Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Self Defense
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Ways and means to prevent a future mass active shooter incident in the US

This is a discussion on Ways and means to prevent a future mass active shooter incident in the US within the Self Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Todjaeger While the intention was to solicit potential solutions which would be viable in the US, the ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old December 28th, 2012   #76
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 822
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
While the intention was to solicit potential solutions which would be viable in the US, the results have been disappointing to say the least.
I guess you find it dissapointing because there is no easy answer. Yes Eesahan in his post was correct in part - we probably do need better family networks etc, but the tone of that you tube link he posted to me sounded like we should all go back to the 1950's where mum stayed home, and home looked like the Brady bunch. So which one of you guys has the balls to tell 150 million US mom's their place is in the home making cookies for the kids? Is that idea even economically sound? Sounds like some christian right wing push to bring back an idealised world where mum and dad stayed together for the good of the family despite dad beating his missus every night.

Eesahan is also correct that weapons don't kill people, people kill people. If he honestly believes that message he should be campaigning to legalise the sale of high and low explosive, det cord and primers as well as biological agents from the local walmart - after all if high powered weapons aren't to blame, nor are these items.

It could be pointed out that cars kill - why don't we ban cars ( I have seen it in similar debates) - at least cars have a daily utility. Assault weapons do too - if you happen to be in uniform depolyed to Afganistan. Other than that there are very few people in society that would have a need to operate semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacities.

I suppose the reason for the dissapointing comments is that to be realistic the only really effective means to fix the issue is to ban these weapons. We can make suggestions about pouring billions of dollars into mental health care (if you thing Obama care is a hard sell, try getting the right wing to support that), we could even suggest mum goes back to making cookies at home (the only thing more difficult than mental health Obamacare would be telling a dyed in the wool feminist that we are going back to the 1950's) OR you can take the only logical path and take away the tools these nutbags use to commit these attrocities. There will always be nutbags, there will always still be mentally unbalanced people killing people with cars, suicide by cop, by knife hell even nutjobs with enought technical knowledge to make a home made flame thrower - lets try and make it difficult for the mentally unbalanced to kill in large numbers.

Even if it were possible to screen out the mentally unbalanced from owning weapons - this most recent nutbag took his mum's weapons. I don't see any other solution other than banning the damn things.

It is not impossible - as you have pointed out there have been amendments made to the constitution - it just requires politicians with enough balls and the will of the populace to make it a reality. Until America accepts this, sadly we will see more of these mass shootings. Eventually, I see this going one of two ways because as POTUS has said we cannot sit and do nothing:

1. Common sense will prevail and these unnecessary weapons will be banned; or

2. You go the way of the NRA (the webmaster approach) where you just have to make sure you have the bigger stick - schools with armed guards equipped with semi automatics would be parity - so you'd need to go with a belt fed weapon for each guard. The average carjacker/store robber would need to upgrade, so would the store owners etc. Where would the 'arms race' between criminals and the public end? Between two superpowers the endgame was Mutually Assured Destruction - that seems to have put a cap on things nicely. Do we all have to wear a suicide vest with a dead mans switch to ensure that if someone was to try and rob me that I could ensure it would be a no win situation for the robber? OK, the last point is ridiculous but the point is upgunning ain't going to work (and the collateral damage from such a program - UD's, kids touching what they shouldn't etc would be the hidden additional cost. A copper here in Australia within the last few years accidentally shot and killed a fellow officer cleaning or unloading their service weapon back at the station).

Quote:
So again, keeping in mind recommendations need to be viable within the context of the US, do people have solutions? If not, then perhaps it would be better to close this thread.
The people on here as a whole are a moderately intelligent bunch mostly capable of rational discussion. As this is a military forum, I'd hazard a guess most are not weed smoking hippies wanting world wide peace (hell, the idea of thermobaric munitions give me a chubby - when used in the right circumstances), but if the rest of the world seems to be giving the opinion that the US needs to confront the situation, I guess you have a couple of options. Close down the thread because you didn't get the answers you were seeking (and we'll sadly see another massacre in the future) OR, get on the blower to your local congressman and start advocating for change. As has been pointed out - we are not suggesting the second amendment be repealed - we are suggesting the populous has the right to bare arms - JUST NOT SEMI AUTO's with banana mags.

That's me done (except for post 78)./rant
Marc 1 is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #77
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,464
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Maybe thats the solution, an education program where we attempt to convince the crazies that leaf vegetables are more suitable for mass killings than firearms. Just employ the same people the oil and cigarette companies use to discredit actions against their interests.
Or a viciously sharp slice of mango...
ADMk2 is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #78
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 822
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post

In a number of jurisdictions there are storage requirements, like firearms need to be stored unloaded, trigger/chamber/hammer locking mechanisms employed while in storage, storage within a locked/secured container (like a gun safe). What is legal varies from state to state, as the respective State and not Federal law has jurisdiction.
Question - how does this fit with Webmaster's idea that it is better to be able to defend yourself? If some armed moron does break in to your home - you may have 30 seconds to a minute to react. If your weapon is stored in a gun safe, in an unloaded state in a different room in the house (or do we now propose there be a gun safe upstairs in the bedroom and another downstairs in the den?). Are you going to be able to locate the key/operate the combination lock, grab the weapon, take the trigger lock off the weapon, load it and then confront the burglar? Seems fairly unlikely.

If I lived in a high crime spot here in Oz, the most likely weapon a burglar would have is a knife - I can legally keep a cricket bat under my bed without a need to keep it in a gun safe etc. Funnily enough, there is no need to register my cricket bat, I cannot accidentally shoot and kill one of my family when oiling it and there will be no collateral damage if I swing and miss the intruder apart from some damaged gyprock - unlike a gun. Can you imagine how you would feel having one of your own bullets miss the intruder, go through the hallway wall and kill your own child. That's what happens in a civilised society where not every bad guy has a gun.
Marc 1 is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #79
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,032
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Newman View Post
Very informative.

Doesn't this prove that there should be a uniform National approach to this issue?

Having laws that are extremely different, or contradictory to your own State, compared to the State that may be next to yours is almost like living next door to a different Country altogether!!

Yes, as in Australia, across the board in a range of things, not specifically gun law, we have different laws/requirements from state to state.

But seriously, on an issue such as this, don't you think the US Federal Government needs to sit down with all the States and produce a standard law, regardless of which State you live in??
Not speaking specifically to firearms, but the right for states to self-regulate themselves is included in, and pre-dates the Constitution. The Constitution was created because the prior "national" government was too weak to manage interstate issues, due to specific weaknesses with the Articles of Confederacy. Even after passage of the Constitution, many across the US felt it was better to have a weak Federal government, and strong state governments, with power resting largely with the state governments and not the Federal government. This disageement on the distribution of power between the Federal government vs. State rights erupted in the American Civil War. Even after the conclusion of the American Civil War in 1865 with a Union (Federal) victory, the 13th through the 15th Amendments which were ratified between 1865 and 1869, still left in place the state right to self-regulate unless what was being regulated was something reserved for the Federal government.

Now it would be possible for there to be a uniform, national system setup to regulate firearms, but that is back to requiring an amendment to the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
@TodJaeger
You seem to want a solution without fundamentally changing the status quo, which IMO is impossible.
What I am really looking for is potential solutions which do not require drastic changes to US law because I feel that even after what occurred in at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, there is insufficient support nationally for many (perhaps most) of the suggested changes. Or potentially even worse, enough national support could be garnered to push the laws/amendments through, but not enough support for people to abide by the changes. In effect a repeat of the widespread disregard paid the to 18th Amendment (Prohibition), but instead of the contraband material being alcohol, it is firearms.

It is not really a question of whether things are acceptable as they are now. They are not. The question is what changes that can be made, or what could be done differently, that would successfully have an impact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
which is also said to be a reason behind California’s tighter gun laws, if the police are being out gunned then restrict the criminals access to specific types of weapons.
One of the other concerns about the impact of gun control is whether there would be any real effect on criminals in the first place. A friend of mine in the NYPD was involved in an arrest recently where he seized a fully automatic 9 mm machine pistol. He ended up getting commended by BATFE agents for the seizure of a weapon which was illegal under NYC, NY State and Federal law. Yet still the firearm ended up within the confines of the Island of Manhattan... Additional gun control laws would not have done much, simply because the existing laws were already being broken. Going further with that, the existing gun control laws were also being broken during the Christmas Eve shooting death of two volunteer firefighters in Webster, NY because the shooter was a convicted felon and it was already illegal for him to have access to firearms.

One set of statistics which I would be interested in finding out (if it is even known) is what % of the ~280 - 300 mil. firearms within the US are illegal, along with a breakdown of which states or even cities have what % of illegal firearms. Going further with that would be to find out what % of firearms are used in the commission of a crime, and what % are used in the commission of a violent crime or shooting. Lastly would be to examine what % of illegal firearms started out as legal firearms, and what caused them to become illegal (i.e. were they stolen, given illegal modifications, illegally transported, transported to an area with different laws, etc.)

Something worth noting is why Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has put so much effort into gun controls. A significant portion (~80% IIRC) of illegal firearms seized by the NYPD within the Five Boroughs were at one point legally purchased from one of a handful of gun stores within Virginia or West Virginia. The number was enough of a statistical anomaly for investigations to be launched to see if these stores were illegally supplying criminal elements with firearms.

Really the goal of this thread has been to generate ways to keep people who would trigger active shooter incidents from being able to do so. So far, the suggestions have largely revolved around reducing the total legal, supply and access to firearms. Are there any other suggestions? Are there suggestions on how to address the supply of and access to illegal firearms? What about suggestions on how to harden potential soft targets, or would that merely cause potential shooters to pick other soft targets? Any thoughts on how to ID potential shooters, prior to them stepping onto the path which leads to an incident?
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #80
Moderator
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 858
Threads:
This has been interesting thread, to see how matters are viewed elsewhere.

There seems to be an almost hysteria over military style rifles with their powerful cartridge and large ammo carrying capacity. According to the FBI's most recent statistics on homicides in the US (2010) of the 12,000+ murders committed that year roughly 350 were committed with a rifle. They don't specify what type of rifle however we do know that a percentage will be bolt action rifles. More than twice that many people were killed with bare hands! Alternatively over 6,000 were killed with a handgun. I would presume (I am a presumptuous bastard) that a percentage of the 350 rifle deaths would have been committed with a shotgun or handgun if all rifles were banned or simply did not exist. Banning miltiary "style" rifles is going to have very little impact in the gun related homicides in this country. The assault weapon ban solution reminds me of a wooden device they sell at art festivals. You turn a crank and all sorts of things spin and whirl but that's about it, there is no output. It is usually called a bullsh*t machine. Seems to me a more significant change would occur by banning handguns altogether?
________________
Helicopterese spoken here.
Gremlin29 is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #81
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,933
Threads:
Six Sigma, collect the data, drill down to the finest resolution you can, i.e. what specific types of firearms, number of deaths, individual circumstances relating to the deaths etc. identify the common factors and address these. Be impartial and ruthless in the process as often the assumed cause is different to what you expect. Identify your overall problem and then define the scope of what you need to do, are you trying to stop all killings, just firearm related killings or even more specifically mass killings using firearms. Different problems have different solutions.
Volkodav is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #82
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,933
Threads:
An example that comes to mind of what I am suggesting in the need for research and analysis is the post WWII cancer epidemic. A spike in the number of cases and deaths from cancer was noticed post WWII, there was a level of concern, in some areas almost panic, many different things were blamed; atmospheric nuclear testing etc. the root cause was determined to be a dramatic increase in tobacco consumption, yet people still argue that point. The interesting thing is a correlation between cancer and tobacco use was identified over 250 years ago before smoking became popular and well before cigarettes were issued to service personnel and them being encouraged to smoke to help their nerves etc. Real hard data had to be developed and analysed before anything was done and even now people still argue the point. http://med.stanford.edu/biostatistic...tor_paper1.pdf

Mitigation to prevent innocent people from becoming victims included restricting where and when people who choose to smoke can smoke dramatically reducing the exposure of those who choose not to. Education programs to discourage people from smoking at all have also had an impact.

What needs to happen is the problem needs to be identified and the people shown the facts for them to decide what they need to do or more to the point what they will support their government doing for the greater good.
Volkodav is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #83
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,933
Threads:
Motor vehicle accidents are another killer that comes to mind. Evidence shows that alcohol consumption impairs a persons ability to safely operate machinery yet it took years to change attitudes and while some people still do it most realise it is stupid and dangerous. A key result on regulation and enforcement has been a reduction in the overall road toll.

Here is something I understand very well, wearing seat belts in motor vehicles saves lives. If you are properly restrained in the event of an accident your injuries will be less severe than if you are unrestrained in the same accident. It could be argued that you need to prevent all accidents from occurring rather than having to wear seat belts but the fact is prevent all accidents is not on the cards anytime soon so mitigation is the name of the game. You do what you can when you can to reduce the risk.

Don’t get me started on the current government initiatives to reduce the road toll through targeting even low level “speeding” though or I will rapidly take on the persona that would make the most ardent NRA supporter blush. I do understand where you guys are coming from, you are being attacked because of the actions of an individual over which you had no control who did something you would never do. You are being ranted and raved at by many who are clueless and have no right to tell you what to do, they are not supported by data or analysis, they have an agenda and cherry pick facts to support their arguments while ignoring equally valid facts that support your stance.

This is where real unbiased analysis is required, this is where the nutters on both sides of the argument (be it gun control, climate change, road toll etc.) need to be side lined and reasonable people need to look at the data and what it tells us. By all means take obvious action to mitigate harm but what really needs to happen is the Pareto 80/20 rule needs to be applied, find the 20% that causes 80% of the problem and address that. It may well turn out to be limiting magazine capacities gets you 80% there, it may not. Same for annual psyche testing for permit holders or restriction on specific types of weapons, again I don’t know. The thing is I don’t think anyone really knows, which is why the research and analysis has to happen, identify the factors that have the greatest impact and address those.
Volkodav is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #84
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,933
Threads:
A bit of back ground. I am not an anti gun zealot and to be honest am not anti gun at all. I used to actively involved in competition shooting in the Army and then in civilian life and once the kids are older and I have the spare time and money (and also grow the balls to defy she who wears the pants) I will likely get back into it.

When I was actively involved in shooting as a sport, a mentally disturbed relative with an extensive criminal record would often call around the house. As a result I never stored ammunition at home and rarely ever had a gun at home preferring secure storage at the club. I never, not even once had a gun at home when I was not. Risk mitigation, I knew he would flip out one day and if he had access to a gun people would die. He has flipped out a number of times and has never, fortunately, had a gun at the time. It has actually saved him too as if he had been armed with a gun while going through an episode the police would have been justified in shooting him.

Back on to the issue at hand, you have to ask would / could this have happened if Lanzas mother been more responsible i.e like Blaec Lammers's mother Blaec Lammers's mothers foils Twilight film massacre at Bolivar cinema in Missouri | News.com.au

Maybe that is part of the solution, family friends, colleagues need to step up and say hey this person I care about is not well and he has guns. This could be the cultural change that is needed the acknowledgement that the 2nd amendment should not be used to protect the rights of an individual who is a danger to themselves and others.
Volkodav is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #85
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,644
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by old faithful View Post
The 2nd amendment does NOT need to be amended. you would maintain the right to bear arms, just not semi autos with huge mag capacity.
No amendment needed, just national laws.
Under the 2nd amendment, what is the definition of arms? thermonuclear bomb?
Agree entirely. Australia did not ban guns just ownership of certain type. Further to own a gun it must be secure to limit the risk that it may fall into the hands of those not permitted to use a gun.


The other bit is concealed carriage, fine for the law but why is it 'necessary' for the general public.
alexsa is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #86
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,162
Threads:
One thing about this topic is it has shown quite clearly the cultural differences between the Australian Nation and those American Nations represented here (probably predominately Appalachian). Where the Americans see the threat of crime as something an individual has to respond to armed in his household the Australians see the solution as a collective one based on wider societal organisation. The amazing thing is these cultural differences were established long ago via such things as the crisis organisation of the starving convict colony in Sydney and the individualist defences of the log cabins of Scots-Irish borderers pioneering across into Indian Appalachia. The dictum of first effective settlement means the rest of us inherit these cultural norms. Fascinating stuff.
Abraham Gubler is offline  
Old December 28th, 2012   #87
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,464
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin29 View Post
This has been interesting thread, to see how matters are viewed elsewhere.

There seems to be an almost hysteria over military style rifles with their powerful cartridge and large ammo carrying capacity. According to the FBI's most recent statistics on homicides in the US (2010) of the 12,000+ murders committed that year roughly 350 were committed with a rifle. They don't specify what type of rifle however we do know that a percentage will be bolt action rifles. More than twice that many people were killed with bare hands! Alternatively over 6,000 were killed with a handgun. I would presume (I am a presumptuous bastard) that a percentage of the 350 rifle deaths would have been committed with a shotgun or handgun if all rifles were banned or simply did not exist. Banning miltiary "style" rifles is going to have very little impact in the gun related homicides in this country. The assault weapon ban solution reminds me of a wooden device they sell at art festivals. You turn a crank and all sorts of things spin and whirl but that's about it, there is no output. It is usually called a bullsh*t machine. Seems to me a more significant change would occur by banning handguns altogether?
Indeed and that's been my point all along. I don't advocate a complete ban on firearms in the USA or anywhere else, even Australia. I've no problem at all with responsible gun ownership, being a former sporting shooter (IPSC matches) myself.

The problem is irresponsible gun ownership and use and the tools of the trade for the irresponsible are invariably handguns and large magazine semi-auto rifles and shotguns.

I've also previously opined that a whole raft of societal changes appear to be needed in the USA from legislative down to cultural acceptance changes. Reducing the "crazies" access to firearms however definitely has to be part of the solution though and not just the mass shooting types, but even suicidal types. They need help other than that, which found down the barrel of a weapon too...
ADMk2 is offline  
Old December 29th, 2012   #88
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,061
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
One thing about this topic is it has shown quite clearly the cultural differences between the Australian Nation and those American Nations represented here (probably predominately Appalachian). Where the Americans see the threat of crime as something an individual has to respond to armed in his household the Australians see the solution as a collective one based on wider societal organisation. The amazing thing is these cultural differences were established long ago via such things as the crisis organisation of the starving convict colony in Sydney and the individualist defences of the log cabins of Scots-Irish borderers pioneering across into Indian Appalachia. The dictum of first effective settlement means the rest of us inherit these cultural norms. Fascinating stuff.
Actually Appalachia is a relatively small, and under populated, area. It is statistically unlikely that more than 1 person on this board hails from there.

In the US major metropolitan areas strongly support gun control, the rural areas strongly oppose it, and the suburban areas split about 60-40 against. Part of the difference I suspect lies in the perception of what a gun is and is used for. When you say ‘gun’ city dwellers usually thing criminal with handgun in a stickup, while rural people think rifle and the 1st day of deer season.

As for the “the individualist defences of the log cabins of Scots-Irish borderers pioneering across into Indian Appalachia”, that is mostly Hollywood hype. I am not saying that it didn’t happen, but it wasn’t that important. Guns, specifically long guns, were 1st and foremost a way to put food on the table, and it many rural areas still are.
My2Cents is online now  
Old December 29th, 2012   #89
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,162
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
Actually Appalachia is a relatively small, and under populated, area. It is statistically unlikely that more than 1 person on this board hails from there.
“Appalachia” is a widely accepted name for a cultural nation of America that stretches from Pennsylvania to north Texas and southern Illinois. “Borderlander” is another widely accepted name for this nation. Cultural geography is a serious social science that has had in America huge funding boosts in recent years from political campaign professionals looking for some serious research. Some of the results are startling especially just how strong these nations are in aligning a whole range of social values.

“American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America” by Colin Woodard is the current go to book on this topic.
Abraham Gubler is offline  
Old December 29th, 2012   #90
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,032
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
“Appalachia” is a widely accepted name for a cultural nation of America that stretches from Pennsylvania to north Texas and southern Illinois. “Borderlander” is another widely accepted name for this nation. Cultural geography is a serious social science that has had in America huge funding boosts in recent years from political campaign professionals looking for some serious research. Some of the results are startling especially just how strong these nations are in aligning a whole range of social values.
Umm no Abe, it is not. Appalachia, at least as it is commonly thought of, refers to certain hilly/mountainous areas of the Eastern United States whose primary geologic features are the Appalachian Mountain Range, or one of the subsidiary ranges. More specifically, since the Apalachian Mountains run essentially parallel to the eastern seaboard from Georgia north to Maine, the region known as Appalachia is usually referring to the more remote central and southern regions of the Appalachian Mountains. It would usually be thought of as covering parts of northern Alabama and Georgia, northwestern South Carolina, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, eastern Kentucky, western Virginia, and much of West Virginia.

I have never heard of anything north of the Mason - Dixon Line being considered part of Appalachia, nor anything on the western side of the Mississippi. Some people might have chosen to name such areas as part of Appalachia, but those areas are certainly not what comes to mind when someone mentions Appalachia to most Americans. Having been to all those areas excepting Illinois, Texas is quite different, in terms of terrain, climate and personality, from what can be found along the Appalchians Mountains, and having backpacked over 1,100 miles along the Appalachian Trail which runs along the Appalachians, there is a distinct difference between what can be found north of Harpers Ferry, WV and points south of that.

EDIT: Slight correction, I have also not been in northern Alabama or eastern Tennessee.
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 AM.