Gun-carry law hasn't produced more crime

**min0 lee** · 04-01-2007, 06:50 PM

Gun-carry law hasn't produced more crime

Additional licensed handguns have neither increased nor decreased violent crime in Minnesota, a state report shows.

By Conrad deFiebre, Star Tribune

Tens of thousands more Minnesotans licensed to carry handguns in public haven't turned the state into the Wild West shootout that gun-control advocates warned of. But they also have not done much to curb violent crime, a benefit that many gun-rights proponents predicted when the state's permitting law was liberalized.

Between 2002, the year before the law was changed, and 2005, the most recent year for which state figures are available, Minnesota's violent crime rose 13 percent.

The 174 crimes committed by permit holders, according to a recent state report, represent only a tiny fraction of the surge, which experts say owes more to demographic trends and gangs.

Only 23 of the crimes by permit holders involved a pistol.
Meanwhile, the single "lawful and justifiable" use of a firearm reported among Minnesota's 42,189 permit holders over the past four years did not involve self-defense or efforts to stop a crime, but rather a Wabasha County man who drew complaints about target shooting near someone's property but faced no charges.

"There was an awful lot of hype on both sides before the law passed," said state Public Safety Commissioner Michael Campion. "It just hasn't materialized. I never believed there'd be a decrease in crime because people carry guns."

Sheriffs, who are issuing hundreds of new handgun permits each month, agree that the law's impact on public safety, which ignited intense debate for years leading up to its passage, has been negligible.

"Except for one domestic assault, we've had no incidents either way," said Dakota County Sheriff Don Gudmundson, an early critic of the law.
He offered a possible explanation: As gun owners become more experienced, they carry their weapons less often. "They're too hot, too cold, too heavy," he said. "Most off-duty cops are not armed."

But some Minnesotans are toting guns -- and firing them. The state Department of Health has recorded a sharp rise in injuries and deaths from assaults with firearms since 2003. In the five years before that, such casualties averaged 172 a year in Minnesota. In the next three years, the average was 327, capped by a record 395 in 2005.

Much of the bloodshed has centered in Hennepin County, where the one murder by a Minnesota permit holder occurred outside a Minneapolis bar in 2005. Zachary Ourada of Minneapolis shot Billy Walsh, a bar bouncer, four times in the back after Walsh ejected Ourada from Nye's Polonaise Room for being a drunken nuisance. Ourada is serving 36 years in prison.
The vast majority of permit holders are not causing such tragedies, proponents of the new law point out.

"Permit holders really are very safe people," said Michael Martin, a Woodbury software business executive who holds a handgun permit and teaches firearms courses on the side. "They are more likely to avoid dangerous situations and walk away from trouble. But I'm pleased that the law does allow me to defend myself."

Cause and effect?
For decades before 2003, many Minnesota police chiefs and sheriffs used their discretion to keep a tight clamp on the number of permits they issued. In the Twin Cities area especially, most applicants had to show an occupational hazard to become licensed, such as private security work or carrying large amounts of cash.

At the end of 2002, about 12,000 Minnesotans held handgun permits, most of them outside the metro area. The Personal Protection Act of 2003 changed that. It guarantees access to a handgun permit to any adult who pays a $100 fee, gets prescribed training and passes a background check.
Gun-control advocates see links between more gun permits and rising violence.

"Buying and carrying more handguns does not improve public safety, and it weakens civil society," said Heather Martens, president of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota.

Gun-rights champions see things differently. "There's really no connection," said Joe Olson, president of the Gun Owners' Civil Rights Alliance and chief drafter of the 2003 law. "Violent crime tracks with the numbers of males 18 to 26. We're having a bump in that group at this time."
State Demographer Tom Gillaspy confirmed that there are more Minnesotans of crime-prone age than a few years ago, but not enough to account for all of the increased violence. "You could probably explain away a couple percentage points," he said.

One percent of adult Minnesotans now have permits. Olson speculated that criminal behavior might be affected once 2 percent are licensed.
Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington, chief sponsor of the Personal Protection Act, said that in other states where similar laws have reduced crime, "when it starts to come down, it stays down." Meanwhile, she blamed double-digit percentage rises in the use of guns in murders, robberies and assaults since 2003 on "people who have guns illegally."

Unlikely to commit crimes
No Minnesota permit holder has ever been convicted of robbery. And a Star Tribune comparison of overall crime statistics and state reports of convictions of permit holders indicates that their likelihood of committing an assault is about 17 times less than the general population's, 12 times less for drunken driving and 31 times less for drug crimes.

Besides the murder of Billy Walsh, a state report lists 22 other crimes in which permit holders used their guns, including two convictions of criminal sexual conduct, two assaults, two domestic assaults and four cases of harassment, threats, disorderly conduct or stalking.

Those convicted of serious crimes usually lose their permits; state records show that 24 were revoked last year for reasons ranging from mental health commitment to criminal convictions to gang membership. And 177 applicants were denied permits in 2006, mostly because they posed danger to themselves or others.

Meanwhile, 9,064 permits were issued statewide in 2006; sheriffs say the rate of applications hasn't slowed this year.
More than two-thirds of all denials have come in Ramsey County. Sheriff Bob Fletcher has assigned a deputy full time to investigating applicants with any record of mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse or scrapes with the law. But that and other permitting expenses have cost taxpayers $200,000 more than the fees collected.

Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek supports the Personal Protection Act, saying it improved on the former law by increasing the minimum age for a permit to 21, requiring training and providing more fees to finance background checks.

"It took away some local control," he said, adding that the worst predictions of gun-control advocates "just didn't turn out that way."

Conrad deFiebre • 651-222-1673 ©2007 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

**The Monkey Man** · 04-01-2007, 09:55 PM

In Tombstone, AZ they have a "NON"-concealed carry law...

So all the cowboys down there just walk around w/their guns strapped to their sides...

Small community, I wonder if the quickie-mart ever gets robbed?

**mrmark** · 04-02-2007, 04:05 AM

That is pretty interesting... but I wonder how it will be pan in the long term.

**clemson357** · 04-02-2007, 08:16 AM

There are lots of studies on this. All of them that I have seen say either (1) concealed carry reduces crime, or (2) concealed carry has no effect on crime.

It makes perfect sense to me. The only people who are going to get a permit to carry a gun are people who are not planning on committing crimes. In other words, if you are already planning on committing a crime, you aren't going to be worried about the fact that its illegal for you to carry your gun.

**KelJu** · 04-02-2007, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by clemson357

There are lots of studies on this. All of them that I have seen say either (1) concealed carry reduces crime, or (2) concealed carry has no effect on crime.

It makes perfect sense to me. The only people who are going to get a permit to carry a gun are people who are not planning on committing crimes. In other words, if you are already planning on committing a crime, you aren't going to be worried about the fact that its illegal for you to carry your gun.

The sad part is simple logic like what you just posted will fly right over the head's of opponents of gun ownership.

**Decker** · 04-02-2007, 08:43 AM

I think that licensing is the frontline on filtering out undesirables from owning guns. Make that crook/lunatic go that extra mile to secure a firearm. It seems reasonable to me.

**KelJu** · 04-02-2007, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Decker

I think that licensing is the frontline on filtering out undesirables from owning guns. Make that crook/lunatic go that extra mile to secure a firearm. It seems reasonable to me.

I have experience in this, and I believe the scenario is true less then 5% of the time. I sold guns for two years, and for every gun I sold I had to call NICS, Federal Bureau of Investigation - Welcome to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) Information, and verify that the person had a clean background. Over 90% of the guns we sold were hunting rifles and shotguns. The other 10% were pistols. Pistol sales laws are much more stringent, and we were required by law to verify a legal pistol permit, proof of a valid permanent street address, and a clean background. The guns serial numbers were logged to their name in the FBI database. We couldn't sell to anyone with a PO box or apartment number. BTW, this is the federal law for all states.

So now the gun is registered to the person. These people are not going to just sell these guns to any person off the street, because they could face charges if the gun ever turns up in a crime. The customer is required to report the gun stolen if it ever comes up missing.

Now, why the hell would any criminal go through all of this just to get a pistol legally knowing that if they do commit a crime with a gun that linked to them 3 different ways?

Anybody want to chime in on this one with some valid statistics on how many gun crimes are committed by legal owners as opposed to non legal owners?

Also, how many criminals are first time criminals? How many gun crimes are committed by gun owners as their first criminal act? Sure, the media makes look like somebody goes nuts and kills a classroom full of kids everyday. I think we all know thta isn't the case.

**mrmark** · 04-02-2007, 09:23 AM

I think that the gun opponents view the gun problem as a whole, and not just focusing on the illegal gun owners because that problem is a lot harder to tackle.

**clemson357** · 04-02-2007, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by mrmark

I think that the gun opponents view the gun problem as a whole, and not just focusing on the illegal gun owners because that problem is a lot harder to tackle.

If I am interpreting this correctly, you are saying gun opponents focus on legal ownership of guns because it is harder to focus on illegal ownership of guns. If so, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

**Dale Mabry** · 04-02-2007, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by clemson357

If I am interpreting this correctly, you are saying gun opponents focus on legal ownership of guns because it is harder to focus on illegal ownership of guns. If so, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

I think he is saying that peeps against guns view it as a universal problem encompassing both illegal and legal ownership rather than an issue of just the illegal owners because they don't want to separate the two, which is very true.

I have no problem with carrying guns, I think it needs to be regulated because, if it wasn't, some idiot would walk around carrying a flamethrower just because he can. Although, I believe there is a case for killing more people with the amount of stupid going on these days.

**clemson357** · 04-02-2007, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I think he is saying that peeps against guns view it as a universal problem encompassing both illegal and legal ownership rather than an issue of just the illegal owners because they don't want to separate the two, which is very true.

The idea that all gun ownership is a problem is just ridiculous. Its people forcing their lifestyle on others, and has nothing to do with crime prevention.

**ZECH** · 04-02-2007, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Gun-carry law hasn't produced more crime

I want to know if this is Paul or Lisa posting this??

**Dale Mabry** · 04-02-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by clemson357

The idea that all gun ownership is a problem is just ridiculous. Its people forcing their lifestyle on others, and has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Agreed, on both accounts. Ironic that it seems the Laissez-faire GOP have been more faire than laissez lately. 6 years ago I was more right leaning, or they became more left leaning over the past 6 years.

**min0 lee** · 04-02-2007, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by dg806

I want to know if this is Paul or Lisa posting this??

Paul, Lisa won't even let me get a damn BB gun to shoot at the city rats.

**Dale Mabry** · 04-02-2007, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by dg806

I want to know if this is Paul or Lisa posting this??

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Paul, Lisa won't even let me get a damn BB gun to shoot at the city rats.

Oh snap, husband-wife. Whoda thunk it.

**clemson357** · 04-02-2007, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Paul, Lisa won't even let me get a damn BB gun to shoot at the city rats.

Start small. First get a water gun. Then a paintball gun. Then a BB gun. Then a Glock.

**ALBOB** · 04-03-2007, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by clemson357

Start small. First get a water gun. Then a paintball gun. Then a BB gun. Then a Glock.

Screw that. Get a .44 Auto Mag then dare her to bitch about it.

**Will Brink** · 07-13-2007, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by KelJu

The sad part is simple logic like what you just posted will fly right over the head's of opponents of gun ownership.

How dare you bring common sense and simple logic into the debate! Let's see, the people at the Brady Bunch just want to save us all from evil guns. They give states a grade for their guns laws:

STATE . . . . . . Brady Grade,

New York . . . . . . B+
Vermont . . . . . . . D-
New Hampshire . . D-
Maine . . . . . . . . . D-
Massachusetts . . . A-
Connecticut . . . . . A-
Rhode Island . . . . B-

So lets look at crime and homicide rates for those states.

2005 FBI UCR data of crime/homicide rates per 100,000 people:

Region . . . Violent Crime, Homicide Rates
USA National . . 569.2 , 5.6
New York . . . . 445.8 , 4.5
Vermont . . . . . 119.7 , 1.3
New Hampshire 132.0 , 1.4
Maine . . . . . . . 112.2 , 1.4
Massachusetts . 456.9 , 2.7
Connecticut . . . 274.5 , 2.9
Rhode Island . . 251.2 , 3.2

Well gee, it looks like if you want to live in a low crime state you should pick one that gets at least a D- by the Brady Bunch....

**Gazhole** · 07-13-2007, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by clemson357

It makes perfect sense to me. The only people who are going to get a permit to carry a gun are people who are not planning on committing crimes. In other words, if you are already planning on committing a crime, you aren't going to be worried about the fact that its illegal for you to carry your gun.

Great post. Very very true!

**KelJu** · 07-13-2007, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by WillBrink

How dare you bring common sense and simple logic into the debate! Let's see, the people at the Brady Bunch just want to save us all from evil guns. They give states a grade for their guns laws:

STATE . . . . . . Brady Grade,

New York . . . . . . B+
Vermont . . . . . . . D-
New Hampshire . . D-
Maine . . . . . . . . . D-
Massachusetts . . . A-
Connecticut . . . . . A-
Rhode Island . . . . B-

So lets look at crime and homicide rates for those states.

2005 FBI UCR data of crime/homicide rates per 100,000 people:

Region . . . Violent Crime, Homicide Rates
USA National . . 569.2 , 5.6
New York . . . . 445.8 , 4.5
Vermont . . . . . 119.7 , 1.3
New Hampshire 132.0 , 1.4
Maine . . . . . . . 112.2 , 1.4
Massachusetts . 456.9 , 2.7
Connecticut . . . 274.5 , 2.9
Rhode Island . . 251.2 , 3.2

Well gee, it looks like if you want to live in a low crime state you should pick one that gets at least a D- by the Brady Bunch....

I always enjoy reading your post will. Keep them coming.

**Will Brink** · 07-13-2007, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by KelJu

I always enjoy reading your post will. Keep them coming.

Will do. Here's one you might enjoy:

Liberals Need Not Fear the Right to Bear Arms
Michael Helmeste
Published Thursday, June 7, 2007
Issue 137 / Volume 87

I’m a liberal. My voting record is largely Green Party and Democrat. I’m a strong environmentalist - I respect and treat all life equally. I think equal opportunity is a good concept, and I view our international policy with distaste.

I’m also a gun collector and strong proponent of the Second Amendment.

People have been misled to think that guns are a Republican thing. That’s unfortunate. Gun ownership is the most liberal thing I can imagine. It’s about keeping power in the hands of the people instead of being exclusively the tools of government and the rich. It’s about equality, letting an old woman defend herself as well as a bodybuilder. It’s about being able to protect not only the people that are important to us but the rest of our freedoms as well.

In an effort to garner votes, the Democrats have used guns as a scapegoat like the Republicans have used terror. They’ve created boogymen like “assault weapons” to convince constituents something is being done about the fundamentally human problem of violence. By banning guns, Democrats want you to believe something is being done to bring down crime. Do you know the definition of assault weapon? It’s not a machine gun. It’s a gun that has features like a grip that protrudes from the bottom or a bayonet lug. When’s the last time anyone was bayoneted? Another sensationalized item is hollow point ammo - bullets that flatten when they hit something. The police switched to hollow points because the alternative, round bullets, had a tendency to go straight through objects, ricochet and they also require a greater number of shots to stop attackers.

Guns aren’t even the most damaging method of killing. In the Happy Land Fire, a man killed 87 people with one dollar’s worth of gas. The record number of deaths at a school is held by a person with a bomb, not a gun. A nut job with a car in a crowded area can do more damage than a man with a bag full of guns. Where’s our gas licensing? Let’s ban cars. Americans understand cars; not many understand guns because they’re getting their information from a media that loves to sensationalize. You hear about one psychopath killer, but not about the thousands of people who were saved from being murdered or raped.

Guns are the best tools we as citizens have for defense. Not only has the Supreme Court ruled that police have no obligation to protect individuals, but it’s a physical impossibility for police to be there at all times. We shouldn’t rely on others for self-defense.

Guns also protect our freedoms. They ensure that, if necessary, the people have means to offer resistance to rogue authority. It wasn’t long ago that rogue police officers, after illegally disarming the citizenry, took advantage of Hurricane Katrina to steal much-needed food and supplies. A liberal should know that authority figures commit crimes every day. If we take physical power away from the people, what’s left to balance against governmental abuse? If we take guns away from the people, only criminals and the government will have them.

Banning guns to reduce violence is like playing Whac-A-Mole, remove one weapon and another will pop up. People have one less way to hurt each other out of billions. Unfortunately the unique benefits guns provide are gone, along with the lack of shootings, and there’s no replacing them.

It’s a citizen’s duty to vote with an informed understanding. Next time you see a gun control bill, don’t agree because it looks like common sense. Take the time to educate yourself on the terms, try substituting “gun” for “car” to remove an emotional bias. Place Second Amendment infringements in the context of better understood ones. Should we ban Ferraris because they’re too fast for normal citizens, or revolutionary texts because they’re too powerful? Go to a range and try out a gun. How could someone who’s never shot a gun dictate what types are and aren’t allowed?

Bearing arms is a constitutional right. It’s an empowerment of the citizenry that, like free speech, must be preserved for the most dire circumstances, lest we find it gone when we most need it. Let’s not define a freedom by its abuse, and let’s not give it up just because we don’t understand it.

Michael Helmeste is a UCSB staff member.

**Burner02** · 07-13-2007, 03:16 PM

good read...now if everybody (snicker) would just listen to common sense.

**KelJu** · 07-13-2007, 05:33 PM

Yeah, its really ridiculous how the conservative/liberal thing has turned into a spectator sport. I admit, I got caught up in it too for a while. When I think back just a short while I see how stupid I must have sounded. People are just rooting for their team, and their barely even know what the hell their party is doing.

**Nick+** · 07-15-2007, 01:24 PM

Face up to it, the more guns there are around, the more likely it is that one will be misused.

**KelJu** · 07-15-2007, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Nick+

Face up to it, the more guns there are around, the more likely it is that one will be misused.

Face up to what...your uninformed opinion? How about producing some studies, research, or facts.

**DOMS** · 07-15-2007, 01:47 PM

Ouch!

**Witchblade** · 07-15-2007, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by clemson357

There are lots of studies on this. All of them that I have seen say either (1) concealed carry reduces crime, or (2) concealed carry has no effect on crime.

It makes perfect sense to me. The only people who are going to get a permit to carry a gun are people who are not planning on committing crimes. In other words, if you are already planning on committing a crime, you aren't going to be worried about the fact that its illegal for you to carry your gun.

Well, in any given country that's got its shit together in the security department that won't fly.

Forcing each gun to be licensed will reduce crime, if it's (near) impossible to get your hands on fire arms illegally.

Making it impossible to get a gun without a license will reduce crime. Arguing this is idiocy. However, in the States you can still obtain a gun without a license, rendering the licensing useless.

Just my 2 cents.

**Will Brink** · 07-15-2007, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Nick+

Face up to it, the more guns there are around, the more likely it is that one will be misused.

I see you have come to this battle of wits without ammo. Congrats.

**Will Brink** · 07-15-2007, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Witchblade

Just my 2 cents.

Not worth one cent i am sorry to say. More research on your part is needed before offering such opinions. More facts, less opinions. Lets' start with some of the basics and see if we can bring you up to speed:

The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns

by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.

The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.

This article fist appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 8, 1998 and is reprenited here with the author's permission.

Dr. John Lott, Jr. is the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law

**Witchblade** · 07-15-2007, 04:59 PM

Irrelevant to what I said.

Besides, The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all have better secured countries than the USA.

Anyway, guns aren't violent by nature. The American culture is.

Thread: Gun-carry law hasn't produced more crime

Thread Tools

Display

Gun-carry law hasn't produced more crime

Similar Threads

How Your Supplements REALLY Get Produced....

Crime doesn't pay!!

crime doesn't pay

Prince`s brief attempt at crime!

Posting Permissions