I think the point they're trying to make is that when they purchased the gun for 50k they were never told that at some point it could be taken away with a 15k reduction from the original buying price. I think the "you paid 15k to use the gun" argument is pretty null considering no one ever technically agreed to those terms, correct me if I am wrong.

This also conflicts with another thing... no one technically specified who or what "individual" owned the gang gun when purchased. I assume it was the actual person who bought it, but I've heard excuses like "it's the gang's property", among other things.

you guys should stop crying, even I don't cry that much, ffs

They were never told they would get 50k back, either.

Closing this thread because the decision has been made, and there's nothing arguing about it will do for you.