Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2018 1:55 PM
357 online now:
AZPaul3, frako, Meddle, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Stile, Tanypteryx, vimesey (9 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,150 Year: 16,973/29,783 Month: 961/1,956 Week: 464/331 Day: 47/76 Hour: 9/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
3738
...
41Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
ringo
Member
Posts: 15597
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 527 of 613 (842249)
10-28-2018 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by ICANT
10-28-2018 2:54 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:

So the gun is not what is dangerous. The person holding the gun is the problem.


The same applies to nuclear weapons - which is why we try to restrict nuclear weapons.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2018 2:54 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 528 of 613 (842251)
10-28-2018 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by ICANT
10-28-2018 1:55 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:

Aussie writes:

ICANT:

My mind is conditioned that when I would see a weapon of any kind that is being positioned to bring harm to me or anyone around me reflexes would take over without even thinking as my actions would be automatic. I know you don't understand that but I can't help you there.

Also ICANT:

I doubt that as my memory is getting slow and weak, that is what happens when you get old.

Aussie just because I am a few hundredths of a second slower now than I was 20 years ago does not mean it don't work. It is just a few hundredths of a second slower. The end result is the same. My hand and my eye is just as good as they were 50 years ago.

You're just reinforcing Aussie's point out about cognitive decline - his message said nothing about reaction time. It only quoted two contradictory statements you've made, one extolling your reflexes and automatic responses, the other bemoaning the effects of aging on the brain.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2018 1:55 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 529 of 613 (842253)
10-28-2018 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Percy
10-26-2018 3:14 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

If you want to be technical about it, sure, but in everyday speech people refer to semi-automatics as assault weapons or assault style weapons.

Have you ever been in a gun store and asked to buy an assault weapon?

The shop owner would tell you he had single shot guns that break open, bolt action, pump action, and gas operated semi-automatic firearms. But he would tell you he had no fully automatic weapons.

In skilled hands the pump action is the fastest firing weapon when firing for accuracy.

Percy writes:

But what does it matter what they're called?

You get the privilege of calling them a weapon of war which a
semi-automatic rifle is not.

Percy writes:

What matters is how dangerously inappropriate they are for people to own.

Now you are making pronouncements on your own bias.

When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the gun by itself is not dangerous and has never harmed anything animal, or human, by itself.

A car is a useful tool. Haul stuff like groceries, etc. Transport people to and from work or recreation. But put a drunk person behind the wheel and it becomes a tool of mass destruction. Put a terrorist behind the wheel and it can do a lot of damage.

So why are you not pushing for elimination of vehicles of all kinds, look what the 2 airplanes did in New York.

There is no difference in guns and vehicles. It only takes a loose nut to wreak havoc with either. Neither will cause bodily harm to anyone by themselves.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Percy, posted 10-26-2018 3:14 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by Percy, posted 10-28-2018 5:02 PM ICANT has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 530 of 613 (842264)
10-28-2018 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by ICANT
10-28-2018 2:54 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:

Percy writes:

Will you take a firearms safety course and do what they say, including locking up your firearms?

Why would I want to take a safety course in firearms?

Because you're violating basic firearm safety guidelines.

I have taken many defensive courses in firearms.

I don't doubt it.

As I have said before a gun for defensive reason is useless in a safe and unloaded. If you can't access it within one second you will probably die if someone wants to kill you.

All gun safety guidelines advise that firearms and ammunition be kept in separate lockboxes. A gun in the home is a constant danger which lockboxes mitigate, while attacks by criminals are extremely rare.

I have a shotgun that has only been unloaded when being cleaned since 1954. It has never been locked up in a safe. It stays in reach from the front door. Although you would not be able to see it and would not know it was there unless I showed you where it was.

Yet another loaded gun in your home places you, family and friends in even greater danger.

But it is accessible in one second if I am looking out the peep hole.

Peep hole? You have a peep hole? Why do you have a peep hole? Can't you just look out a window? Or do you stay away from windows because that would just make you a target? You're irrationally paranoid.

This gun has never killed anything that was not aided by a human.

I'm not sure what this means, but it sounds chilling.

So the gun is not what is dangerous. The person holding the gun is the problem.

That would be you.

A gun can be used as a tool or in the hands of a morally corrupt person filled with hate it can bring much devastation and carnage.

A gun in the hands of a paranoid person who sees threats on all sides can also bring much "devastation and carnage." All the mass shooters believed in their own minds that they were doing the right thing. The Charleston church shooter believed he was starting a necessary race war. The Orlando shooter was getting rid of LBGT's. The Pittsburgh shooter was getting rid of the Jews, who had persecuted his people. The one thing their reasons have in common is that they make as little sense as yours.

The gun is just the tool they choose.

Gee, I wonder why they choose guns instead of knives, clubs and rocks.

There are tools that would bring about greater devastation and carnage if used properly.

You mean like driving a large van down a crowded sidewalk? One shudders to think of the havoc a runaway large-crane operator could wreak in Manhattan.

You keep wanting to blame the gun...

I'm not blaming the gun. I've been pretty clear in blaming people like yourself, who I've repeatedly called a menace to themselves and all those around them.

...but without a human having that gun in their hand it will never hurt anyone whether it is loaded or empty locked up or not. As I said the gun is not the problem.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you. I think people like you who are just looking for excuses to feel threatened so they can use their firearms are the problem. This is why it's important to keep guns out of the hands of people.

I am sure my solution for the problem would be much different than yours. You want to make guns un-accessible to law abiding citizens.

Law abiding citizens are responsible for the majority of firearm deaths every year, so yes, I would like to take their guns away. It's for their own good.

Which would have no effect on crooks or people who wanted to kill a bunch of people.

Mass murders are very rare compared to homicides and suicides. If we eliminated mass murders it would save maybe 50 to 100 lives a year, which would be a good thing, but our highest priority should be placed on reducing overall gun deaths, around 38,000 in 2016. This would require putting strict controls on gun ownership. I believe that very, very few people should be allowed to own firearms, the exception being small-magazine hunting rifles.

I say the moral compass of mankind needs to be changed which would take a miracle.

Gee, somehow that miracle has already happened in countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, among many others.

One that only God can perform. But He has to have the corporation of mankind to accomplish such a feat.

So God performed that miracle in a number of other countries, but not in the more deeply religious United States. Interesting.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2018 2:54 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 531 of 613 (842270)
10-28-2018 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by Percy
10-26-2018 2:27 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

I'm sure there were, but not from your hammock.

Since you appear to be a city slicker and have no idea what a hammock is other than that thing that swings between two posts or trees that you can recline in I will forgive your lack of knowledge.

quote:
Hammock is a term used in the southeastern United States for stands of trees, usually hardwood, that form an ecological island in a contrasting ecosystem. Hammocks grow on elevated areas, often just a few inches high, surrounded by wetlands that are too wet to support them.
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=UAvWW8GcGOamgg...

This is a fair description of a hammock in Florida. Although there are people that has one that swings between supports like the one found at the following website.
https://www.outsidemodern.com/best-indoor-sleeping-hammock/

The creek that runs behind the house has a hammock on both sides that is between 1/2 mile wide to 1 1/2 miles wide 7 miles of that creek is accessible in each directions NE and SW from the house. The creek area is populated with turkeys, ducks, deer, squirrels, fish, snakes, a black panther ranges up and down the creek as well as a couple of bear as they move from area to area.

Percy writes:

No, neither phone (usually) or door to door.

quote:
Three sources on trends in gun ownership are examined: 1) the GSS, 2) Gallup, and 3) the composite trend across all items in the IPOLL database.

GSS personal-interview survey (door to door)
Gallup has used phone since 1980's.
IPOLL is a joke as they claim to pay people (which most never receive) to do surveys. Answer by phone and finish on internet.

I said the information had to come from door to door interviews or phone calls. What has changed.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by Percy, posted 10-26-2018 2:27 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by Percy, posted 10-28-2018 5:55 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 532 of 613 (842272)
10-28-2018 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by ICANT
10-28-2018 3:39 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:

Percy writes:

If you want to be technical about it, sure, but in everyday speech people refer to semi-automatics as assault weapons or assault style weapons.

Have you ever been in a gun store and asked to buy an assault weapon?

I've never been in a gun store.

The shop owner would tell you he had single shot guns that break open, bolt action, pump action, and gas operated semi-automatic firearms. But he would tell you he had no fully automatic weapons.

He would know exactly what I meant. The Wikipedia page on assault rifles echos this, saying after it lists the criteria, "Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such."

Percy writes:

But what does it matter what they're called?

You get the privilege of calling them a weapon of war which a semi-automatic rifle is not.

I'm not really interested in semantic games, but since American soldiers are trained to use their automatic weapons in semi-automatic mode because they're thought more accurate in that mode, a semi-automatic weapon is the equivalent of how American soldiers use their weapons in combat.

Percy writes:

What matters is how dangerously inappropriate they are for people to own.

Now you are making pronouncements on your own bias.

It is a fact, not bias, that firearms are extremely dangerous and deadly.

When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the gun by itself is not dangerous and has never harmed anything animal, or human, by itself.

You are responding to an argument I have never made. Because guns in the hands of people are so dangerous, I want to keep them out of the hands of people.

A car is a useful tool. Haul stuff like groceries, etc. Transport people to and from work or recreation. But put a drunk person behind the wheel and it becomes a tool of mass destruction. Put a terrorist behind the wheel and it can do a lot of damage.

So why are you not pushing for elimination of vehicles of all kinds, look what the 2 airplanes did in New York.

You've made this argument before. The answer hasn't changed. Transportation is essential to any economy. Guns are not.

There is no difference in guns and vehicles.

That's a silly thing to say.

It only takes a loose nut to wreak havoc with either.

This is true, but unlike a car a gun has no practical application for the average person, aside from hunting.

Neither will cause bodily harm to anyone by themselves.

True. Would that guns were regulated as tightly as motor vehicles.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2018 3:39 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2018 7:02 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 533 of 613 (842275)
10-28-2018 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by ICANT
10-28-2018 4:53 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:

Percy writes:

I'm sure there were, but not from your hammock.

Since you appear to be a city slicker and have no idea what a hammock is...etc. for many lines...

You argue about the definition of hammocks, and then you forget to make an actual point.

Moving on to your next point...

Percy writes:

No, neither phone (usually) or door to door.

quote:
Three sources on trends in gun ownership are examined: 1) the GSS, 2) Gallup, and 3) the composite trend across all items in the IPOLL database.

GSS personal-interview survey (door to door)

Why do you keep insisting that the GSS survey is door-to-door? It is not. Respondents are randomly selected, and door-to-door is not random. From the Wikipedia article on the General Social Survey:

quote:
The GSS sample is drawn using an area probability design that randomly selects respondents in households across the United States to take part in the survey.

Gallup has used phone since 1980's.

I never said they didn't. They also use algorithms to make sure they come as close as possible to a random sample. They must be having increasing difficulties maintaining random sampling as more and more people give up their landlines.

IPOLL is a joke as they claim to pay people (which most never receive) to do surveys. Answer by phone and finish on internet.

You're confused again. The paper refers to the iPOLL databank of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The iPoll website you're talking about provides online survey capabilities, which is something different.

I said the information had to come from door to door interviews or phone calls. What has changed.

The GSS data, which is what I was referring to, did not come from door-to-door interviews or phone calls (mostly). Again, respondents are randomly selected, and door-to-door is not random.

Do you now understand that 67% (your figure) of households can't use guns to defend against criminals if only 42% (also your figure) of households own guns?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Finish incomplete sentence about landlines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2018 4:53 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 534 of 613 (842297)
10-29-2018 9:00 AM


Here's a great little video showing a girl firing a Ruger 10/22 at targets set up on the edge of the woods around their yard. The beginning shows her loading the magazine, so I've positioned the video just past that part to where she begins firing into the woods.

No discernible effort was made to insure no one was in the woods. A bullet travels around a mile after being fired, so given the inability to see deeply into any woods there is really no way to know if anyone is in range of your bullets. If you miss your target then you just hope the bullet hits a tree or branch before traveling too far.

A bullet fired at an elevated angle, such as at a squirrel in a tree, will travel in an arc and eventually come to earth still traveling at a lethal velocity.

It seems amazing that less than 1000 people are shot by hunters in North America each year.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2018 5:58 PM Percy has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 535 of 613 (842340)
10-29-2018 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Percy
10-29-2018 9:00 AM


Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

A bullet fired at an elevated angle, such as at a squirrel in a tree, will travel in an arc and eventually come to earth still traveling at a lethal velocity.

That is the reason you have to hit the squirrel and use low powder shells.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Percy, posted 10-29-2018 9:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Percy, posted 10-29-2018 7:31 PM ICANT has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 536 of 613 (842342)
10-29-2018 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by ICANT
10-29-2018 5:58 PM


ICANT writes:

Percy writes:

A bullet fired at an elevated angle, such as at a squirrel in a tree, will travel in an arc and eventually come to earth still traveling at a lethal velocity.

That is the reason you have to hit the squirrel and use low powder shells.

But even your perfect self has admitted you don't always hit the squirrel on the first shot. How far will a "low powder shell" travel when fired at an elevated angle, say at a squirrel in a tree? A lot further than you can see I would bet.

These low powder shells, would that be something like this, which has a muzzle velocity of 710 feet/sec (I think LR might stand for Long Rifle, but bullets for pistols couldn't be much slower):

If you fire this bullet at an elevation of 45° and miss then it will travel a great distance, much further than a faster bullet fired horizontally, probably more than a mile (my calculations gave roughly 7500 feet, but that doesn't take into account air resistance).

Your squirrel hunting is a menace to everyone in the woods within a mile of your house.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2018 5:58 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2018 12:34 AM Percy has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 537 of 613 (842348)
10-30-2018 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 536 by Percy
10-29-2018 7:31 PM


Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

Your squirrel hunting is a menace to everyone in the woods within a mile of your house.

Sorry to disappoint you but the closest neighbor is a mile and half away. But the direction I shoot there is no one in 10 miles or more.

People who get killed or injured by falling bullets is bullets that are fired in celebrations such as July 4 or other occasion. gravity controls the speed of these bullets as they have to stop going up before they come down and they will only fall so fast. Solution to problem use blanks they don't have lead, copper, or steel in them.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Percy, posted 10-29-2018 7:31 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Percy, posted 10-30-2018 10:52 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 538 of 613 (842359)
10-30-2018 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 537 by ICANT
10-30-2018 12:34 AM


ICANT writes:

Percy writes:

Your squirrel hunting is a menace to everyone in the woods within a mile of your house.

Sorry to disappoint you but the closest neighbor is a mile and half away. But the direction I shoot there is no one in 10 miles or more.

People take walks and hikes and they hunt. How do you know there is no one in the woods within a mile of your house? Obviously you do not and can not. You are a menace.

People who get killed or injured by falling bullets is bullets that are fired in celebrations such as July 4 or other occasion. gravity controls the speed of these bullets as they have to stop going up before they come down and they will only fall so fast. Solution to problem use blanks they don't have lead, copper, or steel in them.

You're changing the subject. Bullets you fire at squirrels up in trees that miss will, if they don't happen to hit a tree or branch, probably travel at least a mile and will remain lethal when they return to earth. You are a menace.

The only reason hunting accidents average so little, somewhat less than a thousand each year in North America, is because of the tremendous expanse of woods compared to the number of hunters. Wearing red or orange makes hunters visible up to a distance of maybe a hundred yards. After that safety is dependent upon misses striking trees or branches, upon the huge size of the woods, and upon serendipity.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2018 12:34 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 539 of 613 (842399)
10-30-2018 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by Percy
10-28-2018 5:02 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

It is a fact, not bias, that firearms are extremely dangerous and deadly.

Firearms are extremely deadly in the hands of trained people.

No firearm by itself is extremely dangerous. If you can find me an example where a firearm got the shells out of the box inserted them in the magazine loaded one in the chamber and discharged killing someone or wounding someone I will agree with you that firearms are extremely dangerous.

Until then I will believe that the person holding a firearm is responsible for what the firearm does, not the firearm.

The same thing goes for automobiles. It is the driver that is responsible for what the automobile does.

Percy writes:

You've made this argument before. The answer hasn't changed. Transportation is essential to any economy. Guns are not.

My guns are just as essential to my peace of mind and to my ability to protect my family and myself and friends. As cars are to the survival of the human race.

Mankind got by without automobiles for over at least 5,000 years.

But mankind would not be here if he had not had weapons to defend his family and himself and provide food for the table. They didn't have the supermarket to run to and get food, like you do.

Percy writes:

True. Would that guns were regulated as tightly as motor vehicles.

Weapons have been around a lot longer than cars have.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by Percy, posted 10-28-2018 5:02 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2018 8:06 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 543 by Percy, posted 10-31-2018 9:31 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10239
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 540 of 613 (842402)
10-30-2018 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by ICANT
10-30-2018 7:02 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Percy writes: True. Would that guns were regulated as tightly as motor vehicles.

ICANT writes:

Weapons have been around a lot longer than cars have.

I donít understand your point here. Can you clarify?

Motor vehicles are tightly regulated on the basis that they are essential but potentially deadly. Should guns be at least as equally well regulated?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2018 7:02 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by ICANT, posted 10-31-2018 3:16 AM Straggler has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 541 of 613 (842407)
10-31-2018 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 540 by Straggler
10-30-2018 8:06 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

Motor vehicles are tightly regulated on the basis that they are essential but potentially deadly. Should guns be at least as equally well regulated?

You must be talking about England not the US.
I lived in the Cayman Islands which is a British Colony for 15 years. And yes the automobiles were regulated a lot better than they are in the Us.

The government sets regulations for the auto makers to build the cars to specific specifications.

They post speed laws. Against the law to speed.
They require you have insurance. Against the law if no insurance.
They require you have a license to drive. Against the law to drive if no license.
No driving intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.

We have over 250 million cars in America.

We have over 5 million reported auto wrecks per year and about 10 million unreported.

We have 10's of thousands of people who drive without insurance and license's and have wrecks all the time.

If you are going down the road and obeying the speed limit everybody will be going by you and some flying by you doing 80, 90 or a 100 mph.

29 people die every day in the US in an automobile accident due to a alcohol-impaired driver.

That is 10,585 per year.

In 2014 there was 248 death by rifle.
It took drunk drivers only 8.55 days to accomplish that.

A study done in 2013 showed violent gun violence was 49% less than in 1991.

So what is the real problem with firearms?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2018 8:06 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2018 9:06 AM ICANT has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
3738
...
41Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018