Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 438 of 452 (523243)
09-09-2009 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by RAZD
09-06-2009 8:10 AM


Re: Back to Message 57 - Guns Don't Solve Problems
RAZD writes:
Hi Legend, still having trouble I see.
Hi RAZD. Yes, I've always had trouble with misuse of statistics.
RAZD writes:
So you keep whining, yet you haven't pointed out what is out of context.
Your statistics show overall homicide/murder by firearms. The context is: the percentage of those crimes commited against armed victims. The percentage of those crimes commited in the knowledge that the victim might be armed.
How many of those crimes have been commited in self-defense, victim turning the tables on the attacker?
All you've shown is that more guns will mean more death by guns. Which is fine but -in itself- is no reason to reject gun ownership, any more than car deaths or alcohol-deaths are reason to reject either.
RAZD writes:
Without evidence your position is just your assertions, whining about how much better you would be protected if you only had a gun. Without evidence it is just one opinion against another.
My evidence is the well-founded principle of armed deterrence.
My evidence is the significant percentage of criminals admitting that they are deterred by armed victims.
My evidence is the lower percentage of burglary and property crime in the US.
Your evidence is the higher percentage of armed murder in the US.
Now what?
RAZD writes:
Figures showing that Hawaii is last in the country in gun deaths per capita should put to rest the notion that an armed citizenry is safer.
And I've said many times that without taking into account other factors that affect murder rates, these figures by themselves don't mean much.
RAZD writes:
The evidence that shows a benefit to society as a whole to have gun controls.
But so far you've only shown some evidence for the harm to society as a whole. You haven't shown -and have refused to accept- any evidence for the benefit to society as a whole.
RAZD writes:
What I see is that the statistics show an OVERALL increase in gun deaths during assaults, because more assaults are made with guns.
Could it just be that this increase is attributed to the US gun culture that's been ingrained into US society for over two centuries now? You know, when there was very little law or order and the way to solve your differences was with a gun.
The same culture that encouraged people to take and use guns to liberate their country?
Or could it just be that this increase is attributed to other unexamined factors, such as gang prevalence which is much higher in the US than the UK?
Unless you you can account for such variables all you have is some general statistics and loads of wishful thinking.
RAZD writes:
Overall benefit shown to society as a whole is NOT irrelevant nor is it out of context. Why? because it shows that for every instance where an assault may have been averted by a victim having a gun, another was enabled by an assaulter having a gun.
Where can I see the instances where an assault may have been averted by a victim having a gun?
RAZD writes:
I look at the total picture, the benefit to society as a whole, and the evidence shows a benefit to society as a whole to have gun controls.
Just because there are more gun deaths *doesn't* mean that there is no 'benefit to society as a whole'. To know that, you must know how many deaths and violence in general were *prevented* by the presence of guns and how many deaths and violence in general were *caused* by the presence of guns
You know neither! All you've done is to show that "guns kill people" and draw your pre-determined conclusion.
RAZD writes:
I notice you have no argument about Gandhi, Dr MLK, and the restoration of rights and liberties to millions of Indian and American citizens through non-violent means. I take this as confirmation that defense of rights and liberties does not need to involve firearms, and thus that your argument of using firearms to defend rights and liberties is refuted, as has your position that allowing citizens to carry guns results in an overall benefit to society.
I'm not arguing about Gandhi, Dr MLK, or even Dr Dre as it adds no value to this debate. The fact that some people have succeeded by non-violent means bears no relevance to the argument about the value of armed deterrence and is, in any case, overshadowed by the hundreds of thousands of instances where armed struggle defended rights and liberties very effectively. American War of Independence, anyone?
Blimey, if you really think that bringing up Ghandi and Dr Whoever strengthens your argument you must be really desperate!

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2009 8:10 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2009 9:15 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 441 of 452 (523359)
09-09-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by DBlevins
09-06-2009 10:10 PM


Re: The usage of statistics.
Legend writes:
Yet, you refuse or are unable to answer it! How can you limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?
DBLevins writes:
What? Are you telling me that you can’t think of anyway to limit guns without criminalizing their possession? You seriously can’t be honest with yourself and answer your own question? The sad thing is that I laid out a clue for how you could do so and you couldn’t even take the time to comprehend what I wrote. You’re obviously being deliberately obtuse.
This isn't the Crystal Maze, this is a debating board. If you have a point, make it. If you have an answer, state it. If you want to play Cluedo, go somewhere else.
DBLevins writes:
Taking guns off the street, with buy-back programs such as Australia’s program; regulation of gun possession (which can run the gamut of criminalizing possession of automatic weapons or seriously restricting their possession to collectors who would submit to extensive background checks, to waiting periods and instructional requirements for those who desire to buy a gun), strong enforcement of laws regarding gun use and possession, etc.
- Buy-backs: are like amnesties for profit. Amnesties are demonstrably not working: In Britain we had had loads of knife amnesties yet knife usage continues to increase.
- Regulation of gun possession: We had this to the extreme in the UK yet gun crime's going up.
- Strong enforcement of laws regarding gun use and possession: my question included the words "without criminalising" so that doesn't answer it.
DBLevins writes:
Gun control laws only purpose isn’t to decrease gun crime. It is also designed to keep such crimes to a lower level, because it is harder for those types of crimes to be enacted. There is a reason that murders involving firearms in the United Kingdom is significantly lower than those States who don’t have such laws.
There are actually many reasons why that may be.
DBLevins writes:
You also claimed that Gun control laws would increase the number of burglaries and by extension all crime
Not quite: I claimed that gun ownership for ordinary citizens will reduce the number of burglaries and liely some assaults and home invasions. But don't let that stop you.
DBLevins writes:
If that was true, then why have burglaries decreased?
I don't know... low unemployment? social reform programs finally worked? more burglars getting shot?
Your point being...?
DBLevins writes:
Factors such as employment are included. It makes sense that an increase in employment would decrease the crime rate and vice versa. Low employment is definitely factored into why crime increases. Do you actually READ the reports?
Factors such as employment are included in the BCS / HomeOffice reports?!? Or are they factored in the crime figures presented in the
BCS / HomeOffice reports ? Please explain and show me.
DBLevins writes:
So it seems you agree that there are other factors besides gun control laws that might effect burglary rates?
Why yes I do! Your point being...?
DBLevins writes:
Why don’t you include Scotland? Australia? Canada?
Because I don't have infinite time and resources. I initially compared US to the UK but you accused me of cherry picking the statistics. So I brought in Switzerland. You didn't like that. Now you want me to bring in other countries too? Sorry I'm not playing, thanks for asking.
DBLevins writes:
Why do you exclude Scotland? I would consider Scotland a much closer ‘fit’ to the United States as concerns your ‘Socio-political’ argument. And yet, even though they strengthened their gun control laws we see that gun crime decreased. Hmmm.
quote:
Contrasting with trends in England and Wales, Scotland (Figure 2) saw a marked decline (of almost 80 per cent) in crime involving handguns in the five years after the Dunblane shootings and the Firearms (Amendment) No. 1 and No. 2 Acts of 1997. Crime involving shotguns fell sharply after 1994. Overall, there was a sustained fall in ‘gun crime’ in the ten years to 2001.
LOL! You do realise that the Firearms Acts of 1997 is a UK parliament Act and not a Scottish one, don't you? You do realise that it applies equally to Scotland, England and Wales, don't you? I don't think you did now, didn't you? YOU thought that it was just stricter gun controls for Scotland that caused gun crime to temporarily decrease there, while in reality it was the same laws throughout the UK (except NI). Ooops, there goes your argument!!
DBLevins writes:
I would consider Scotland a much closer ‘fit’ to the United States as concerns your ‘Socio-political’ argument
Really? ...is it the accent?
Or is it that when you thought you had some supportive evidence you suddently remembered how similar Scotland is to the US?
Pathetic really.
The rest of your post is too long, mostly pointless, irrelevant and in the same disingenuous spirit as the first part, so I'm not going to bother. If and when you have something original or persuasive, bring it to the table and we'll see.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by DBlevins, posted 09-06-2009 10:10 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by DBlevins, posted 09-11-2009 6:36 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 452 by DBlevins, posted 09-14-2009 6:31 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 444 of 452 (523458)
09-10-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Modulous
09-08-2009 1:01 PM


Re: the price of crime prevention
Modulous writes:
I was referring specifically to two people, not a society at large concept.
If two people who are in a position of antagonism face off from each other and both have loaded guns the chances of injury or death occurring has increased as compared to only one party having a gun or both parties with hand held weapons.
Yes, that's true, although this is assuming that both people are in a position of equal potential gain and equal potential loss. However, in a home invasion/burglary scenario this isn't necessarily the case. The defender has everything to 'play' for, while the aggressor has little or doubtful potential gain. The risk/benefit ratio is much higher for the aggressor than it is for the defender. Of course if the invader decides to dis-regard this (as in the case of junkies, psychos, etc, as discussed) then you're right, the chances of injury or death will be increased for both parties. I hope you agree that, in most situations, the presence of a gun on the player with the lower risk/benefit ratio should be enough to avert a confrontation.
Legend writes:
That would be true in a situation where guns were freely carried, fully loaded. However, we're talking about allowing citizens to have guns in secure places at home. We all have arguments and can lash out in anger but I don't think that anyone who kills someone by walking over to the locker, unlocking it, removing the gun, loading it and then pointing and shooting can be justified as having done it in 'the heat of the moment'.
Modulous writes:
If we could guarantee that people would keep their weapons unloaded and locked in a locker you might have a point. In this reality, though, they often don't and instead keep them in a drawer or other unsecure location.
Yes, you're right, though I would put this under the 'accidental' deaths, in the same manner that a child may get hold of a gun that they shouldn't and shoot their sibling. If people treat a potentially dangerous tool irresponsibly or carelessly people will get hurt. This hasn't stopped us from using knives or cars among others, so I don't see why it should stop us using guns. We have to look at the overall picture, not just the potential cost.
Legend writes:
If someone wants to kill you -for whatever reason- they'll find a way, guns or no guns.
Modulous writes:
This strikes me as a fallacy - it might be true, but it isn't necessarily so. I'd suggest that there exists some people that are capable of the brutality of beating somebody to death. There are some people who might want you dead, but can't get that brutal but could stab you. Maybe all people are capable of beating someone to death - but only if they really really want you to die. If someone wants to hurt you, maybe kill you for a split second and they have a knife and are close - it is much easier for them to do it. I suggest that the presense of blades results in more people being killed in arguments, robberies, brawls etc.
I suggest that a gun, which requires minimal effort to use and can be done at a distance (a psychological benefit - there are concerns that modern warfare is 'too distant' making it much easier to condemn innocents to death) - is such an effective tool at hurting and killing that more people who want you dead will follow through with the act.
I would have thought that pulling a trigger is easy compared with stomping on someone's face repeatedly.
I agree that guns make people killing easier, just like the presence of knives does, as you point out. However, this cuts (no pun intended) both ways as it makes potential victims better equipped to deter or fight potential attackers. The point I was trying to make that was that 'heat of the moment' situations don't give cause for murder despite any anger or frustration present. Most homicides in such situations are accidental, e.g. you say something about my mother, I hit you in anger, you fall and break your neck. These are "I didn't mean to" situations. Such cases aren't going to be affected by gun ownership, either way. In extreme instances where someone lashes out with a knife or stamps on someone's face we normally find that there's already an underlying cause, such as previous history between the two parties or mental disorder on the attacker's side, which affects the attack. The attacker would have some serious grievance against the victim or some pent-up aggression and an argument is just the trigger to bring this aggression to the forefront. These are "I'm looking for someone to kill" cases and IMHO their frequency won't be affected by gun ownership, though their severity might.
Legend writes:
I've heard the impact of burglary being described as 'second only to rape' wrt the sense of personal invasion and humiliation. As a victim myself I wholeheartedly concur with this assesment
Modulous writes:
You've been raped and burgled?
Damn, that came out all wrong! I meant of course that I've been the victim of burglaries, not rape.
Modulous writes:
1) Wait for the house to be empty (A more common tactic in the US than in the UK).
2) Take the homeowner by surprise, with a weapon already drawn and take steps to ensure the homeowner can not get to their weapon and load it at any point (by either tying the homeowner and other occupants up, or injuring them).
With the first tactic the feeling of humiliation remains, with the latter, the physical danger to the homeowner is increased. Granted - there are occasions where the homeowner will beat the thief and succesfully defend their home.
Again, we have to take into account the cost/benefit and risk/benefit ratios. Is a burglar going to wait till the homeowner leaves? That would involve continuous surveillance, increased risk (neighbours may be alerted by his behaviour) and waste of time. Most burglars wouldn't be prepared to spend that time and carry that risk, burglary is mainly an opportunistic crime. As for (2) if a burglar is prepared to ignore risk of injury to himself and the risk of a burglary sentence converted to a murder one, so that he can steal some stuff then I think we're talking about a psychopath or smackhead and we've already addressed those categories.
Modulous writes:
I would like to take issue with the 38% figure, or more specifically your handling of it. First of all, it assumes that the burglar knows that you are armed and that you are at home. It also assumes that being deterred is the same as being so deterred so as to not commit the crime.
yes, like I said I used it mainly for illustrative purposes, though I strongly believe this figure would be actually higher.
Modulous writes:
But rather than quibbling over figures, let us assume they are at least in the right order of magnitude and say, for ease, that 300,000 people are saved having a burglary and 300 extra people are killed or injured during a burglary per year. It seems in that case that you are making the judgement that it is worth killing/injuring 1 innocent person to prevent 1,000 burglaries. Even if only 10% of those are actual deaths then it is still 1:10,000.
The figure that sways the balance is the 14% of burglaries which involve "violence or threat of violence" according to the Home Office. Unfortunately they don't break that number down, as to how many deaths, serious injuries, etc. But assuming for argument's sake that 90% of those are just threats and only 10% result in death or injury and are prevented. That would then balance out the number of deaths/injuries caused vs prevented (about 300 on each side). That would mean overall the total innocent death/injury figures wouldn't change but we would have saved an awful lot of people from the violation of burglary and also saved police resources which could be more efficiently used to reduce crime elsewhere.
Ofcourse you are also concerned about the death rise in deprived or unstable perpetrators who will take greater risks. So am I, just not enough to let it blind me to the anguish and fear of the innocent victims who -through no fault of their own- have their rights, liberties and sometimes their lives trampled over by others. Living in fear is a terrible thing and I see no excuse for justifying it.
Modulous writes:
While your opinion may be that it is still worth it - I'm sure you'd agree that many others might not like paying that price. And since it then becomes a subjective judgement as to the value of human life and the quality of that life, no statistics or empirical figures are going to save us.
I agree. As I've been trying to explain to RAZD, it's very difficult to quantify the costs and the benefits. The thing to do would be to put it to a referendum. Let the people decide how they want to live their lives. If only we lived in a democracy, eh?
Modulous writes:
Which is why I don't actually attempt to debate the issue. I just try and encourage people to open up discourse so they can arrive in a place like this. Thanks for responding well to my post.
Appreciate the debate. It certainly got me thinking more about a couple of points. Cheers.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2009 1:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by onifre, posted 09-10-2009 2:01 PM Legend has replied
 Message 446 by Modulous, posted 09-10-2009 2:28 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 447 of 452 (523495)
09-10-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by RAZD
09-09-2009 9:15 PM


Let's cut to the chase.
RAZD writes:
Hi Legend, seems you are still caught in that cognitive dissonance + confirmation bias feedback loop.
three words: pot, kettle, black.
RAZD writes:
As I said before, when you only look at (a) ONE part of the data, the part that benefits your argument, and (b) ignore or DENY to other part of the data, particularly where it destroys your argument, then you are guilty of (a) confirmation bias and (b) cognitive dissonance.
I'm glad you mentioned that. Let's put it to one side for a minute and we'll come back to it later.
RAZD writes:
What you don't seem to include in your analysis is that every change you enact to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to legally carry guns makes it easier for NON-law-abiding citizens to legally carry guns and possibly makes even MORE likely that they will do so.
Yes...guns can we used for good and for evil. We've already established that.
RAZD writes:
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
So we have essentially the same number of assaults per person for similar cultures and legal systems, and where reporting of such crimes is likely to be comparable.
Great. So...?
RAZD writes:
The number of assaults is NOT CHANGED when gun controls are relaxed: people that feel they need to use assaults will continue to use assaults.
Congratulations. You just proved that increased gun ownership doesn't increase violence. Thank you for supporting my point.
Legend writes:
The percentage of those crimes commited in the knowledge that the victim might be armed.
RAZD writes:
Precisely WHY the perps are MORE likely to be armed and dangerous when making assaults, and WHY assaults are more violent on average - shooting, stabbing or knocking out the victims first, rather than waiting to find out - in areas where guns are freely available. This is why the proportion of assaults that are murders is increased.
SHOW ME evidence for this assertion!
RAZD writes:
Murders would be assaults where the victims are killed rather than just beaten up - killed first, in case they have a gun tucked away somewhere.
SHOW ME evidence for this assertion!
RAZD writes:
My evidence is that the PROPORTION of assaults are more violent, and more likely to end in the death of the victim, where guns are available.
SHOW ME evidence that led you to the conclusion that guns (NOT social factors) have caused (NOT merely facilitated) the extra deaths.
RAZD writes:
My evidence is that the PROPORTION of assaults that involve murder of the victims by firearms is undeniably, significantly and unequivocally increased, when guns are made more available.
SHOW MEevidence that led you to the conclusion that guns (NOT social factors) have caused (NOT merely enabled) the assaults.
RAZD writes:
My evidence is that the net effect to society is a greater death rate for victims of crime,,
SHOW ME how guns were the cause of the greater death rate.
RAZD writes:
Which is just more whining without substance if you don't provide figures and documents showing what those other factors are and how they affect the information presented. Those "other factors" could just as easily make your position even more untenable than it is - you just assume that they will be counter to the evidence that shows high gun controls = more living victims.
I'm not assuming anything, YOU are the one making all the assumptions here. I'm just pointing out that until you take into account other factors that do affect crime you can't draw any conclusions either way.
RAZD writes:
Curiously, whether the criminals are in gangs or not does not of itself change the numbers of criminals or victims.
BZZT!! WRONG! It's been repeatedly shown that gangs contribute to a siginificant percentage of crimes, especially killings. I'm quoting from the Times
quote:
An extra 180 officers from the Targeted Response Unit were despatched every night to areas plagued by gang violence. As a result, killings fell most sharply in the most dangerous neighbourhoods, with murder down 55 per cent in one district and by 52 per cent in another.
Yet you continue to hand-wave away the effect that factors such as gang-violence have on US crime rates. Let's remind ourselves what YOU said earlier:
RAZD writes:
As I said before, when you only look at (a) ONE part of the data, the part that benefits your argument, and (b) ignore or DENY to other part of the data, particularly where it destroys your argument, then you are guilty of (a) confirmation bias and (b) cognitive dissonance.
Nicely put! When are you going to start practicing what you preach?
So, to recap: You can support your assertion that guns provide a Net LOSS to society by simply showing that:
1) Guns cause violence. The operative word here is cause i.e. if the perpetrators didn't have guns they wouldn't have initiated the violence.
2) Guns provoke violence, i.e. that the violence started because the perpetrators believed the victim to be armed.
3) Guns do not prevent violence and criminals are not deterred by guns i.e. the number of aggressors who attack despite the knowledge or strong suspicion that the victim may be armed.
And remember: It's YOU who said:
Assertion, unsupported by any evidence, is not evidence.
Eagerly awaiting your *evidence*!
=====================================================================
P.S: I see your Ghandi and I raise you a Hitler, a Stalin and a Normandy Landing.
Edited by Legend, : added P.S

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2009 9:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2009 8:41 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 449 of 452 (523603)
09-11-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by xongsmith
09-08-2009 4:27 PM


Re: burglary and murder
Legend writes:
The ones who are compulsed to do it (e.g.kleptomaniac) but are essentially harmless run a greater risk of getting shot. I file that under the 'unfortunate but so what' category.
xongsmith writes:
...like collateral damage? Wow - do i find this OFFENSIVE!
May be some camomile tea would help?
Alternatively you can use the AddressBar on your web browser to navigate to a fully conforming web-site where everyone shares exactly the same well-adjusted, sanitised views as you.
xongsmith writes:
I file this under the Reasons we need to prevent YOU, Legend, from ever owning guns. You dont pass my screening test.
....and people with such authoritarian mentality demonstrate yet another good reason why the rest of us should have guns.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by xongsmith, posted 09-08-2009 4:27 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 450 of 452 (523656)
09-11-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by onifre
09-10-2009 2:01 PM


Re: the price of crime prevention
Legend writes:
If only we lived in a democracy, eh?
onifre writes:
"If only" is right. Because, frankly, we don't live in a democracy, at least not in the US.
Join the club mate!
onifre writes:
We live in a Plutocracy.
That's why "the people" aren't allowed to make their own choices. Because special interest groups control the decision making process. This is why in the US the pro-gun campaign is not a movement of the people, it's a movement pushed by those in power (NRA, Gun Industy, etc.).
It's slightly different here in Britain. We are ruled by an elected oligarchy who are supposed to represent the people but in reality are elected with the minority of vote (no proportional representation here). Our "special interests" groups are more of a moralising, self-righteous minority whose primary objective are to vindicate their own morals, rather than advance the good of the people. That's why we end-up with fucked-up, oppressive, petty little policies and laws which presume guilt and irresponsibility on the common man, like this one.
That's one of the reasons why the government won't even discuss relaxing gun legislation and it's one of the reasons why I want people to be armed, as a wake up call to some jumped-up, deluded, unelected Baroness who can dictate how the rest of us live our lives from the bubble of her Surrey mansion.
Rant over.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a different note I'm off to sunny Italy for a couple of weeks, so if I don't answer any posts I'm not being evasive it's just that I'm chilling by a cafe somewhere. If anyone manages to produce any evidence for the net loss of gun ownership, no need to tell me I'll just know: the tower of Piza will straighten up

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by onifre, posted 09-10-2009 2:01 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024