m. Friday in the 2800 block of South Kedvale Avenue. He sustained gunshot wounds to the buttocks after a vehicle pulled up and a passenger fired several shots at the man, who has known gang affiliations, police said.

He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in good condition.

An hour earlier, two people were wounded in the Fernwood neighborhood after a group began shooting from across the street in the 10600 block of South Wentworth Avenue.

A 32-year-old man was shot in the shoulder and taken to Mount Sinai and a 35-year-old man was treated on scene for a graze wound, Mirabelli said.

Earlier Friday, a man in his 20's was shot in the toe in the 6400 block of South Oakley Avenue and taken to Holy Cross Hospital. No further details were available on the shooting, officials said.

Around 3:30 p.m. Friday, two 19-year-olds were reportedly shot in the 9300 block of South Stewart Avenue. The man and the woman were taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn.

Source:
 

Darthlawsuit

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
3,530
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
It's still not cool for you to push your agenda on the backs of dead people
That is the very reason why I do. I do not want to see more people dead thanks to laws that disarm them and make them helpless. I wish to learn from those that have died, mourning is as helpful as tossing a rock into a lake to fix your air conditioner.

The disarmers use their deaths 24/7 to push laws that are proven to not protect them but to put them in more danger. There is a reason why schools didn't have mass shootings back when teachers were armed, before this whole no-gun zone bullshit. Principals used to carry guns in their office and would use them if someone tried to hurt their kids.
 

βeeCee

Active member
Elite
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
7,865
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Just playing devil's advocate, but say those victims were also armed and returned fire, wouldn't that just increase the number of people who died?
 

Darthlawsuit

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
3,530
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Just playing devil's advocate, but say those victims were also armed and returned fire, wouldn't that just increase the number of people who died?
It works on the principal of self survival. If you have a gun and are firing at people and you know they are disarmed then you have nothing to worry about and can keep firing till you are satisfied. If you have a gun and are firing, then you receive incoming fire you are going to try to run away, run to cover, or do anything to get out of their fire (Unless you think your rambo). Meanwhile those not involved have time to get away and the original shooter may shoot some shots blindly to get the other person to take cover as well. The original shooter can no longer focus on killing large numbers of people because he has to protect himself.

Most of these people shooting are gang members or criminals that think about themselves only, they are not mafia quality. If you put their lives in danger they tend to run without much resistance. They don't want to stand and fight they want to do something then run away and get more street cred. Most of the time soon as they hear someone shooting back they abandon everything they have and run away.
 

βeeCee

Active member
Elite
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
7,865
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
It works on the principal of self survival. If you have a gun and are firing at people and you know they are disarmed then you have nothing to worry about and can keep firing till you are satisfied. If you have a gun and are firing, then you receive incoming fire you are going to try to run away, run to cover, or do anything to get out of their fire (Unless you think your rambo). Meanwhile those not involved have time to get away and the original shooter may shoot some shots blindly to get the other person to take cover as well. The original shooter can no longer focus on killing large numbers of people because he has to protect himself.

Most of these people shooting are gang members or criminals that think about themselves only, they are not mafia quality. If you put their lives in danger they tend to run without much resistance. They don't want to stand and fight they want to do something then run away and get more street cred. Most of the time soon as they hear someone shooting back they abandon everything they have and run away.
These assumptions kind of contradict each other. If one person is willing to shoot back, why wouldn't the original offender do the same? Furthermore, I don't think one gaines "street cred" by running away from a fight. You also neglect the fact that where in one scenario it is a single person who is the intended victim, is now several people involved in a shootout where innocent bystanders are more subjected to stray bullets.
 

Roby

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
34,019
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
It works on the principal of self survival. If you have a gun and are firing at people and you know they are disarmed then you have nothing to worry about and can keep firing till you are satisfied. If you have a gun and are firing, then you receive incoming fire you are going to try to run away, run to cover, or do anything to get out of their fire (Unless you think your rambo). Meanwhile those not involved have time to get away and the original shooter may shoot some shots blindly to get the other person to take cover as well. The original shooter can no longer focus on killing large numbers of people because he has to protect himself.

Most of these people shooting are gang members or criminals that think about themselves only, they are not mafia quality. If you put their lives in danger they tend to run without much resistance. They don't want to stand and fight they want to do something then run away and get more street cred. Most of the time soon as they hear someone shooting back they abandon everything they have and run away.
I have yet to see that happen here. If you open fire at a gang member here, your entire family is going to get killed. They don't run they shoot back. And they always have atleast two people moving, never alone. Having guns overall makes things worse. That's why here weekly cops raid their hangout places/clubs and confiscate guns and drugs. Then again a criminal will always find a gun. While you shoot back how can you be sure it's not your bullet that bounces and kills someone? I have been in the amy and got to shoot all kinds of guns. Even bullets that glow to see how and where they fly/bounce. The moment you open fire in a city, you can be the killer yourself without knowing it.
 

Fodder#5

Banned
Regular
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
1,970
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
It works on the principal of self survival. If you have a gun and are firing at people and you know they are disarmed then you have nothing to worry about and can keep firing till you are satisfied. If you have a gun and are firing, then you receive incoming fire you are going to try to run away, run to cover, or do anything to get out of their fire (Unless you think your rambo). Meanwhile those not involved have time to get away and the original shooter may shoot some shots blindly to get the other person to take cover as well. The original shooter can no longer focus on killing large numbers of people because he has to protect himself.

Most of these people shooting are gang members or criminals that think about themselves only, they are not mafia quality. If you put their lives in danger they tend to run without much resistance. They don't want to stand and fight they want to do something then run away and get more street cred. Most of the time soon as they hear someone shooting back they abandon everything they have and run away.
There's no guarantee of that happening. If we made it a law that every adult in America had to carry a gun at all times, that would make it easier for someone to start violence. Let's say a "bad guy" walks into a mall, knowing full well that everyone has a gun. All he would have to do is shoot one person and leave. Now everyone else pulls out their gun. They look around and all they say is people with guns. Don't you think that more innocent people would be killed? How are you supposed to tell who is the bad guy and who is not in that scenario? Self preservation would tell you that everyone who isn't you is a foe, so you would shoot those that would pose the biggest threat to you and your family/friends. Thus the system of everyone being armed breaks down after one incident that would be easy to perpetrate.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Just playing devil's advocate, but say those victims were also armed and returned fire, wouldn't that just increase the number of people who died?
Rules of attrition.

Who are there more of? Criminals, or law abiding citizens willing to shoot at violent criminals?

The numbers would indicate that the number of violent criminals will not be able to handle the raw attrition imposed by this system.

I have yet to see that happen here. If you open fire at a gang member here, your entire family is going to get killed.
Don't threaten me with a good time.

They don't run they shoot back. And they always have atleast two people moving, never alone.
Their notice that I am a threat will be when their buddy drops. I believe in what the Marine Corps teaches - seize the initiative and keep the pressure on the enemy. So long as there are gang members in sight - I will not give them the opportunity to regroup.

Having guns overall makes things worse.
Not if you have competent people behind them.

That's why here weekly cops raid their hangout places/clubs and confiscate guns and drugs.
Yes, and we see how effective that is.

Then again a criminal will always find a gun.
So... why should I not have one? Because I may be incompetent? When can we exercise car control?

Sure - we have drivers' licenses... but how many people are driving illegally? Why not just control the sale of cars to begin with? No insurance? No car. No qualified drivers' license? No car. Further - all transmissions will be restricted to providing vehicles with no more than 75 mile per hour velocities. You don't need 80 mph to drive to work.

Just like you don't need more than three bullets to kill a deer.

While you shoot back how can you be sure it's not your bullet that bounces and kills someone?
A thing called aiming. In the city - 20 meter accuracy with a handgun is, literally, point-and-shoot. You barely need to aim to put a round center-mass onto a human sized target. I can put every round from a 9mm Barretta through a soda can at 25 meters during a timed qualification at an outdoor range. The reason people miss with the weapon is because they are uncomfortable with it.

Or they are trying to shoot it in a way that they think looks cool on CD albums.

I have been in the amy and got to shoot all kinds of guns.
... Really?

What was your MOS?

Even bullets that glow to see how and where they fly/bounce.
Those are called tracers. They actually have fallen out of favor because the physics of the round are different than non-tracer rounds. Your tracers are actually flying a different arc than your ball ammunition in your belt. They're really only used for area suppression weapons that are not put in place for accurate fire but overwhelming fire.

The moment you open fire in a city, you can be the killer yourself without knowing it.
I'll take my chances. I'm willing to pull the trigger and take a bystander's life by accident if it comes to it. I'd rather pull one round wide and drop an innocent before my second round resolves the problem than let that clown shower the place with his whole magazine and reload.

And it's not like the police are going to have some other genius solution to the problem. If they get on scene - they're going to pull the trigger - many of them with less trigger time on their model of service weapon than most with a concealed carry permit.

Your solution is to let the gang shower the place with rounds until their target is dead (or whatever) - then let the police go create a shootout when they raid their store.

I've got a modification request to put into their SOPs for raiding: Replace all 'flash-bang' grenades with Mark 67 fragmentation grenades.

Same ultimate result. Lower incarceration rate. Lower officer mortality rate. Overall reduction in crime.

Other than an armed populous would make such gang structures less lucrative and practical to begin with... reducing the need for police raids... but bad people flouish when good people do nothing.
 

Fodder#5

Banned
Regular
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
1,970
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I'll take my chances. I'm willing to pull the trigger and take a bystander's life by accident if it comes to it. I'd rather pull one round wide and drop an innocent before my second round resolves the problem than let that clown shower the place with his whole magazine and reload.

And it's not like the police are going to have some other genius solution to the problem. If they get on scene - they're going to pull the trigger - many of them with less trigger time on their model of service weapon than most with a concealed carry permit.

Your solution is to let the gang shower the place with rounds until their target is dead (or whatever) - then let the police go create a shootout when they raid their store.

I've got a modification request to put into their SOPs for raiding: Replace all 'flash-bang' grenades with Mark 67 fragmentation grenades.

Same ultimate result. Lower incarceration rate. Lower officer mortality rate. Overall reduction in crime.

Other than an armed populous would make such gang structures less lucrative and practical to begin with... reducing the need for police raids... but bad people flouish when good people do nothing.
That would make you no better than the gunman himself. If he only kills one person and you miss twice killing two people, that would make you the bigger threat. Anyone with that mentality doesn't deserve a gun. Doesn't matter how qualified you are in the Marines. You aren't a cop. If you miss you aren't fulfilling your job or civic duty. It's manslaughter. Plan and simple
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
That would make you no better than the gunman himself.
Then, by all means, embrace the criminals who will pull their firearms on innocent people.

If he only kills one person and you miss twice killing two people, that would make you the bigger threat.
That is why I do this thing known as "aiming."

It's also why I exercise something known as "situational awareness."

I know what's behind my target. I know what's to its sides. I can accurately forecast what is going to happen if I miss - and what the odds are for that shot.

Anyone with that mentality doesn't deserve a gun. Doesn't matter how qualified you are in the Marines.
Those are the types of judgment calls I was trained for. I will make the decision on whether or not to pull the trigger and we will all live with the consequences. End of story - you will have to kill me to enforce otherwise.

You aren't a cop. If you miss you aren't fulfilling your job or civic duty. It's manslaughter. Plan and simple
No, it isn't.

If you start shooting at civilians in my presence - I am going to do everything within my power to neutralize you in the most efficient, expedient way possible.

"It's not my job" doesn't work. I have the knowledge, the training, and the ability - therefor, I have the responsibility in the absence of a higher authority.

The reason we have such a problem with crime is because people have adopted this: "it's not my job" approach to security. When seconds count - the police are minutes away.

Now, if you don't want my kind in your city - I'm more than happy to stay out of it and let you shack up with people who will just as soon rape your daughter and shoot you because they can. I'm not the type to get into your business and start flagging a firearm around to get you to do what favors me.

If you want to shack up with types who play that way - then that's how you roll. Just don't impose those policies on my residential area - and I'm content to read about your problems in the newspaper.
 

Roby

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
34,019
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Rules of attrition.

Who are there more of? Criminals, or law abiding citizens willing to shoot at violent criminals?

The numbers would indicate that the number of violent criminals will not be able to handle the raw attrition imposed by this system.



Don't threaten me with a good time.



Their notice that I am a threat will be when their buddy drops. I believe in what the Marine Corps teaches - seize the initiative and keep the pressure on the enemy. So long as there are gang members in sight - I will not give them the opportunity to regroup.



Not if you have competent people behind them.



Yes, and we see how effective that is.



So... why should I not have one? Because I may be incompetent? When can we exercise car control?

Sure - we have drivers' licenses... but how many people are driving illegally? Why not just control the sale of cars to begin with? No insurance? No car. No qualified drivers' license? No car. Further - all transmissions will be restricted to providing vehicles with no more than 75 mile per hour velocities. You don't need 80 mph to drive to work.

Just like you don't need more than three bullets to kill a deer.



A thing called aiming. In the city - 20 meter accuracy with a handgun is, literally, point-and-shoot. You barely need to aim to put a round center-mass onto a human sized target. I can put every round from a 9mm Barretta through a soda can at 25 meters during a timed qualification at an outdoor range. The reason people miss with the weapon is because they are uncomfortable with it.

Or they are trying to shoot it in a way that they think looks cool on CD albums.



... Really?

What was your MOS?



Those are called tracers. They actually have fallen out of favor because the physics of the round are different than non-tracer rounds. Your tracers are actually flying a different arc than your ball ammunition in your belt. They're really only used for area suppression weapons that are not put in place for accurate fire but overwhelming fire.



I'll take my chances. I'm willing to pull the trigger and take a bystander's life by accident if it comes to it. I'd rather pull one round wide and drop an innocent before my second round resolves the problem than let that clown shower the place with his whole magazine and reload.

And it's not like the police are going to have some other genius solution to the problem. If they get on scene - they're going to pull the trigger - many of them with less trigger time on their model of service weapon than most with a concealed carry permit.

Your solution is to let the gang shower the place with rounds until their target is dead (or whatever) - then let the police go create a shootout when they raid their store.

I've got a modification request to put into their SOPs for raiding: Replace all 'flash-bang' grenades with Mark 67 fragmentation grenades.

Same ultimate result. Lower incarceration rate. Lower officer mortality rate. Overall reduction in crime.

Other than an armed populous would make such gang structures less lucrative and practical to begin with... reducing the need for police raids... but bad people flouish when good people do nothing.

So, if a person labaled as a criminal shoots it's bad, but if another person shoots the criminal it's good? Shooting and killing makes you the killer no matter if you do it to protect someone or to hurt someone. And killing is wrong no matter how and in what situations you do it. Sure I would probably kill someone who would be threatening my loved ones but that would make me a killer just like the criminal.

But you really have to think about it from a neutral point of view and not from a Marine/Cop/Someone on the side of the law. Someone shoots at someone and you gun him/her down, their loved ones will see you as the criminal, the killer. Just as you see him/her shooting others. It will always be like that, it never goes like, ''oh that's a random person shooting so it's okey for me to gun him/her down with no regrets because that's the right thing to do to protect innocent.'' There is no right thing to do in this situation. And it will end in same way no matter the outcome, either side will mourn later on.

You also can't assume that everyone who is shooting at someone has no one who loves them when you gun them down to protect others.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
So, if a person labaled as a criminal shoots it's bad, but if another person shoots the criminal it's good? Shooting and killing makes you the killer no matter if you do it to protect someone or to hurt someone. And killing is wrong no matter how and in what situations you do it. Sure I would probably kill someone who would be threatening my loved ones but that would make me a killer just like the criminal.
Make no mistake. I'm a predator and killer.

Here's the question: Would you rather shack up with a guard dog or a rabid dog?

But you really have to think about it from a neutral point of view and not from a Marine/Cop/Someone on the side of the law. Someone shoots at someone and you gun him/her down, their loved ones will see you as the criminal, the killer. Just as you see him/her shooting others. It will always be like that, it never goes like, ''oh that's a random person shooting so it's okey for me to gun him/her down with no regrets because that's the right thing to do to protect innocent.'' There is no right thing to do in this situation. And it will end in same way no matter the outcome, either side will mourn later on.
This is irrelevant. The reality is that someone is out to destroy you. Those who wish to persist must meet and address the threat. Or they will die. Pacifism does not survive under natural selection.

And it is not generally realistic. The number of people who choose criminal activity is small compared to the number of people in the general population. If someone doesn't understand how to operate in society on the whole and clings to a life of unprovoked violence and misconduct - then I've no problems killing them and anyone who seems to regard the society they prey upon as the problem.

That solution is, ultimately, what you will be faced with if you want to see the society we enjoy survive. Or we become Afghanistan.

You also can't assume that everyone who is shooting at someone has no one who loves them when you gun them down to protect others.
Really couldn't care less, to be quite honest.

Everyone has someone who loves them. I have people I love who I know have a high probability of ending up in jail or on the receiving end of a bullet from some law enforcement or another.

Just because you love someone, however, doesn't mean you automatically hate whoever killed him/her. If they blame me - then they are either in emotional shock and will understand in a few days - or they have embraced the same high-risk lifestyle and are likely to end up receiving a bullet, themselves, one day.

Like I said - if you don't want me in your city - I'm more than happy to leave you to the wolves. I'll read about your problems in the newspaper and tell you that I told you so when you're burying your children - who legitimately did nothing wrong and were taken by these horribly askew people who will do it to another family, and another, and another - as a way of sustaining their own life.
 

Roby

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
34,019
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Make no mistake. I'm a predator and killer.

Here's the question: Would you rather shack up with a guard dog or a rabid dog?

Interesting, situational. There are times where the unexpected act of a rabid one could be more useful than a trained guard.
It just amazes me how much we are different even though I served my country too.
 
Top