Previous Post
Next Post

Nothing good happens after using violence in self-defense…aside from living another day.

Real life isn’t like Hollywood. In the real world, the good guy doesn’t walk off into the sunset with the pretty woman to live happily ever after. In this world, following a bloody, violent incident in which the bad guy is struck down in a deadly force encounter, the good guy may have serious injuries. He (or she) can expect to suffer nightmares, legal headaches and all manner of other upheaval in their lives.

Even if you prudently exercise righteous force to counter criminal violence, you may still end up dead. If you live, you may well be arrested, be strip searched and thrown in jail with a bunch of ne’er-do-wells. You could be sued by the criminal or his or her next-of-kin.

Those who justifiably kill almost always have sleep disturbances (that’s a nice way of saying “nightmares”), and frequenlty suffer the Mark of Cain where folks look at them very differently after the incident.

Then as an added bonus, you may also suffer depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, sexual dysfunction, and other health effects from the stress. You may turn to food, recreational or pharmaceutical drugs, or alcohol to cope.

You may be stripped of your guns while police investigate. All that at the same time, the criminal’s kinfolk may seek retribution from you or your now-disarmed family.

You will probably lose some “friends” and you might lose your job. The financial implications can be staggering, especially if you don’t have a legal coverage insurance policy.

In short, it could very well be a be a mess.

Most of us who carry each and every day know and understand these risks of using force in self-defense. We are the sheepdogs, after all. We carry because we’d rather risk the aftermath of a shooting than become another statistic. If we pass prematurely as a victim of violent crime, our friends probably won’t be at our funerals saying, “Gee, it’s too bad he didn’t have his gun that day.”

If you understand all of the above risks and possible fallout from using deadly force, you’ll probably think long and hard before intervening to save a third party’s life. Yes, the instinct might be to ride to the rescue, but stop and fully assess the situation before charging in like John Wayne.

Your first instinct should be to find cover, look over the situation and evaluate it dispassionately. Break tunnel vision to ensure you’re not shot in the back as happened to Joe Wilcox who interrupted a pair of cop-killers intent on a rampage in a Las Vegas Walmart store in 2014. Mr. Wilcox bravely approached the male half and didn’t see the bad guy’s girlfriend. She came up behind our would-be hero and shot him dead.

Make sure what you’re seeing are truly life-threatening exigent circumstances, as defined by a reasonable and prudent person, before you get involved. Would your average Jane Soccermom believe that the victim is under threat of death or great bodily injury? Jane’s to be the on the jury, not your firearms instructors and shooting buddies.

Keep in mind, the standard by which you will be judged will vary by region of the country. Obviously, it will be entirely different in Baltimore (thank you, Marilyn Mosby) or Chicago (ditto for Anita Alvarez) than it is in Texas, wherem in some places, “he needed killin'” is an semi-valid defense.

Given all that, knowing all of the downside of intervening, why would anyone help save someone else?

Simply put, it’s the moral and ethical thing to do. While you almost certainly bear no legal responsibility to act, you have to go to sleep every night for the rest of your life. Did you shirk your perceived duty to act and let people die? (Translation: Did you act like a coward, particularly when you could have intervened with minimal danger to yourself?) That would be a heavy burden to bear, especially if innocent women and children that perished due to your inaction. Imagine looking at their pictures in the media coverage afterwards.

There are 13 million Americans with carry licenses now, plus nearly a dozen states don’t require them to carry a gun. Just because you’ve got a gun on your hip or in your purse doesn’t mean you’re a junior crimestopper. That gun you carry is the last resort solution to any conflict you may seek to de-escalate or avoid.

Sometimes things aren’t always what they seem, especially when you’re late to the party. Sometimes life gives you a big sandwich o’ merde and you have to take a bite to save an innocent life. As an example, there’s the story of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources cop who wouldn’t allow a woman to be strangled to death in his front yard.

If it’s a fight, robbery or a simple domestic dispute involving others, should that be your problem? As always, itt depends, but probably not. Be very wary and cautious before you draw that gun…and doubly so before you use it to defend someone you don’t know.

If in doubt, find cover, observe and report to police.

Be careful and stay safe out there.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. My initial thought is no way. It would have to be so clear that the innocent party was, in apparent fact, innocent and that my intervention was the only solution immediately available.

    I just did a Sims course with a cafe scenarios. A large guys was arguing with and then hitting a smaller woman. I challenged him and told him that I called the police. He told me to mind my own business/ Than he pulled a knife that I didn’t see, from my perspective, until he stabbed her once. Only then did I light him up. Without an obvious and deadly threat, I was not even going to draw.

    That’s just me.

  2. First and foremost, you should not use any force against another person in defense of others unless you know for certain that the other person is the actual aggressor.

    A person with a clenched fist, club, knife, or firearm in hand could just as well be a defender as an attacker. Unless you actually see the person-of-interest attack someone and you know that their actions really are an attack and not defensive force, you should not apply force (with a firearm or otherwise) against them.

    • Imagine what you look like to someone else who only sees you approaching a group of people while you’re holding a gun! Sure, you’re doing it because one of them just stabbed his ex girlfriend but the person looking at you didn’t see that, they’re focused on you and your firearm.

      • Hannibal,

        I have heard that concern. Here is the problem:

        (1) Every reasonably fit male can easily deliver a life-ending sucker-punch to an unsuspecting victim. (If the punch itself does not kill the victim, it can certainly knock them unconscious and the resulting fall to a hard surface usually causes devastating head injuries.)

        (2) Every reasonably fit male who has visible hands and who approaches someone could be planning to deliver that life-ending sucker-punch.

        And yet no one considers every reasonably fit male who has visible hands and approaches them to be a threat.

        There is no difference between that reasonably fit male with visible hands and a person with a visible handgun. Both are capable of delivering a life-ending injury. Both could be just seconds away from inflicting that injury. So why would someone say that person with a visible firearm is a threat and the fit male with visible hands is not? Answer: emotion. NOT reason.

        Now add the fact that everyone who approaches could have an unseen (concealed) weapon and intend to kill you.

        We have to stop letting hypotheticals overrule the tangible right in front of us. A person who is maiming/killing others is a threat, regardless of whether or not they have a visible weapon. And the person who is NOT maiming/killing others is NOT a threat, regardless of whether or not they have a visible weapon.

        In other words, the presence or absence of a visible weapon is irrelevant. What is relevant are the ACTIONS of a person.

        • I think Hannibal’s right. While you logic is unimpeachable, the practical reality of this kind of confrontation will be governed by a definition-of-the-situation that might well be very different. What people define as “real” is real in its consequences and, on seeing you approach a deadly situation with a handgun, they could as easily decide that you’re a threat as they could decide that you’re a savior. And whichever definition they make of your behavior will be absolutely real to them. The obvious problem is that our society is still in the process of developing rules about private citizens using guns to defend themselves and others. This is something we really need to work on. My solution is for governments to extend the same implied immunity laws to armed private citizens that are currently reserved for police officers.

        • Garrison Hall,

          Good points. Being right isn’t very comforting if I am dead.

          What we need to do is teach people to determine reality based on what is actually happening rather than what could happen.

  3. There’s a continuum of force here that needs to be considered.

    If you’re not of seriously advanced age, are in decent shape and have some training you have options other than just whipping out your gat.

    I was carrying when my friend and I ended up in a struggle with a drunk/drugged person over a knife (effectively a knife fight except only the aggressor had a knife out). It never occurred to me to draw on the guy, or pull a knife of my own because I knew that with everyone involved this guy was about to get the ever-living shit kicked out of him and either drop the knife or get beaten to unconsciousness/death. There was no need for me to introduce another weapon to the situation, in fact that would have increased the danger to friendlies in this situation.

    Honestly, you can do a pretty rapid assessment of 95%+ of situations. For the rest, sure, observe for a bit while calling the police. When the person in question has a weapon, you can assess that too. The guy who’s defending himself will act differently than the guy who’s attacking. If they both have weapons and are sizing each other up for a fight, leave them alone.

    If your impulse is to pull your heater all the time you probably shouldn’t have one. Similarly if your attitude is that your gun is only to protect you/your family I again question if you should have one.

    • “…Similarly if your attitude is that your gun is only to protect you/your family I again question if you should have one.”

      Eh? Show me where carrying a gun implies legal and/or moral obligation to defend a stranger with lethal force. A major point of the article are the after effects of the action, including legal, psychological, and emotional issues. I might defend a neighbor, but I am not inclined to defend a stranger (there’s always the chance of defending Jeffrey Dahmer). You go ahead and save the world, keyboard commander. I salute you.

      • “Show me where carrying a gun implies legal and/or moral obligation to defend a stranger with lethal force.”

        I didn’t say that it did so I’m not sure where you got the idea I would think that. If I thought that I would have said that. Your insults belie your interest in an actual conversation but I’ll throw you a bone.

        To me, someone totally unwilling to act to save the life of a stranger is a fucking pansy. Yeah, I said it, unknot your panties, take a knee and let’s break this down.

        Now, this situation can be “what if’d” to death, but let’s you’re at a gas station and see a woman pumping gas when a methhead comes out of an ally with a meat cleaver attacks her. If you don’t do anything then you’re 1) a pansy 2) an idiot 3) a pansy again and 4) completely lacking in any common sense or judgement. The “only for me and mine, I ain’t getting involved” argument at this point is a cop-out for the fact that you have no balls and have clearly decided in advance to forgo any critical thinking skills. You’re literally training and mentally preparing yourself to witness a murder and do nothing about it when you could.

        I don’t care about 1-3. People are wired differently. 4 is what concerns me. If you’re carrying a gun “only for me and mine” then you openly admit to lacking judgement and critical thinking skills. That lack of judgement, openly admitted to, causes me to question if you have the judgement to carry a gun at all. You’re basically admitting to a lack of judgement and the ability to think. People who have no judgement and can’t think probably shouldn’t carry a gun. Just sayin’.

        I’m not saying you can’t carry a gun or that “there should be a law” but I would suggest you rethink what you’re doing and maybe take a deep breath, reach down and grab some balls.

        • So easily baited. Simmer down, internet tough guy. Your opinion means nothing to me, and neither do your epithets. You made a stupid, blanket statement about who you think should have a gun (you said those who would only defend themselves and their family shouldn’t have a gun), then try to justify with a silly scenario I am not going to read. If you want to be a hero, defend the defenseless, that’s your prerogative. I couldn’t care less what you think.

    • “Similarly if your attitude is that your gun is only to protect you/your family I again question if you should have one.”

      Fortunately, your questions don’t mean sh!t to me or anyone else.

      • You’re a smart guy Ralph. I know this because I’ve seen your posts.

        My point boils down to this: There are an infinite number of real world situations you could find yourself in. If your answer to “Would I draw and fire?” is a blanket yes or no answer then, regardless of your answer, you are setting yourself up for failure in the majority of situations you would realistically encounter.

        This isn’t black and white. If you see it that way, then you’re not thinking through things as they happen. If you find yourself unwilling to let go of the black/white dichotomy then you are proving yourself to be unwilling to use rational thought and at that point you are, by definition, irrational.

        Irrational people have a right to carry a gun but I question their wisdom in doing so.

        • You’re calling people irrational if they don’t agree with how you assess these situations. That seems…irrational to me.

          p.s. My weapon is to defend my family. Everyone else can wait.

        • Pwinky:

          You’re a real dumbass huh? Did you not read a word of what I wrote?

          Anyone who has a blanket decision for yes/no that covers all situations before facts are known is, by definition giving up rational thought in that specific circumstance and is therefore acting irrationally because they are flat out saying they won’t use rational thought due to said blanket decision.

          By making a statement like this in advance you are openly admitting that you will not assess a situation because the assessment was done ahead of time.

          Tell me how my statement is wrong.

    • If the environment around self-defense and defense of others were different, I would agree with you. The risks and costs are just too high for your approach to be reasonable. If you intervene and it doesn’t go just absolutely perfectly, you’re the next George Zimmerman. I’ll risk that for my loved ones or for myself, but strangers don’t rate that.

      • No offense here Carlos, I like you, but if that’s your attitude 100% across the board in all situations, Rodney is the best avatar you could have.

    • You’re starting to sound like the gun grabbers. YOU get to decide if I should have a gun. Who died and left you GOD in charge of me and what I do. I respect your right to decide for YOU. YOU do not get to decide for me.

      You might want to rethink that last statement about who should or should not have a gun, buckaroooo.

      • You don’t do well on reading comprehension tests do you?

        You wanna ask a fair question, go right ahead. You want to challenge my assertions, go right ahead. Start putting words in my mouth and I get a bit pissy.

        I never said you can’t have it or can’t carry it. I never said “there should be a law”. I said I question your ability to carry. I do that with driver’s on a daily basis: question their ability to drive competently.

        So yes. You have your rights to carry a gun and I will defend that right to my dying breath but if you’re a retard or a pansy, maybe YOU should do us a favor and rethink what you’re doing. Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean you SHOULD. Just because you have the right to carry a gun doesn’t mean you SHOULD if you’re fucking well incompetent when it comes to making basic judgement calls and using critical thinking skills.

        The problem here is that if you’re too dumb to carry a gun then you’re likely too dumb to know you shouldn’t. I’m merely giving the retards a set of signposts.

        We’ve all met people who, after reflection, we think might be a bit dangerous to carry. Hence the whole TTAG “Irresponsible owner of the day”. What I’m saying is if you’re on either end of the “pull a gun spectrum”, as in you always do or you just won’t unless it’s your ass you’re a likely candidate for that posting.

        • “I never said you can’t have it or can’t carry it.”

          Uh, yeah you did. Let me help you with your scrolling skills.

          “Similarly if your attitude is that your gun is only to protect you/your family I again question if you should have one.”

          Your comments are golden. Pure internet genius. You’ve questioned others’ manhood, intelligence, and assume you know what’s best for gun carriers. Keep on keepin’ on, hero.

        • “I question” now equals “I say you can’t have it”.

          Wow. You’re in the running for an Obama style Nobel Prize huh?

          To quote Jules “English motherfucker, do you speak it?”.

  4. Regarding the personal aftermath of using righteous deadly force to defend innocent life:

    This is where a strong, traditional Christian faith is so beneficial. I don’t have to guess or wonder if my actions were “right”. I don’t have to depend on affirmation from a society that has no idea which way is up … and whose collective views of “right” change with the wind.

    My Christian faith tells me unequivocally that human life is sacred … and defending innocent life is a righteous, noble, and loving act. My faith also tells me that evil people are in the world and we will sometimes have to deal with them. My faith even tells me that God commands us to resist evil and that evil people are responsible for any injuries they incur at our hands in defense of life. Those simple details go a long way to helping a person keep their mental stability after using deadly force in defense of human life.

    Would I still suffer some lingering effects? Probably … after all I just witnessed or survived an extremely traumatic event. What I would hopefully not suffer are lingering questions of doubt or guilt.

    • Since I, like Hillary, is supposed to be a Methodist, my view on this is a little different:

      If they look younger than 21 and older than 65, I would likely help them without question.

      If they’re otherwise small, weak, or female, I would likely call the police.

      If they look like a Hillary supporter, I would take a video and murmur, “Oh my god. This is terrible. Some one call the police. I can’t believe what I’m seeing”.


      • If they look like a Hillary supporter, I would take a video and murmur, “Oh my god. This is terrible. Some one call the police. I can’t believe what I’m seeing”.


  5. Kentucky’s law for use of force in self-defense is generally a reasonable person standard. If a reasonable person would believe that they were in imminent risk, you may use lethal force to defend one’s self. (I am not a lawyer, etc. etc.). You assert that you were in fear of your life (or being threatened with rape, etc.), and the positive defense kicks in.

    The law for defense of others deteriorates rapidly: you must be 100% correct that the would-be victim is at risk and innocent. Miss Abuse Victim still loves her “abuse daddy” and tells the jury that he loved her and never would have hurt her. Next stop if you’re lucky: scenic Blackburn. (The law is also very negative on stepping into a situation and then “letting” it escalate.)

    I understand the legislative intent, but with liberal juries in the big city, the law doesn’t let Kentucky carriers do more than protect their own families and keep their heads down.

    • I’m a fellow bluegrass native. I’m hoping we can make some progress on gun laws etc. in the next few years with Bevin. I’ve been away at school, so I’m not as informed as I normally would be, but it seems like now would be one of our better chances.

      Constitutional carry? Can we only hope?

      • I think constitutional carry is well within the realm of possibilities in KY at this point.

        Personally I want restrictions removed for universities and schools. As more states do it hopefully there come some good examples of “a good guy with a gun” stopping a tragedy. If we get several of those then all of a sudden the “for the children” argument starts to go our way!

  6. With lawyers looking for jack pot justice it is dangerous to get evolved. Also the local DA may not support self defense at all.
    I CCW for my family only. I have a camera phone and can be a great witness after at crime I observe.

    It is very sad how our culture has changed. We do depend on the government more because we can’t just help a stranger in need anymore without second guessing a possible negative after math.

  7. If the uses of force was reasonable, then you *should* be fine. Not all police are idiots. There will always be bad politics and Murphy’s Law. Most self defense situations don’t involve shots fired, but anytime rounds fly into John Q. Thug, there will be cops and detectives and lots of questions.

    Don’t forget the potential additional investigation by social justice warriors, the media, and the Feds, depending upon the race of the shooter vs. the race of the victim. A Hillary presidency will make all of that even worse.

    • It’s the should that’s the rub. It just takes an unreasonable prosecutor who wants to kowtow to anti-gunners or play identity politics with your case to make your life hell for years. It’s a risk worth taking for close family and friends, but no one else.

  8. I read of a case where a good-guy intervened in a hold-up. The perp threatened lethal violence but had not yet fired a shot. The good-guy got off 5 rounds but the perp was only slightly wounded in the arm by 1 round.
    This is another line of reasoning for us good-guys. We have to have a realistic assessment of our handgun marksmanship. If a guy can’t be confident that he will land 4 out of 5 rounds on the perp he has no business opening fire in a crowded venue. Maybe he could carry responsibly and draw in a dark parking lot with no one else around; but, he certainly should not shoot first when there are bystanders either behind the perp or behind himself.

  9. This article has a lot of a lot of ‘could’s and ‘may’s.

    We’ve all heard of the George Zimmermans and the Darren Wilsons – people whose lives have been turned upside down as a result of successfully defending themselves. What percentage of cases turn out like this, however? There are thousands of defensive shootings every year.

    • You’re right, the police will show up and give you a medal, because they are all secretly on the side of us “good guys.” When you have a concealed carry license in Illinois, it’s like being a Klan associate, but updated for the year 2016. Even though the Illinois Chiefs of Police totally opposed any form of citizen carry for FORTY years. The “street cops” are with us though, right?

      “What percentage of cases turn out like this, however? There are thousands of defensive shootings every year.”

      You’re right, why worry about it? I mean there’s no chance the cops who show up on the scene will just gun you down on the spot like Philando Castile in Minnesota. You’re white and so are your buddies down at the Masonic hall. You know the secret handshake.

      “If you live, you may well be arrested, be strip searched and thrown in jail with a bunch of ne’er-do-wells.”

      John wouldn’t know anything about what the system really is, but he has taken lots of classes from Massad Ayoob and other cops. That’s where he picked up the simplistic cop terminology like “good guys” and “bad guys.” It’s a juvenile mentality, but it plays well down home with his folks at the American Legion.

  10. If I have to use my gun to defend myself, I assure you that I will not lose any sleep or suffer from PTSD. Nor will I care about being sued or any other bullsh!t, since the alternative would be being dead.

    I might have adverse thoughts, feelings and financial aftereffects for defending a stranger, which is exactly why I won’t do it.

    Strangers, if you need a defender, call a cop. Or I’ll call a cop for you. I’m sure that one will show up in 15 or 20 minutes. But I’m not going to kill anyone for someone I don’t know and who doesn’t give a damn if I live or die.

    • “But I’m not going to kill anyone for someone I don’t know and who doesn’t give a damn if I live or die.”

      Or help you with your defense costs if required, be a witness for you (if the person is a shit bird), etc.

      “Or I’ll call a cop for you.”

      or call Strych9. Apparently it’s his job because he carries a gun and stuff.

    • At one time I felt that there was something wrong with me because I didn’t have PTSD from being in the Pentagon on 9-11. Then I went to see “World Trade Center.” When the building came down I got up and left. I couldn’t watch the movie or any show about 9-11. If you would truly have no PTSD after a DGU then you would be a sociopath.

    • Ralph, I’m a Californian living in a may-issue county.

      I will likely always be the stranger you, or someone who holds the same beliefs as you, won’t protect- and I’m okay with that. I begrudge no man his unwillingness to be pulled into my business, just as I am not beholden to protect others who cannot protect themselves. Being born does not enter one into a contract to serve or protect anyone. I get the idea of being a sheepdog, but its reality clashes with its purpose.

      That being said, I legally car-carry at least one gun. If the situation is perfectly clear and the aggressor is not only identifiable but showing murderous intent with a deadly weapon, I may intervene legally with force. This is a case-by-case basis, not one of cowardice but one of intelligence- one should never shoot someone (or get involved in something like this) without attempting to de-escalate the situation and establish a series of events by calling the police if possible. From the moment of intervention, one must consider every single step one will be taking. Getting into a firefight over someone else may result in, as mentioned by John Boch, your death- which usually has deleterious effects on your family. Sometimes, the best choice is to get home to your family rather than be a hero who leaves them destitute.

      If you save someone but end up bankrupt and homeless, you’ve traded their physical suffering for your mental and physical suffering. What if that someone had chance after chance to just walk away, or to get off the drugs that created the situation? What if they knew their attacker was no good, yet pursued the relationship anyway? What if the person being attacked is a pedophile who bad-touched the attacker’s kid on the playground? Are those people worth potentially going to jail for?

      What if you stop the attack but accidentally shoot a bystander in the process? What if you accidentally shoot the victim rather than the attacker? Your good intention rapidly devolves into a one-way ticket to the Iron Bar Hotel and you’ve arrived at the same result as not getting involved.

      Like so much in life, situations in which force escalates are situations in shades of gray. Some of you see more white, some of you see more black. If I can help, I will.

  11. Ahhhhhh, not AHHHHH, or ugghhhhh, but a appropriately respectful and vastly appreciative ahhhhhhh; Natasha Henstridge.

  12. Only defending me and mine except under super extraordinary circumstances; ya’ll shoulda broughtcha own gun(s).

    It sucks but that’s how it has to be these days.

  13. The use of force continuum is not something most CCWs think about but should. Pulling a gun is NOT the solution to every problem.

  14. Perhaps this question is applicable: What’s the percentage of CHL holders who carry liability insurance?

  15. Is it just possible that if I was carrying a gun, and someone had me as a target, that I would not recognize the imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury? Could I misapprehend the cellphone pointed in my direction that turned out to be a snubby revolver? Could I screw up, fail to defend myself and die?

    If it is possible I could misjudge an imminent threat to self, how should I trust myself to accurately identify an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to another (except when that “other” is shot or stabbed)? Nope. I would have my hands full trying to figure-out what was happening to me. Not thinking I would be able to properly intervene in a situation not of my own making (i.e., someone else’s fight)

  16. Should people who choose not to take responsibility to defend themselves depend on others to do it for them?

  17. Would I go to jail and allow myself to be bankrupted in exchange for defending myself? Yep, but I wouldn’t like it.

    Next question: Who else would I risk the above for?
    In theory, not a total stranger. I have a list, it’s a very short one, and somebody who can’t be bothered with protecting themselves isn’t on it just because I’m prepared to protect them when they aren’t.
    In practice, if I see two guys attack a woman while she’s trying to strap her baby in a car seat, it might be hard to just try to be a good witness.

  18. That woman might be kidnapping that baby
    That’s the father and a plainclothes cop trying to stop her
    Don’t shoot the cop!

    I like what uncommon sense said
    But I am not a Christian
    I am Jewish.
    Christians have no monopoly on moral values
    The entire Sikh religion is based on helping the oppressed
    That’s why they are required to carry a sword ( or knife) at all times
    If the founders of the Sikhism were alive today, Sikhs would be required to conceal carry as a religious duty

  19. Reminds me of something I saw in a movie… “Killing someone isn’t a good thing… even when it’s deserved.” Ironically it was a comedy. Sometimes there is no other choice though.

    I also remember something Massad Ayoob said when talking about aftermaths. “You didn’t decide to shoot them… they made the decision for you.”

  20. Too many people today believe that this life is all there is so fear of death is very high. I don’t want to die, but I accept it as part of life and hope that I am prepared to answer to my maker for how I lived.

  21. “Those who justifiably kill almost always …………………. suffer the Mark of Cain where folks look at them very differently after the incident.”?

    “Folks look at them ‘differently'”? Yeah THAT’S called the “I Ain’t Gonna F*** With Him/Her” look, if more thug/punks, Jihadis and run-of-the-mill a**holes thought/felt that way we as a society would be better off.

Comments are closed.