• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House to Push Gun Control

Boo Radley said:
Don't be silly j.
Click to expand...

No silliness here, just a question you fail to answer, why?

Don't you know?

Seriously, make your point.
Click to expand...

Answer the question.


Whether they do or not is besides the point. The law is the law. And there is history of regulation.
Click to expand...

Courts don't make law.

Have to? No. Never suggested you were forced to listen to me. But you respond all the same.
Click to expand...

Mostly from shock and dismay.

Have I advocated any taking away of any rights? But regulation is common. And it is usually because people have taken it out of their yard that spurred regulation. There is history, isn't there?
Click to expand...

More like fear brought about by propaganda like what you are attempting here.

Likely more today than in the past.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

There is a real reason why those who live in cities vote differently than those who live in rural areas.
Click to expand...

And what do you see that as?

Would you concede that there is such a thing as an objective standard? If you can kill a deer with a rifle, would a nuke be overkill, or is that just an opinion?
Click to expand...

As long as I have a 2nd Amendment right, and the ability to purchase a legal product, I will do so with or without your approval.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
At 350 pounds I ran four miles a day. My son, a 110 pound seventeen year old was shock when I caught him in a race. I've fought most my life.
Click to expand...

At 350 lbs? Maybe you Fought your way to a buffet table. :2razz:

No good for you losing all that weight. What a hard fight it must have been. :ssst:



But the fact is rev, you troll yourself. You seldom get the actual argument. You leap all over the place. You put up stats that have nothing to do with what is claimed. You name call, and act the fool. It's your call, but no one trolls you better than you do.
Click to expand...

If pointin out your dishonesty and laughing at your hoplophobic chicken little dance is trolling. Why then are numerous poster refering to your behavior in this thread as trolling? :shrug:



Now, do you have anything on content?
Click to expand...


i do, you ignored it or lied about it. Typical.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Just like you rev, bring up useless stats that don't speak to what I said at all. You have to show more people protect themselves with guns than shoot themselves accidently. No other grouping matters to my point. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Firearms Accidents and Firearms Safety Education
Fatal Firearms Accidents for All Ages Annually: 1,134 nationwide in 1996. Rate of 0.4 per 100T population. Represents a roughly 90% decrease from record high in 1904. Accident rate is down by 65% since 1930, while U.S. population has doubled and number of privately-owned firearms has quadrupled. Compare to other types of fatal accidents, for all ages: Motor Vehicles 16.7/100T, Falls 4.8/100T, Poisoning 4.0/100T, Drowning 1.7/100T, Fires 1.6/100T, Choking 1.1/100T.(National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, BATF, US Census)

Fatal Firearms Accidents for Children 14 and Under Annually: 138 nationwide in 1996. About 3% of all fatal accidents under age 14. Represents a 75% decrease from record high of 550 in 1975. Compared to other types of fatal accidents for children: Motor Vehicles 44%, Fires 16%, Drowning 14%, Choking 4.5%.(Nat'l Safety Council, Nat'l Center for Health Statistics)
Click to expand...


the Kleck Study:
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Number Of Protective Uses Of Firearms In U.S: Projected at a minimum of 2.5 million cases annually, equal to 1% of total U.S. population each year. Criminal assailants are killed by their victims or others in only about 0.1%, and wounded in only about 1.0% of incidents as described above. Most such crimes are prevented by mere presence of a firearm in the hands of an intended victim.(Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD, Florida State University, Targeting Guns, 1998)
Click to expand...


A 1993 Gallup Poll study (hardly a conservative partisan group) found a likely annual rate of defensive gun use (DGU) of 777,153 per year in the US.
An LA Times 1994 study found an implied national DGU of 3,609,682.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies, [16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. [17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported. [18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses. [19]
The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; indeed, some would argue that this is ultimately the only way of knowing that a measurement is wrong. Therefore, one might suppose that the gross inconsistency of the NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates, each derived from sources with no known flaws even remotely substantial enough to account for nine-to-one, or more, discrepancies, would be sufficient to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are unreliable.
...The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.
Click to expand...


The Kleck study concluded that there were possibly as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, many of which involved no shots fired or no one injured, and many of which were not reported:
The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that rely on Rs' first-hand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.
Click to expand...

These Wikipedia articles are good sources of general information on concealed-carry permits and related issues.
They include information from both pro and anti perspectives.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[61]

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[62]
Click to expand...

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Lott's study is not without controversy, but despite nit-picking about techincal proceedures remains siginficant:
Lott examines the effects of shall issue laws on violent crime across the United States.

His conclusion is that shall issue laws, which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, steadily decrease violent crime. He explains that this result makes sense because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed victim. As more citizens arm themselves, the danger to criminals increases.
Click to expand...


From an excellent summary page:

Firearms as Used in Crime
Annual Criminal Abuse of Firearms Nationally: Less than 0.2% of all firearms, and less than 0.4% of all handguns. More than 99.8% of all guns, and 99.6% of all handguns are NOT used in criminal activity in any given year.(BATF, FBI)
Click to expand...
Crime in the United States
Chance of Any Single Individual Being a Victim of Violent Crime In Their Lifetime: Currently about 65 to 70%, depending on age, profession, lifestyle, geographic and demographic factors.(US DoJ, FBI UCR)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So much for seeing Boo back here, to refute this aspect anyway....LOL


j-mac
 
Boo, I've been around the block a few (dozen) times. Been in more armed confrontations than I can easily count. Defended myself both with and without weapons.

Self-protection is 90% mindset, awareness, social skills, security precautions, street-smarts, and common sense, yes. With those, you can avoid most situations involving dangerous criminals. Some people can go all their lives without a violent encounter, with that a some luck.

Luck only goes so far, though, and not all of us wish to depend on it.

Hand-to-hand fighting skills are very useful. I spent most of my youth cultivating same and still try to maintain my skills. However, there are times and circumstances when they are not adequate.

Yes, almost anyone can be assasinated, and defending against assasination is properly the job of a well-trained team of at least 7 professional bodyguards. However, most criminal confrontations are not in the form of an assassination... that's actually relatively rare.

No, guns are not magic. However, they are useful tools when properly employed, and when you need one, you tend to need one really badly. When that rare occasion does arise, you prefer to be more heavily armed, rather than minimally armed.
 
Goshin said:
Boo, I've been around the block a few (dozen) times. Been in more armed confrontations than I can easily count. Defended myself both with and without weapons.

Self-protection is 90% mindset, awareness, social skills, security precautions, street-smarts, and common sense, yes. With those, you can avoid most situations involving dangerous criminals. Some people can go all their lives without a violent encounter, with that a some luck.

Luck only goes so far, though, and not all of us wish to depend on it.

Hand-to-hand fighting skills are very useful. I spent most of my youth cultivating same and still try to maintain my skills. However, there are times and circumstances when they are not adequate.

Yes, almost anyone can be assasinated, and defending against assasination is properly the job of a well-trained team of at least 7 professional bodyguards. However, most criminal confrontations are not in the form of an assassination... that's actually relatively rare.

No, guns are not magic. However, they are useful tools when properly employed, and when you need one, you tend to need one really badly. When that rare occasion does arise, you prefer to be more heavily armed, rather than minimally armed.
Click to expand...

You're first paragraph is exact right. Those things mean much more than a weapon. And I agree that a weapon is a tool, and sometimes a useful one. Just not magic. If you have none of the things in the first paragraph, a gun won't help you much. And all the weapon you need is that which is required. A tank or a nuke may be be the weapon of choice in most self protectin cases. neither is an AK47. You don't hunt with an M16 either. Just as with any job, you use the proper tool for the job. Didn't Tim the Toll man teach us anything. ;)
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
At 350 lbs? Maybe you Fought your way to a buffet table. :2razz:

No good for you losing all that weight. What a hard fight it must have been. :ssst:
Click to expand...

Yes, at 350. I moved well for a big man. Few actually believed I weighted that much.



If pointin out your dishonesty and laughing at your hoplophobic chicken little dance is trolling. Why then are numerous poster refering to your behavior in this thread as trolling? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Tell yourself what you must.




i do, you ignored it or lied about it. Typical.
Click to expand...

Same as above. tell yourself what you must.
Click to expand...
 
Goshin said:
the Kleck Study:
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Click to expand...

Means nothing to what I said. Why dio you guys ignore what was said and argue something not disputed? These type of strawmen make little sense to me.



A 1993 Gallup Poll study (hardly a conservative partisan group) found a likely annual rate of defensive gun use (DGU) of 777,153 per year in the US.
An LA Times 1994 study found an implied national DGU of 3,609,682.
Click to expand...

While a highly suspect set of data, as it asks for oral reports, subjective at best, and not objective data, the fact remains, it doesn't address what I claimed.

The Kleck study concluded that there were possibly as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, many of which involved no shots fired or no one injured, and many of which were not reported:
Click to expand...

See above and add: Possibly? Maybe? could be? We guess?

These Wikipedia articles are good sources of general information on concealed-carry permits and related issues.
They include information from both pro and anti perspectives.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Have no problem with Wiki for this, but again, deals with nothing I have claimed. Nor is it anything I dispute.

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Lott's study is not without controversy, but despite nit-picking about techincal proceedures remains siginficant:
Click to expand...

Nit picking is usually important because a small erroro can lead to very wrong conclusion. And if notice, your link shows a lot of evidence to the contrary. Yet you CHOOSE to accept the one I suspect that you want to be true.

Studies AgainstAcademic studies that have rejected Lott's conclusions include the following. With the exception of the 2003 study by John J. Donohue, these studies generally contend that there seems to be little or no effect on crime from the passage of license-to-carry laws. Donohue's 2003 study finds an increase in violence.
Click to expand...


From an excellent summary page:
Click to expand...

Define violent crime? Spouse abuse? Shot by your husband, wife, friend? Again, nothing to anything I've claimed.
 
j-mac said:
No silliness here, just a question you fail to answer, why?
Click to expand...

Becuase it is just silliness j. If you ahve a point make it. If not, play something else.


Courts don't make law.
Click to expand...

Right, they don't. Never said they did. But they do rule on law, and have upheld, repeatedly, the right to regulate.


Mostly from shock and dismay.
Click to expand...

But you respond all the same, and too often, incoherently. :coffeepap

More like fear brought about by propaganda like what you are attempting here.
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Do you even know what I've argued?
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Prove what I think? Let me use some logic for you. Would you say people are better trained with hand guns today than in past? I doubt any evidence woudl support that, espeically in innner cities.

And what do you see that as?
Click to expand...

Because they see weapons used much more violently than people and rural areas see. And they see how easily armed people get killed. It isn't weapons that make you safe. Safety has a lot to do with life sytle and circumstance, the place you live.

As long as I have a 2nd Amendment right, and the ability to purchase a legal product, I will do so with or without your approval.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Have never suggested otherwise j. But if weapons get regulated, as they have been in the past, you would do well to comply to those regulations. ;)
Click to expand...
 
"You have to show more people protect themselves with guns than shoot themselves accidently. No other grouping matters to my point. - Boo Radley

I have no idea what your point is, but Goshin and Rev both answered this with hard facts.

So far all you have done is suggested no evidence is good enough, and given nothing back but hot air.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
"You have to show more people protect themselves with guns than shoot themselves accidently. No other grouping matters to my point. - Boo Radley

I have no idea what your point is, but Goshin and Rev both answered this with hard facts.

So far all you have done is suggested no evidence is good enough, and given nothing back but hot air.
Click to expand...

Actually, they didn't. They did not measure accidental shootings, or peopel shooting family memebers and friends, with those who protect themselves. They showed other accidents, and compared them with shooting accidents. And then showed an opinion survey. But did not answer my claim at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
Becuase it is just silliness j. If you ahve a point make it. If not, play something else.
Click to expand...


No, it would highlight the arrogance in your statements concerning what "the people" want. See, I don't think you give two hoots about what the Constitution says, or what the founding fathers proposed for the future of this country. I think that you like most liberals think they know better, that those that disagree with their own utopian view of the nanny state that they envision are just somehow stupid, and shouldn't be allowed the vote in the first place. And when pressed on this, they dance, and obfuscate, anything but answer in an honest, forthright way that would lead to proper debate. Now I am not saying that you are absolutely this way Joe, but just because you think something is dangerous, and wouldn't have it yourself, doesn't mean that you can preclude me from owning it.

Right, they don't. Never said they did. But they do rule on law, and have upheld, repeatedly, the right to regulate.
Click to expand...

And how many gun laws are on the books right now that are not being enforced?

But you respond all the same, and too often, incoherently.
Click to expand...

I do alright. Maybe it is your own seclusion in that ivory tower that prompts you to not understand the average American.


Do you even know what I've argued?
Click to expand...

Yes. Do you?

Prove what I think? Let me use some logic for you. Would you say people are better trained with hand guns today than in past? I doubt any evidence woudl support that, espeically in innner cities.
Click to expand...

Who cares what you think? You made a statement that requires back up with statistics Do you have them? Either provide them or retract.

Because they see weapons used much more violently than people and rural areas see. And they see how easily armed people get killed. It isn't weapons that make you safe. Safety has a lot to do with life sytle and circumstance, the place you live.
Click to expand...

So now you speak for all inner city dwellers from your corn fields in Iowa? that's a good one. Show me your stats.

Have never suggested otherwise j. But if weapons get regulated, as they have been in the past, you would do well to comply to those regulations.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse I comply with the law. See your problem is though that the criminals that are committing these crimes you imagine don't! What's your answer for them Joe? Disarm me? Why?

j-mac
 
Last edited:
y'all are debating a person with absolutely zero character

which is why the only recourse remaining is to LOL!
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, they didn't.
Click to expand...

Only if your name is Boo Radley.

Boo Radley said:
They did not measure accidental shootings, or peopel shooting family memebers and friends, with those who protect themselves. They showed other accidents, and compared them with shooting accidents. And then showed an opinion survey. But did not answer my claim at all.
Click to expand...

You obviously did not read the articles Goshin posted.

I have also seen you post nothing in defense of your opinion. A fact or 2 backed up by evidence as the others did?
 
Boo Radley said:
You're first paragraph is exact right. Those things mean much more than a weapon. And I agree that a weapon is a tool, and sometimes a useful one. Just not magic. If you have none of the things in the first paragraph, a gun won't help you much. And all the weapon you need is that which is required. A tank or a nuke may be be the weapon of choice in most self protectin cases. neither is an AK47. You don't hunt with an M16 either. Just as with any job, you use the proper tool for the job. Didn't Tim the Toll man teach us anything. ;)
Click to expand...


an m16 makes a great varmint rifle. :shrug:


and you refuse to pay attention. Tell me, was the body armor overkill as well? We wore it...



Face it, you want to ignore all the facts I brought up so you can post in your insipid style about how inh your ignorant position what I needed and did not need on this ranch.


Tell me, what would you have carried if you were tasked with this job?

Please do tell.
 
j-mac said:
No, it would highlight the arrogance in your statements concerning what "the people" want. See, I don't think you give two hoots about what the Constitution says, or what the founding fathers proposed for the future of this country. I think that you like most liberals think they know better, that those that disagree with their own utopian view of the nanny state that they envision are just somehow stupid, and shouldn't be allowed the vote in the first place. And when pressed on this, they dance, and obfuscate, anything but answer in an honest, forthright way that would lead to proper debate. Now I am not saying that you are absolutely this way Joe, but just because you think something is dangerous, and wouldn't have it yourself, doesn't mean that you can preclude me from owning it.
Click to expand...


J, I'm not sure you know what the constitution says. If your like Tea party candidates, it's likely you don't. But, all you have to do is make a point. BY all means, cite something from the consititution and show you actually read it correctly. It would be far better than your endless battle with all liberals, whoever they are.

And how many gun laws are on the books right now that are not being enforced?
Click to expand...

None that I know of, but what has that to do with anythign I've said. You would do better to address what I say and not the mythical all libberals you seem to prefer to fight.


I do alright. Maybe it is your own seclusion in that ivory tower that prompts you to not understand the average American.
Click to expand...

Yes, j, I'm a former truck driver, waiter, security gaurd, Army airborne troop in the midwest who is an east coast liberla in an Ivory tower. Gottcha. :coffeepap



Yes. Do you?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced you do. If you did, you'd address that argument.

Who cares what you think? You made a statement that requires back up with statistics Do you have them? Either provide them or retract.
Click to expand...

You back something up many ways. I used logic. Do you see a flaw in my logic?


So now you speak for all inner city dwellers from your corn fields in Iowa? that's a good one. Show me your stats.
Click to expand...

No, they spoken for themselves. They have voted. And they have spoke on TV in focus groups. There is no doubt city folk see things differently than rural folks.

[PDF] THE SOCIAL CORRELATES TO FEAR OF VIOLENCE: A REFERENDUM ON GUN ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by RJ Earickson - 1995 - Related articles
voters. The fact that urban voters favor gun control been done since the early 1980s on the ecological and rural voters do not leads to the hypothesis that ..... difference between classes, the greater the cohesion ...
geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%201996/2_Earickson.pdf



Ofcourse I comply with the law. See your problem is though that the criminals that are committing these crimes you imagine don't! What's your answer for them Joe? Disarm me? Why?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, criminals break the law. We know that. So, this means what?
Click to expand...
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
an m16 makes a great varmint rifle. :shrug:


and you refuse to pay attention. Tell me, was the body armor overkill as well? We wore it...



Face it, you want to ignore all the facts I brought up so you can post in your insipid style about how inh your ignorant position what I needed and did not need on this ranch.


Tell me, what would you have carried if you were tasked with this job?

Please do tell.
Click to expand...

Likely. I simply doubt the treat was as huge as you claim. But I see no where to go from here.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, they didn't. They did not measure accidental shootings, or peopel shooting family memebers and friends, with those who protect themselves. They showed other accidents, and compared them with shooting accidents. And then showed an opinion survey. But did not answer my claim at all.
Click to expand...


Ok, here you go...

* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]
Click to expand...

and Those who protect them selves with fire arms...

* Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7]
Click to expand...

Seems like the stats you are trying to hang your hat on are very low. The charts in this site shows them to rank just above Pedel Cyclists, and Overreactions in the fatal section, and in the non fatal section only dog bite was lower...So Now we get to ask you, what's your point? Sounds like guns are overall a safe effective way to prevent being a victim of crime in this country.


Oh, here is the source of those stats. Gun Control

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ok, here you go...



and Those who protect them selves with fire arms...



Seems like the stats you are trying to hang your hat on are very low. The charts in this site shows them to rank just above Pedel Cyclists, and Overreactions in the fatal section, and in the non fatal section only dog bite was lower...So Now we get to ask you, what's your point? Sounds like guns are overall a safe effective way to prevent being a victim of crime in this country.


Oh, here is the source of those stats. Gun Control

j-mac
Click to expand...

You do not show how many were used in protection. The claim was, and I repeat, that more people are shot accidently, or shooting themselves (suicide0 or relatives, than shot by someone defending themselves. That is the claim you have to tackle.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
You do not show how many were used in protection. The claim was, and I repeat, that more people are shot accidently, or shooting themselves (suicide0 or relatives, than shot by someone defending themselves. That is the claim you have to tackle.
Click to expand...



its already established there are between 700-1300 accidental shootings a year.



"there are about 7700 to 18500 reported legal shootings of criminals a year"

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do not show how many were used in protection. The claim was, and I repeat, that more people are shot accidently, or shooting themselves (suicide0 or relatives, than shot by someone defending themselves. That is the claim you have to tackle.
Click to expand...


Did you check the site Joe, it's in there...

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
Click to expand...

So what's your point? 700 incidents of accidental shooting by gun owners, as compared to 500,000 successful thwarting of crimes. That's .0014% .....NEXT!


j-mac
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
its already established there are between 700-1300 accidental shootings a year.



"there are about 7700 to 18500 reported legal shootings of criminals a year"

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.
Click to expand...

Now add sucicides;

•Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.

AFSP: Facts and Figures: National Statistics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom