The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5441 - 5460 of total 5937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bargainhunter

climber
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:22am PT
FYI re: gang tattoos:

Teardrop tattoos next to the eye, like tombstones on the arm or marked out years, refer to "dead time" meaning time wasted in jail, or can mean sad time ( a friend who died, etc). It generally doesn't refer to the wearer having murdered someone, that's a Hollywood misappropriation.

So don't freak out and pull the trigger next time you are in line at 7-11 when you notice the guy next to you is sporting these type of tattoos. It's their fashion, and may seem silly to you, but give them a break, as no one else ever has.

People join gangs because they are the losers of the losers. No one else likes them, they are are failing in school, almost always have developmental delay, some have mental illness, substance abuse, come from struggling families, have poor coping skills, have difficulty performing the most basic jobs etc. They basically have no way out. Once jail time occurs to any lengthy degree, a revolving door of recidivism and dependence on the system usually ensues. And prison culture just breeds more antisocial behavior.

They are kind of like sad, neglected abused stray dogs. Instead of kicking them to the curb, consider showing a little compassion.

I know it's a little hard sometimes to focus when they have elaborate tattoos on their faces and act all tough, but instead of judging them, try to calm your inner judge and be kind. They get it so rarely.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:23am PT
bargainhunter, you have apparently done a bit of reading. So you are "knowledgeable." LOL

Maybe there is SOME part of the country where teardrops mean some of the things you say. But in the Inland Empire of SoCal, you don't know what you are talking about. The PRIMARY and virtually pervasive meaning is: murder. Over time the meaning may have evolved a BIT. But the teardrop in SoCal has always had ONE virtually ubiquitous meaning. And the LEOs knew it.

Regarding your "compassionate" idea, all I can say is ROFL.

I was born and raised in it. I was immersed in it first hand. I know the underside of the armpit in all its foul, unwashed, reeking stinkiness.

You treat these "poor things" like THEY are the victims. Nothing could be further from the truth! Even as very young people, they had CHOICES. I knew some that escaped the sucking vortex of the gangs. They got grants and even took out loans, and they GOT OUT and got educated. First-timers in their families going to college. But they DID it!

The others were not "victims." They chose a path because it fit the bent of their natures, and for many of them they were just another generation in the gangs, looking up to gangbanger daddy and even granddaddy. And those generations all CHOSE.

They consider themselves above the law, transcending the mores of society, and an elite society unto itself. They are at flat-out war with normal society, as well as with rival gangs.

Sure, this or that individual might have joined a gang because of feeling like a downtrodden loser. But by the time he is earning his first teardrop he is NOT feeling that way or perceiving normal society anything like a normal human being. HIS status rises ONLY through violence!

I have interacted with countless of these people. And, yes, IF you are on the IN or are known to be connected, you can have very good relations, and you might even be lulled into thinking that they are virtually domesticated and have normal values and responses. But bleeding hearts like yours never cease to amaze me, as you are so unaware of the VAST capacity for utterly outrageous violence they have. They live, eat, sleep, and breathe violence.

They respect strength above all. Strength for strength. The weak earn only their disdain.

I could tell almost countless stories. But you would not believe....

So, live in your dreamland... but HOPE that you don't happen to meet one in a dark alley, or even broad daylight. The boogieman does exist, and he does NOT want your coddling! He will take your psychobabbling as light entertainment and then GUT you as the feature film.

ONE story to give you a clue about how clueless you are....

---


My best friend had avoided the gangs and opened his own automotive machine shop business in Norwalk. He was doing well, but his brother (also named Richard, like me) was a wannabe gang-banger. My friend, John, told Richard countless times, "You are a bug to these guys. They do not respect you, and what you'll have to do to GET respect are things you don't want to do. They are just playing you and using you. Stay out of it!"

But Richard just became more and more of a trash-talker. He started packing, and he even took pot-shots at random people to prove how anti-social and "bad-ass" he was. He started rising in the ranks enough to be one of the "lower cockroaches," which is to say that he could hang around drinking, doing drugs, and getting laid with other scumbags at his lower level. He was tolerated.

John and I watched this progression for years, and we would say to each other, "No WAY Richard lives until he's 30."

To gain more status, Richard was given tasks to perform, always this or that illegal activity. And the tasks became more and more violent. "Collect this money and push the gun UP his nose. Make it bleed. Pull the hammer back and make him believe it's all over." Crap like that.

As he started feeling more and more bad-ass, Richard started believing that he really WAS a for-real bad-ass.

And ohhh, how he wanted to be!

But Richard had not yet BECOME a true, gangland bad-ass. He still had some innate respect for life left in him. And that made him nothing but MEAT for the first guy lacking that residual humanness. Richard could not yet imagine a truly cold-dead soul, devoid of respect for life. And that made him comparatively soft and weak.

One day Richard was talking all big and bad, but there were some for-real bad-ass gangbangers overhearing him. One of them walked up to him, said absolutely nothing, just put a gun against his heart, looked him in the eye, and pulled the trigger.

Richard = dead before he hit the ground. John and I knew who did it, as word got all around, and the cops even had suspicions.

John didn't even feel vengeful. Richard had it coming, and John and I knew it was coming. Richard was totally expendable, just a lower-level bug to be used and discarded at will. Nothing special, and lacking the "heart" to be a true, bad-ass gang-banger. Rejecting normal society, he couldn't make it in his chosen society, with is ruthlessly Darwinian if any society is!

---


Yeah, there will all sorts of analysis following up this story. Everybody will have their opinions. But I LIVED in that sort of world most of my life, and I know these people like most that talk, talk, talk do not.

Your bleeding heart, "social theory," "they are poor victims" idea is just a steaming pool of runny dung. For many of these guys, they would LITERALLY just as soon shoot you for no particularly reason as to look at you. And IF they do so, their gangland status only rises.

Wherever this element exists in society, ALL of the surrounding normal society is in danger. It breeds virtually random violence, and it FEEDS the black-market vices that breed yet more secondary violence.

A gun can't "make you safe," but it can at least give you a fighting chance, IF you know what you are doing and are aware of what to look out for. Without a gun, you are just meat to these guys. Hopefully YOU will go your whole life without one of them looking your way.

Most people literally cannot truly imagine a "human being" that can say "normal things" and act "normal" much of the time and APPEAR to have many typical responses, but that deep inside is just cold and dark and dead. I can't say it strongly enough: true gangbangers would just as soon gut you as look at you. You are NOTHING to them.

So, yeah, tell us ALL about what the teardrop "really" means, and you won't have said ANYTHING of substance at all.

If your point is just that we can't go kill everybody with a teardrop, that is OBVIOUS! Are you so obtuse that you actually thought I was advocating for that???

My point was that we CANNOT have a society that just sweepingly takes out the trash. So the only alternatives are cops EVERYWHERE with a pervasive police state or the average citizen being armed and capable of self-defense, which is the ONE thing gangbangers DO still respect among normal citizens.

Be armed, obviously capable, and not a trash-talker, and you can survive a LOT, even living in a cesspool. I know first hand.

I am NOT saying that every person needs to be packing all the time. It is a very personal choice that contemplates a lot of factors.

Just DON'T think you have some moral high ground because you believe your own situation to be so "secure" that the proxied police force is "all anybody should need."

State-level and reasonable gun-control laws? Sure. Why not? Much beyond that, however, and you've got a fight on your hands.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 15, 2014 - 05:42am PT
I don't think internet logic is your thing TE

That's true, TE is far too logical for the Internets.
Bargainhunter

climber
Jul 15, 2014 - 06:55am PT
Madbolter,

I was making a statement about an individual with a gang tattoo, not about gang culture in general.

Sorry your friend's brother was murdered, but he fits the profile of the gang members I was describing (i.e. total losers).

My knowledge of gangs is principally from latino gangs in East LA, so I'm surprised at your paranoia over a teardrop tattoo in the IE. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between the latino LA empire gang cultures. I don't read about it, I work in a job where I deal with gang members and gang violence daily.

I'm not trying to drift the thread here as it's about gun control etc., but your fear of gang members and your need to conceal carry fits a profile of all people I know who feel the need to carry a gun. That profile is being afraid, and feeling a sense of control of that fear by carrying a gun. The reality is, there will be no zombie apocalypse and you will not encounter the next Adam Lanza standing in line in front of you at the mall. There is a lot of wasted, negative energy spent by people running over crime scenarios in their head.

It's basically impossible to prepare for freak occurrences like 9/11 or the next columbine shooting, or a dirty bomb detonated in the Rose Bowl. I'm typing by a window, perhaps someone might shoot me in the head? Perhaps, but I can't live life mitigating every single possible bad outcome. Weird stuff happens, but I don't think you need to be misanthropic and unduly paranoid about gang violence, which is mostly gang on gang crime. People who aren't involved with gang culture aren't the primary victims here.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 15, 2014 - 07:16am PT
I'm not trying to drift the thread here as it's about gun control etc., but you fear of gang members and your need to conceal carry fits a profile of all people I know who feel the need to carry a gun. That profile is being afraid, and feeling a sense of control of that fear by carrying a gun.

Yep.

Fear is what binds gun toters together. Like all those nuts at Bunkerville. They are your rank and file NRA members. Enjoy your company.

DMT
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 15, 2014 - 09:01am PT
Hey Dingus, you ever been robbed by somebody with a weapon?
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 15, 2014 - 09:17am PT
If somebody robs you with a weapon, they likely have the drop on you. Odds are, they'd rob you of your weapon!

My personal gunpoint experience was with the cops. It was a bit scary, but at least the cops don't want to do the requisite paperwork killing entails.

My knifepoint experiences weren't robberies either.

Happy to say, fisticuffs were almost exclusive to my childhood and early teenage years.

Relieved I have never been down range of enemy combatants, my empathy goes out to those who have.

I hope all this focus on some of the GI Joe accessories doesn't leave us as no more than well armed slaves. Rights to education, justice, freedom from unjust drug war and any other sham war persecution... those seem as or more important than machines for flinging metal bits are to the interests of freedom.
Chewybacca

Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
Jul 15, 2014 - 09:24am PT
Toker- You ever have anyone you loved killed by a firearm?

I'm not anti-gun but I do support strong gun control laws and punishments.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 15, 2014 - 09:52am PT
I did know a number of people that have been shot to death, fortunately none super close.

Yes, it would be nice to make a danger free world, but the truth is that nobody gets out alive.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 15, 2014 - 09:55am PT
Madbolter, if you consider your "crime prevention" website to be an independent or even remotely reliable source, you need to think again. It was almost funny to read how blatant the lies and omissions were, and that was without even fact-checking the references.

Are you sure Ron hasn't figured out your password?

TE







madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 12:28pm PT
I was making a statement about an individual with a gang tattoo, not a about gang culture in general.

I don't know what that means. You were making FYI statements about teardrop tattoos. I'm telling you that in general you are wrong.

Sorry your friend's brother was murdered, but he fits the profile of the gang members I was describing (i.e. total losers).

"Fits the profile?" Funny. I made it clear that Richard never WAS a "gang member." Richard was a wannabe, a hanger-on, an expendable bug that DIDN'T have what it took to actually BE a member.

So, if this sort of "data" is the basis of your "profile," that would explain why your profile is so off.

Actual gang MEMBERS have made it through a ruthlessly Darwinian selection process, and to call them "losers" really indicates that you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry to be blunt, but everything you say comes completely apart from my decades of first-hand experience.

My knowledge of gangs is principally from latino gangs in East LA, so I'm surprised at your paranoia over a teardrop tattoo in the IE. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between the latino LA empire gang cultures. I don't read about it, I work in a job where I deal with gang members and gang violence daily.

Yes, the SoCal gangs are pretty monolithic, and I do have a good deal of experience with the Norwalk to East LA versions of the IE same thing. In general an outlined teardrop signifies what you said, but a filled in one generally signifies what I said.

"Paranoia?" What are you talking about?

You "work in a job...." That's deliciously vague, I'm sure by design. What are you? A social worker? A PO? The actual LEOs know better than most, and they can often extract some real information. But everybody else that "works with" these types is deluded if they think they are getting anything APPROACHING a straight scoop from gangland types.

Oh, and remember: You thought of Richard as a "gang member" (otherwise, how could he fit your "profile"). So, if you think of a guy like him as the sort of people I'm talking about, again, your cluelessness is showing.

Unless you are an actual LEO (and I'm not talking prison guard), these people are laughing at you behind your back after every encounter they have with you. And if you take their "sincerity" as genuine in whatever context you are in with them, then they HAVE played you and have every reason to be laughing at you behind your back.

"Paranoia?" Seriously, man, you have NO idea what you are talking about.

I'm not trying to drift the thread here as it's about gun control etc., but your fear of gang members and your need to conceal carry fits a profile of all people I know who feel the need to carry a gun. That profile is being afraid, and feeling a sense of control of that fear by carrying a gun.

Well, actually that ONE paragraph was relevant to the topic at hand.

Of course, your "profile" is about as accurate in this case as you including Richard in your earlier "profile" was.

Good luck with your continued "profiling."

The reality is, there will be no zombie apocalypse and you will not encounter the next Adam Lanza standing in line in front of you at the mall. There is a lot of wasted, negative energy spent by people running over crime scenarios in their head.

Odds are that you are right. Odds are that my home will never be flooded; I carry flood insurance anyway.

We do all sorts of things in life that are minimal hassle and yet carry various expenses of time and money. We do them anyway.

Paranoid, I guess.

It's basically impossible to prepare for freak occurrences like 9/11 or the next columbine shooting, or a dirty bomb detonated in the Rose Bowl.

True enough. Your point?

Are you saying that ALL forms of preparedness are a waste of resources? Are you saying "the government's got us covered?"

Are you saying that there's "no bang for the buck" in carrying a gun? My response would be that you apparently think it's much more of a problem/hassle to do so than it actually is. I'm happy enough with the "bang for the buck."

I'm typing by a window, perhaps someone might shoot me in the head? Perhaps, but I can't live life mitigating every single possible bad outcome.

This is just a stupid argument, frankly. And you yourself belie your own claims here on a constant basis. You do countless things in your life to mitigate very, very, VERY tiny risks. Yet you do them all the time!

The very fact that you pay a police force belies your argument.

Weird stuff happens, but I don't think you need to be misanthropic and unduly paranoid about gang violence, which is mostly gang on gang crime. People who aren't involved with gang culture aren't the primary victims here.

More babbling, including the dreaded psychobabbling.

"Misanthropic and unduly paranoid?"

First, what would "unduly paranoid" BE? Is it possible to be "duly paranoid?" What would THAT be?

And "misanthropic?" Oh wow! Just WOW!

If you are not a health care professional, I'd say: Leave it to the experts. And if you ARE an "expert," I'd say that you are a classic example of why I have just about zero respect for them.

By your lights, just about anybody with enough experience to KNOW that the boogieman is real is "unduly paranoid."

And your claim that "People who aren't involved with gang culture aren't the primary victims here" is either vacuous or outright wrong. Of course, you might mean by "involved" something like "living in the wrong place at the wrong time." Or, by "primary" you might mean "primary target."

But "primary victim" is incorrect. And the secondary violence that ripples out from the primary violence is indeed "gang related" but harder to trace back to its proximate cause. It is real nevertheless.

To bring this all back to a fine point, however, as I said, a gun can't "make you safe," but it can give you a fighting chance in any of a WIDE range of scenarios.

None of those scenarios is "likely" to happen to any particular person. But neither is a flood at my house.

Do YOU carry flood insurance? Does it cost you ANYTHING? Is the bang for the buck worth it to you?

Do YOU pay for the cops in your city? Does that cost you ANYTHING? What are the odds that you, personally, will find yourself needing a cop? Is the bang for the buck worth it to you?

Are you "fearful" or "paranoid" for answering "yes" to any of those questions?

Give me a break!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 12:35pm PT
It was almost funny to read how blatant the lies and omissions were

If they were so blatant, then you should be able to instantly trot out half-a-dozen examples.

Do tell....

I predict that you simply didn't agree, so, of course, that means that the information consisted of "lies and omissions."

The POINT is that for every site you trot out, I can trot out others. Back and forth. The "facts" on this subject are well nigh impossible to interpret. So, all this talk about how gun control laws "work" in "other countries" is pure fluff.

The burden of proof is on people claiming that they WORK. That is the positive claim; and that claim flies in the face of a great deal of experience we do have with strict gun control law in areas like Chicago and DC.

You finding a strict gun-control area that has low crime does NOT make your case. What you need to demonstrate is causality, which is a higher bar than correlation! And you don't even have correlation, because there are TOO MANY counterexamples.

So, the bar to claim that they don't appear to work is a much lower bar to get over than your claim that they do. ALL I need to do is attack your claimed correlation, and I'm done. That's EASY to do! There are SO many counterexamples to even a claimed correlation.

But YOU have to get FAR beyond mere correlation, and that's HARD to do!

Good luck with that.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 15, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
Come on now. What are the "many" federal laws to which you refer? Clinton signed a DUI law in 2000, but it applies ONLY on federal lands, such as national parks, military bases, and some off-road areas. Surely you are not touting that law as having "turned the tide" or even significantly contributed to the "turn around."

No, states must pass 0.08 limits or lose highway funding. Just like the law raising the drinking age to 21.

Gun laws should probably be similar. CO type regulations should be passed nationwide or the states face consequences. Keep the laws at the state level but have a national standard or criminals will just transport across state lines.

DC is a good example. The y can drive for 5 minutes and buy a handgun, without a background check, from a private party in Virginia. What good are DC laws then?
scrubbing bubbles

Social climber
Uranus
Jul 15, 2014 - 01:46pm PT
All you guys obsessed with guns, think of a way to reduce gun violence in the US by at least 50 percent. Think hard and then make it happen. Fact is, you have zero clue...so within 100 years all the guns will be taken out of public hands by what you will call a left leaning Supreme Court. All these dangerous toys will be taken out of your hands, and the guns will be purged from the criminal classes as well, by radical methods.

Finally our murder rate will resemble a civilized country's murder rate, not what we have now.

In the meantime, go ahead and form radical armed militias...the black panthers and Mexican gangbangers will also form their legal, radical militias, the left will form militias to attack your right wing militias...far right wing militias will form to attack the ordinary right wing militias



Are you happy, gun nuts? You finally turned the USA into the Middle East

.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:14pm PT
Finally our murder rate will resemble a civilized country's murder rate, not what we have now.

It already does. So, job done.

Next....

Are you happy, gun nuts? You finally turned the USA into the Middle East

Now I know that you are just trolling.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
No, states must pass 0.08 limits or lose highway funding. Just like the law raising the drinking age to 21.

How do you think that that reduction from .1 to .08 has made a huge difference? Do you really think that one person that was going to drive drunk at .1 suddenly thinks, "Oh, sheesh, the limit is .08, and I think I'm a bit over. Better give the keys to a friend."? Never happened.

The law MIGHT (repeat, logically possibly) have raised awareness a bit and had a FEW people ensure that they do, say, two drinks instead of three. But what are they doing driving at .08 anyway??? MOST people are really not fit to drive even at .08.

(Don't get me started on texting while driving!)

No, the BIG effect has been had via education and really in-your-face groups like MADD.

And teenage drunk-driving is STILL epidemic. Reduced, but still outrageous.

Gun laws should probably be similar. CO type regulations should be passed nationwide or the states face consequences.

The problem with this approach is that, like the 55 speed limit was, it is basically the feds extorting the states to do what the feds didn't (then) believe they had the power to do on their own.

It's like the feds putting a gun to the heads of the states and saying, "Now, it's your 'free' right to pass this law, and we know you want to. So we're just 'encouraging' you to do so NOW."

Yeah, right.

You can't pretend it's not a federal law as long as the feds are extorting the states to do what any particular state doesn't otherwise intend to do.

That IS the struggle in the United STATES! The feds simply cannot (and should not) do or extort the states to do what any particular state does not intend to do. Thus, for that freedom and balance of power, we sometimes don't get sweeping, universal oversight we might have in a more "totalitarian" regime.

Perhaps the real problem is that the people of DC simply don't accept the outright bans DC has in place. So they engage in civil disobedience, and consequently more guns make it into the hands of criminals than otherwise would. And if DC could demonstrate that criminally-held guns were making it in from this or that particular state, there are other forms of "pressure" besides federal law that could cause neighboring states to "tighten up" collectively.

In our country cooperation rather than force/extortion is the mantra. That's a good thing.

Keep the laws at the state level but have a national standard or criminals will just transport across state lines. DC is a good example. The y can drive for 5 minutes and buy a handgun, without a background check, from a private party in Virginia. What good are DC laws then?

I am TRULY sympathetic to this reasoning. To me it's the most compelling reasoning in this whole debate! So, HOW to make it a reality without the feds violating states' rights?

First, the feds must agree that there will be NO federal registry of gun owners, NO federal record of guns themselves, and NO extortion or "encouragement" of the states to "voluntarily" produce such information.

Second, as in Colorado, the background checks must be "fire and forget," point-in-time, checks. The check is done, and it is then forgotten (some counties maintain a record, but state law precludes them from releasing that record to any external agency, including the state itself). There is no ongoing record of guns nor their owners, and no record "percolates up." The check is DONE, point in time, and then it's over.

Third, I'm all for sweeping background checks; I mean everywhere and for every gun-transfer transaction. And even private party transactions can be background-checked. Here's just one idea:

A person wanting to buy or trade or be gifted a private party gun must have the background check done, get a certificate of compliance produced, and give that certificate to the person releasing the firearm. That should be kept on record like taxes for, say, five or seven years.

Then, if the gun IS used in a crime, and it can be traced back to that particular transaction (it's possible, even without a kept record), the seller/gifter had BETTER be able to produce that compliance certificate along with the bill of sale.

Things like laws requiring guns to be locked up at all times they are not "in use" are very problematical. I have yet to hear a suggestion that makes the gun truly accessible when needed on short notice, while also "ensuring" it is kept out of the hands of kids and people like Adam Lanza.

I think that a law would have to look something like a prima facie speed law: "You can't ever legally drive faster than is safe for the conditions." So, something like, "You must always handle and store your gun in a way that keeps it out of the hands of people that should not have it."

A major upside to an approach like that is that it keeps the burden of proof on the government in prosecution, where it should be! Another upside is that it is indeed a prosecuteable offense. Finally, it takes into account the fact that people's circumstances vary.

I'm all FOR having a productive conversation about laws that would be reasonable, non-odious to the vast majority of gun owners, and that do not vest the feds with yet more power they don't know what to do with.

More ideas?

StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:41pm PT
Really? Which developed countries murder rate does it resemble?

Credit: StahlBro
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:57pm PT
Are you REALLY trotting out that chart again?

Puhhhleeeaaase!!!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:01pm PT
You're BACK to that ANNOYING HABIT of SHOUTING WORDS.

Stand back and look your last diatribe. Don't read it... look at it as if you were seeing you for the first time. Like what you see?

I don't think you can help yourself though.

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:19pm PT
You're BACK to that ANNOYING HABIT of SHOUTING WORDS.

I NEVER STOPPED! So I can't be "back" to it.

LOL

How about we get back to business, which is to agree on some laws that might satisfy ALL parties?

Or would you rather just keep posturing and engaging in your own version of forum drive-by-shootings? You're "back" to those also.
Messages 5441 - 5460 of total 5937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews