Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 85 of 955 (686509)
01-02-2013 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
01-02-2013 10:57 AM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
jar writes:
And as for knives, if I'm withing 15 or 20 feet of you a knife is as great if not a greater threat than a gun.
In the US (in Texas for example) can people carry around large knives (or even swords)? Are these considered legitimate methods of self defense?
jar writes:
I have said that I do not consider guns to be a problem in the US
Do you think gun massacres are more of a problem in the US than other comparable countries?
jar writes:
In the US machine guns are already regulated and have not been used in any of the recent mass shootings.
If someone decides they want to kill lots of people (in a school for example) do you agree that a machine-gun would be a rather effective method of doing that?
In those recent instances where someone has decided they want to kill lots of people why didn't they use a machine gun, in your view?
Did the regulation and thus relative unavailability of machine guns have anything to do with them not using this method of achieving their aim?
jar writes:
Guns are irrelevant to the discussion and the problem.
I don't see how the effectiveness and availability of different weapons can be irrelevant when someone decides they want to kill lots of people. Can you explain why the effectiveness and availability of weapons is irrelevant?
quote:
Do you oppose an increase in gun legislation?
That would depend on the specific legislation.
Do you support a decrease in gun legislation?
Again, that depends on the specific legislation.
Could you be more specific? What legislation (for or against) would you suggest/support?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 10:57 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 11:49 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 01-02-2013 12:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 89 of 955 (686527)
01-02-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
01-02-2013 11:49 AM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
jar writes:
Large knives are not a big issue but someone with a sword might look a little ridiculous.
Other than looking ridiculous could one walk round a mall with a samurai sword strapped to one's back? Or would you be stopped for carrying some sort of dangerous weapon?
jar writes:
I think the US is far more violent than it should be, but gun massacres while a tragedy are not a serious problem.
How many would have to be killed before it did constitute a serious problem in your view?
jar writes:
I do not agree that a machine gun is a better way to kill lots of unarmed innocent kids that many other ways, but again, bringing up machine guns is irrelevant in the US anyway.
Discussion of machine guns is pertinent in this context for the same reason discussion of knives is. Because it acts as a comparison to the methods that were actually used in terms of both effectiveness and availability. In recent massacres why didn't the perpetrator use a knife? Why didn't they use a machine gun? Why did they use a gun?
The answers that seem obvious to many are:
1) They didn't use a knife because, whilst highly available, a knife is not the most effective way of achieving the aim of killing lots of people.
2) The didn't use a machine gun because, whilst highly effective at killing lots of people, machine guns are not so readily available.
3) They did use a gun because guns are both effective at killing lots of people and pretty readily available.
Which part of the above analysis do you disagree with?
jar writes:
Guns are irrelevant because the guns didn't do anything.
They are relevant if they provide an effective and readily available means of killing people. No?
jar writes:
The question we should be addressing is why the people behave as they do.
Sure. But until we can figure that out and do something about it what we do know is that people do sometime behave in this way. So perhaps greatly limiting the availability of effective methods of killing people is something that should be done while we try and figure out how to bring about a utopian society where no-one ever wants to go on a killing spree.
No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 11:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 3:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 90 of 955 (686529)
01-02-2013 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by onifre
01-02-2013 12:12 PM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
Yes. That is why I included the word "comparable".
The US has a homicide rate completely out of kilter with it's status as a first world Western democracy.
There are probably numerous reasons for this. But the bewildering attitude to guns as some sort of symbol of freedom is almost certainly part of the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 01-02-2013 12:12 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 01-02-2013 12:33 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 114 of 955 (686609)
01-02-2013 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by jar
01-02-2013 3:00 PM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
Straggler on swords writes:
Or would you be stopped for carrying some sort of dangerous weapon?
jar writes:
I have no idea. I certainly don't see any reason someone with a samurai sword strapped to one's back should be stopped.
I looked up Texas law and it seems that carrying any blade over 5 inches long in public is outright illegal. It is also similarly illegal to carry things like clubs, knuckle dusters and nunchuks.
It seems very odd to make special provision for guns as a form of self defense whilst banning other weapons that could equally be argued as used to deter or defend doesn't it?
Isn't this a form of special pleading for guns?
Straggler on effectiveness and availability of different weapons writes:
They are relevant if they provide an effective and readily available means of killing people. No?
jar writes:
That depends on the specific incident.
Well how about any of the recent gun massacre incidents? Was the effectiveness and availability of weapon a factor when guns were used in any of those incidents?
Or is it just co-incidence guns were used instead of knives or swords or machine guns or whatever else?
Straggler writes:
How many would have to be killed before it did constitute a serious problem in your view?
jar writes:
I don't know but certainly several orders of magnitude.
jar writes:
There is no need to bring about a utopian society and there are things we can do to change society.
Sure. But if there isn't a significant problem to solve why do anything at all?
jar writes:
There is no need to bring about a utopian society and there are things we can do to change society.
Other Western nations have sought to significantly restrict access to guns as part of this. Are they wrong and misguided in your opinion?
Are there any other nations whose approach to these issues you would like to emulate in the US?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 3:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 4:26 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 119 of 955 (686626)
01-02-2013 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jar
01-02-2013 4:26 PM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
jar writes:
Guns are a special case, one that is specifically addressed in our Constitution.
So if swords were specifically addressed in the constitution guns would probably be significantly more restricted in the US and everyone would be defending the right to carry a sword instead.....?
jar writes:
The guns though did nothing.
Well they provided an effective and readily available method of mass killing. Which is after all what they were designed to do.....
jar writes:
It was the individual that killed people...
He didn't go round killing people with his bare hands though did he? He used an effective and available tool of mass killing. A tool designed for that function.
jar writes:
What other nations do and have done is really irrelevant.
Well that is a rather isolationist approach. Do you apply that to all your thinking in the areas of politics and sociology? Economics? Health? Are all case studies in all areas of social policy that don't involve the US to be completely disregarded as "irrelevant".....? Or just ones pertaining to guns specifically?
jar writes:
This is not other nations and what we need to do is address our national problems.
This might come as a surprise but other nations have many of the same problems and have come up with ways of tackling them that might conceivably be instructive or educational (both in terms of what does work and what doesn't). In fact the best studies might (gasp!) examine many nations.
Look past your own borders and you might see that human nature is pretty consistent in many ways.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 4:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 4:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 122 of 955 (686642)
01-02-2013 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
01-02-2013 4:50 PM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
jar writes:
As I said above, in the US guns are a special case.
Well they are if you insist on treating them as a special case.
If you guys were to decide that guns weren't a good idea you could change things in the same way you changed things regarding slavery and voting rights for all and suchlike.
The clue is in the name "amendment".....: A change or addition to a legal or statutory document.
But it's not gonna happen. The whole gun things seems psychologically interwoven on a near national level with some cowboy like notion of "freedom". It's absurd. But not gonna change any time soon.
jar writes:
I would say that a case could be made that swords are covered by the second amendment.
And others could make a case that most private gun carrying isn't......
So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 4:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 5:33 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 127 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2013 5:42 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 174 of 955 (686777)
01-03-2013 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
01-02-2013 5:33 PM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
jar writes:
But what is your point?
My initial aim in responding to you was to get past the 'jar-rut' of single sentence pointless replies insisting that you had already considered and answered everything put to you.
jar writes:
Is there a point?
Well since you ask...
jar writes:
Guns are irrelevant because the guns didn't do anything.
  • No matter how relentlessly you assert otherwise the availability of tools designed to kill efficiently obviously is relevant to people's ability to kill efficiently when they decide to go on a killing spree. To suggest otherwise is just idiotic.
    jar writes:
    What other nations do and have done is really irrelevant.
  • The idea that the US is so unique as to make data from other nations completely irrelevant is again idiotic. I doubt you would dismiss data from other nations in other social policy areas (health, education, economics etc. etc) as completely irrelevant to evidence based decision making in the US so why do so for guns?
    jar writes:
    Guns are a special case, one that is specifically addressed in our Constitution.
  • I think we are all aware that it's in da constitution. But that has little bearing on evidence based consideration of whether it's a good social policy or not in modern times.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 123 by jar, posted 01-02-2013 5:33 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 176 by jar, posted 01-03-2013 8:05 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2013 10:23 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 184 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    (1)
    Message 181 of 955 (686799)
    01-04-2013 6:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 176 by jar
    01-03-2013 8:05 PM


    Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
    Do you think social policy should be based upon:
    A) Blind adherence to ideologically derived assumptions.
    B) Blind adherence to a document written 200+ years ago
    C) Blind adherence to the perceived wishes of some long dead 'founding fathers'
    D) Evidence based research
    jar writes:
    Again, you admit that guns in the US are a special case.
    It is only a "special case" in the sense that you choose to make it so.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 176 by jar, posted 01-03-2013 8:05 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 183 by jar, posted 01-04-2013 8:29 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 184 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (4)
    Message 182 of 955 (686800)
    01-04-2013 6:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 180 by crashfrog
    01-03-2013 10:23 PM


    Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
    Crash writes:
    What do you mean "kill efficiently"?
    Well if I wanted to walk into a school and massacre a large number of people and I had the following choice of weapons which of the following would I be best served arming myself with in order to achieve my stated aim:
    A) Some cutting remarks
    B) A pea shooter
    C) A feather duster
    D) A sharp pencil
    E) My fists and nothing else
    F) A swiss army knife
    G) A baseball bat
    E) The sort of gun used in recent massacres
    F) A machine gun
    Now throw in the availability factor of the above on top of the 'deadliness' factor and 'voila'........ We seem to have identified why it is that guns are used when people want to go on killing rampages don't we?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2013 10:23 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 8:56 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 184 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 185 of 955 (686814)
    01-04-2013 10:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 183 by jar
    01-04-2013 8:29 AM


    The Basis of Social Policy
    Do you agree that social policy is best derived from evidence based research?
    If so - Do you also agree that this applies as much to the USA as anywhere else?
    Straggler writes:
    Do you think social policy should be based upon:
    A) Blind adherence to ideologically derived assumptions.
    B) Blind adherence to a document written 200+ years ago
    C) Blind adherence to the perceived wishes of some long dead 'founding fathers'
    D) Evidence based research
    jar writes:
    If I ever suggested that social policy should be made based on:
    A) Blind adherence to ideologically derived assumptions.
    B) Blind adherence to a document written 200+ years ago
    C) Blind adherence to the perceived wishes of some long dead 'founding fathers'
    then the answers to those question might be relevant.
    They weren't questions. They were suggested answers to a single question. To me the answer to that question is obviously D) Evidence based research. To me this this is obviously applies to the US as much as anywhere else.
    But according to you the US is a "special case" so I included some other possibilities along other lines. If you have another answer feel free to reveal it.......(rather than going down the tiresome and tedious route of telling us what you didn't say)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 183 by jar, posted 01-04-2013 8:29 AM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 186 by jar, posted 01-04-2013 12:22 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 184 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 188 of 955 (686845)
    01-04-2013 3:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 186 by jar
    01-04-2013 12:22 PM


    Re: The Basis of Social Policy
    Do you agree that social policy is best derived from evidence based research? Or not?
    jar writes:
    But I never said the US is a "special case".
    Yes you did.
    jar writes:
    Again, you admit that guns in the US are a special case.
    jar writes:
    Guns are a special case, one that is specifically addressed in our Constitution.
    See - There is you asserting that the US is a "special case".
    jar writes:
    And I have presented my ideas of how to deal with the problem of violence in the US and stated that I see no "gun" problem.
    quote:
    1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
    Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
    Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
    2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
    We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
    Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
    3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
    Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).
    After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
    Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
    4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
    Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
    Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
    Link
    Do you dispute these findings?
    jar writes:
    Look at Message 32 and Message 70 and Message 117.
    Do you think other nations have taken steps in the directions you outline (e.g. partial decriminilisation of drugs)? What can be learnt from those examples?
    Why not take both social measures and act on the prevalence of guns if both are factors?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 186 by jar, posted 01-04-2013 12:22 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 189 by jar, posted 01-04-2013 5:13 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 184 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 226 of 955 (686958)
    01-06-2013 5:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 189 by jar
    01-04-2013 5:13 PM


    Re: The Basis of Social Policy
    Do you agree that social policy is best derived from evidence based research? Or not?
    Why is this such a difficult question for you?
    jar writes:
    Saying that guns in the US are a special case is not saying that the US is a special case.
    So in a discussion about gun regulation the US isn't a special case but the issue of guns in the US is a special case.....
    Well I am glad we cleared that up!!
    jar writes:
    And I still see no "gun problem".
    Then perhaps you aren't looking?
    quote:
    1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
    Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
    Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
    2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
    We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
    Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
    3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
    Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).
    After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
    Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
    4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
    Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
    Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
    Link
    Do you dispute these findings?
    jar writes:
    Look at Message 32 and Message 70 and Message 117.
    Do you think other nations have taken steps in the directions you outline (e.g. partial decriminilisation of drugs)? What can be learnt from those examples?
    Why not take both social measures and act on the prevalence of guns if both are factors?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by jar, posted 01-04-2013 5:13 PM jar has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 184 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 227 of 955 (686962)
    01-06-2013 7:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 190 by crashfrog
    01-04-2013 8:56 PM


    Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
    Crash writes:
    Right, but I didn't ask you about what weapons would be likely to be used by people going on killing rampages. I asked you to define your term "kill efficiency."
    Well if you wanted to select a weapon to go on an effective killing rampage what would you select? Why did the perpetrators of recent massacres choose the weapons they did?
    If the term "efficiency" is causing you problem just pick another one. "Deadliness" maybe? "Effectiveness". Whatever dude. Take your pick. The English language is full of words that one could choose to make the same point.
    Crash writes:
    It's awesome that you got a bunch of upvotes for completely avoiding the question, but it's not a "gotcha", it's a serious question I have about the terms you've chosen to use.
    If you don't like the term "efficiency" pick one you do like. I really don't mind what term you use as long as the conceptual meaning is clear.
    Crash writes:
    "Efficiency" implies a ratio of some kind; you know, the way "gas efficiency" is about distance traveled per volume of gasoline consumed. I'm just wondering what the terms of your ratio are.
    You want to talk about ratios? FFS!!! You are a smart enough guy for this sort of ridiculous diversion tactic to be beneath you. Frankly it smacks of a losing argument on your part.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 8:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 228 by Admin, posted 01-06-2013 8:12 AM Straggler has seen this message but not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 184 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 410 of 955 (687421)
    01-10-2013 2:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 403 by ICANT
    01-10-2013 1:31 PM


    Re: Regulation Proposal #1 owner licenses
    ICANT writes:
    If you want to remove the guns you have to change the constitution.
    How about instead of removing the guns the same sort of restrictions that are applied in New York are applied across the board?
    Would that not be constitutional and thus a legitimate and demonstrated-to-be-effective form of regulation?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 403 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2013 1:31 PM ICANT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 414 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2013 4:29 PM Straggler has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member (Idle past 184 days)
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (6)
    (1)
    Message 511 of 955 (687605)
    01-14-2013 10:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 509 by New Cat's Eye
    01-14-2013 10:27 AM


    RAZD writes:
    So if the intent is to reduce gun crime, the social issues that cause crime should be addressed as well as the availability of guns, yes?
    CS writes:
    Duh. And in that case, fuck gun regulation.
    Poverty. Homelessness. Deep-seated inequality of opportunity. Disenfranchised people with little stake in adhering to the things that hold society together. Addiction. Gangs. Joblessness. Prejudice. Mental illness. Drugs. Anti-social behaviour. Crime. Community breakdown. Etc.
    Whatever the answers may or may not be to these social issues only an absolute lunatic would look at such a situation and conclude that what the situation needs is a citizenry armed with guns.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 509 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2013 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 512 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2013 12:30 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024