Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Xoon

United States Gun Control Megathread

Recommended Posts

Just now, Belesarius said:

Everything that I've seen so far is that he bought the rifle legally. He was expelled from School for fighting, but no criminal charges against him AFAIK.

 

 

Which highlights a major issue in our system here in the US: Lots of prohibited possessors slip through the cracks. Although juvenility may have wiped this guy's record clean anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yep, a vehicle terror attack will be a one trick pony.

(You run into people once, and chances are your vehicle end up wrecked by crashing into something).

 

With a gun attack the perps can keep shooting as long as he doesn't get caught and be much more accurate in who he will target

 

A truck attack will only work against a dense crowd, and the number of victims will be strongly correlated to the density of the crowd.

 

My point is that, on average, the killer have a much higher chance to screw up with a vehicle than with a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Yep, a vehicle terror attack will be a one trick pony.

(You run into people once, and chances are your vehicle end up wrecked by crashing into something).

 

With a gun attack the perps can keep shooting as long as he doesn't get caught and be much more accurate in who he will target (a truck attack will only work against a dense crowd)

 

Best planned shooting in US history: 58 dead, 851 injured

 

Best planned truck attack: 86 dead, 458 injured

 

Sounds like a tie to me.

 

The thing is that the key ingredient in either case is a soft target and a dense crowd. The severity of these attacks is directly related more to what target was chosen than the weapons that were used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Best planned shooting in US history: 58 dead, 851 injured

 

Best planned truck attack: 86 dead, 458 injured

 

Sounds like a tie to me.

 

The thing is that the key ingredient in either case is a soft target and a dense crowd. The severity of these attacks is directly related more to what target was chosen than the weapons that were used.

 

So we would need to normalize it by the crowd density and maybe other parameters (like the number of exits, the lethality of the weapons, etc) ?

Or simply say that the "tool" should be chosen depending on the target (outdoor/indoor seem to be the most important parameter at first glance).

But that would be tricky and is not the really the point of the discussion anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

So we would need to normalize it by the crowd density and maybe other parameters (like the number of exits, the lethality of the weapons, etc) ?

Or simply say that the "tool" should be chosen depending on the target (outdoor/indoor seem to be the most important parameter at first glance).

But that would be tricky and is not the really the point of the discussion anyway

 

A truck moving at 40mph is pretty fucking lethal, dude.

 

Again, you need to bone up on your US gun laws (and history of terror attacks and massacres, maybe) before this discussion can really go anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

A truck moving at 40mph is pretty fucking lethal, dude.

 

Again, you need to bone up on your US gun laws (and history of terror attacks and massacres, maybe) before this discussion can really go anywhere.

 

Probably^^

 

Regardless of my ignorance and the possible methods to make sure that guns don't falls in the wrong hand, I would still like your views on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

For me using it as an argument to defend gun ownership seem fallacious.

Granted it is only one interpretation of the law (mine, which may very well be poor), but given the historical context I feel like the purpose of that text have been bent.

 

In then end it's only an oustide view from Europe and the general opinion (for European citizens I mean) is "Why the hell haven't they banned gun already?" After every mass shooting in the US everybody is wondering why nothing has been done already.

I'm not an American citizen (even if, since I was born there, I could be if I ever bothered doing some paperwork) and I have no right to ask for your law to change, can still give an outside "opinion" I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of the 2A is made extremely clear in the supporting documentation to the Constitution (the Federalist Papers, etc).

 

Here's what Madison says in the famous Federalist No. 46:

 

"... Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

 

Pretty goddamn explicit, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're looking at the wrong end of the sewer pipe if we're talking guns, trucks, knives, or bombs and the tools of the trade of "professional school shooters", terrorists, and general all-around crazies. It's the guy doing the shooting that's the problem and the individual in Florida seems to be pulled right from central casting.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27228/here-are-six-warning-signs-missed-about-florida-hs-james-barrett

 

And pardon the listacle but I'm using it as a thumbnail reference.

 

He struggled with mental illness. Engaged in violent behavior at school. "Everyone" knew he was nucking futz. Stalked girls/abused girlfriends. Was a keyboard commando on the Internet. Screwed up home life. Other news reports allege that he was cruel to animals. This guy is your classic paint-by-numbers school shooter

 

And the trouble is any one or two or three of these symptoms is - while problematic - isn't in and of itself a pathway to school shooting. There are hundreds of thousands of kids who -for example - are dicks to their girlfriends and don't turn into school shooters. Do we preemptively take away their rights and treat them as future criminals?

 

His defense attorneys state that he "suffers from autism and struggled with depression". Is that the threshold to take away his ability to own guns? I don't know, maybe? How do you then adjudicate that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

The purpose of the 2A is made extremely clear in the supporting documentation to the Constitution (the Federalist Papers, etc).

 

snip

Thank you.

 

I see the logic, but I'm not sure that the underlying hypothesis are still valid nowadays.

A militia stand no chance against a modern regular army, it will just increase the casualties (most being on the insurgent's side)

 

If we take Afghanistan as an example, while it is virtually impossible to completely subdue all insurgents, the various army that set foot there could have very well assumed direct control of all institutions and over the population relegating the insurgency to a mere nuisance (which can become costly over time I agree).

 

Act of terror (and I say it as a mode of action, without moral values attached) by the French resistant in WW2 didn't freed France, the allies did.

Any act of sabotage (bridges, railway, deliberate poor fabrication standard) would have been meaningless without the D-day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Probably^^

 

Regardless of my ignorance and the possible methods to make sure that guns don't falls in the wrong hand, I would still like your views on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

For me using it as an argument to defend gun ownership seem fallacious.

Granted it is only one interpretation of the law (mine, which may very well be poor), but given the historical context I feel like the purpose of that text have been bent.

 

In then end it's only an oustide view from Europe and the general opinion (for European citizens I mean) is "Why the hell haven't they banned gun already?" After every mass shooting in the US everybody is wondering why nothing has been done already.

I'm not an American citizen (even if, since I was born there, I could be if I ever bothered doing some paperwork) and I have no right to ask for your law to change, can still give an outside "opinion" I would say.

The US Supreme Court ruled it's an human right and was put on place so we have right to self defense 

 

26 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Probably^^

 

Regardless of my ignorance and the possible methods to make sure that guns don't falls in the wrong hand, I would still like your views on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

For me using it as an argument to defend gun ownership seem fallacious.

Granted it is only one interpretation of the law (mine, which may very well be poor), but given the historical context I feel like the purpose of that text have been bent.

 

In then end it's only an oustide view from Europe and the general opinion (for European citizens I mean) is "Why the hell haven't they banned gun already?" After every mass shooting in the US everybody is wondering why nothing has been done already.

I'm not an American citizen (even if, since I was born there, I could be if I ever bothered doing some paperwork) and I have no right to ask for your law to change, can still give an outside "opinion" I would say.

We havnt banned guns because we are not subjects if our government and have a right to defend ourselves from each other and the government if it goes to far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The US Supreme Court ruled it's an human right and was put on place so we have right to self defense 

 

We havnt banned guns because we are not subjects if our government and have a right to defend ourselves from each other and the government if it goes to far.

 

I and respect the decision taken.

I'm rather a legalist myself so I won't argue on that point.

 

But in the end what a law can do a law can undo.

It's based on a system of values that have no inherent worth and are protected only because the society using those value largely agree with it.

 

Values can change, so can any legal text.

Would you say that there is a large consensus on the subject atm?

If not, then a public debate on the subject is rather healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so there are really a few issues we need to tackle here. I'll try to make this brief, so please look into these subjects yourself for additional info. I am trying to keep it to 1-2 paragraphs per issue.

 

1. Gun Law in the USA

 

The United States is a totally unique country in that it has a right to bear arms which is uninfringeable, that is to say, guaranteed as part of the compact that allows the country to exist, and which cannot be removed or eroded without Constitutional Amendment. Two other countries, Guatemala and Mexico, also have constitutional rights to bear arms, but these are each much less broad and absolute than the Second Amendment in the US. Many students of Constitutional scholarship have argued that the Second Amendment in fact guarantees a right to keep and bear arms with no restrictions whatsoever, although this has never been supported in formal courts. However, in the United States there is some judicial recognition that the "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment do indeed mean for personal defense/martial purposes, and not just for hunting or sporting use. In this way, the United States is totally unique among the nations of the world.

 

We must also take a quick moment to understand the organization of the US itself. The United States is a federalized republic, in effect 50 independent countries with their own governments, unified by a single Federal Government. While each state (and even county, city, etc) may have their own gun laws, we will only discuss gun laws at the Federal level. This will give you a general sense of gun laws in the US, as most places have few restrictions beyond Federal law. Also, the "Constitution" refers to a specific document in US law (rather than the whole body of US law), the US Constitution of 1787, which has been amended 27 times from 1791 to 1992. The first ten amendments (passed in 1791) are referred to as the "Bill of Rights", and collectively are thee model upon which virtually every other country's system of rights is based. The US Constitution is the oldest active constitution in the world.

 

The Second Amendment in the US is regulated and restricted by three major Federal laws: The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the Gun Control Act  (GCA) of 1968, and the Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986. The National Firearms Act introduced the first substantial restrictions, which were applied to fully automatic weapons (called "machine guns" in US law, regardless of whether they meet the military criteria), short barreled weapons (rifles and shotguns), silencers/suppressors,  and "destructive devices" (bombs, grenades, cannons, etc). The NFA established the NFA registry, whereby these weapons and items must be registered and a $200 tax paid for a citizen to manufacture, transfer, or own them. The Gun Control Act established the concept of "prohibited persons" (e.g., felons, those who have been adjudicated insane), as well as the current system of firearms transfer. The GCA's provisions created what is called the "Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) network", which is a system of licensees who are capable of transferring firearms to any private individual, regardless of whether that individual also possesses an FFL. Therefore, the way this works is that firearms purchased by private individuals must first go through an FFL, who will run a background check and have the purchaser fill out a Federal form (called a "Form 4473"), and, if this is approved by the FBI, the purchaser can take their gun and go home. Therefore, in the US, licenses are not granted for firearms ownership, but are granted to dealers authorizing them to transfer firearms in large scale to purchasers. A typical example of an FFL would be a gun store, but FFLs can exist without a storefront. For example, the FFL I use to buy firearms is just a guy who does some gunsmithing on the side. There are different kinds of FFLs which determine which kinds of weapons the license holder can deal in. In most states, it is perfectly legal for one individual to transfer a firearm to another individual without going through an FFL, this is called a "private transfer", and is encoded in law via the 1968 GCA. However, this cannot be a business or significant source of revenue for the seller, or else they need an FFL.


Finally, the 1986 FOPA improved some of the provisions created in the 1968 GCA (for example, according to the GCA, if you were traveling with a weapon that was legal in your own state, but illegal in the state you went to or were passing through, you could be arrested in that state and tried - the FOPA repealed this), but also included a provision (snuck in at the last minute) called the Hughes' Amendment, which closed the NFA registry for machine guns. This means that no new machine guns can be registered as "fully transferable" weapons, and this has dramatically driven up the price of legal automatic weapons since 1986.

 

TBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

 

I and respect the decision taken.

I'm rather a legalist myself so I won't argue on that point.

 

But in the end what a law can do a law can undo.

It's based on a system of values that have no inherent worth and are protected only because the society using those value largely agree with it.

 

Values can change, so can any legal text.

Would you say that there is a large consensus on the subject atm?

If not, then a public debate on the subject is rather healthy.

It's A Fact Guns Prevent More Crime Then They Cause And Trying To Change The Law And Actually Take guns Away From Law Abiding Owners Would Cause A Revolt. I'm on my phone and its doing weird shit with capitalization,  but you are also wrong an insurgency couldn't fight the US government. There would probably whole states that would side with the citizens.

 

You are the victim of lefty propaganda if you think a problem that's causes far less death than cars and medical malpractice does is a big enough problem to stop people who have never broken the law with a gun from owning them. 

 

If you don't have the right to self defense you are not living in a free country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

 

 

Values can change, so can any legal text.

 

This might be one of the most retarded things uttered in this den of autism we call a forum.

 

And people have said some stuuuuupid shit here. Go look up a thread about hunting pigs, or education, or Wade through the small arms threads. 

 

This really takes the cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

This might be one of the most retarded things uttered in this den of autism we call a forum.

 

And people have said some stuuuuupid shit here. Go look up a thread about hunting pigs, or education, or Wade through the small arms threads. 

 

This really takes the cake.

 

xD good luck actually proving that moral values are objectives and not subjective (and so tied to an individual or a group)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. The Nature of Terror Attacks and Mass Shootings

 

It is rightfully concerning that so many attacks have occurred in recent years, often in quick succession and with significant death tolls. To understand why they happen, we need to identify two nested categories. One, is what I will call "Domestic Attacks" (DAs), which encompasses any deliberate action taken with any tools or weapons, which intentionally causes mass death in one or multiple simultaneous or sequential events. For this category, the Nice truck attack would qualify, as would the Florida shooting, as would 9/11. However, serial killings would not qualify, nor would domestic homicides, nor would all of Al Qaeda's planned attacks count as one event, even though they were planned by the same group. Nested within this is a category I call "Rampage Shootings". This refers specifically to a deliberate, mostly indiscriminate (i.e., not targeted, like an assassination) attack which specifically uses a firearm to cause casualties, although other tools or weapons may also be used. However, the firearm or firearms must be the primary instrument of death. This would include the Florida shooting, the Pulse nightclub shooting, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, but not the 2008 Mumbai bombings, as those were a broader planned attack using explosives as well as firearms.

 

One thing we must remember is that the broad spectrum of DAs occur all over the world, which indicates that simply restricting guns will not necessarily reduce death. The argument "a gun will kill much better than a knife" fails to account for the intense creativity and determination of these attackers, who pick their targets very carefully to maximize damage with the tools they have at hand. Bombs (which are illegal, but which can be constructed easily by any reasonably intelligent teen with readily available materials), vehicles, fuel, fire, etc. are all widely available methods for conducting attacks like these. Morbid an exercise as it is, "wargaming" DAs considerably clarifies and highlights the tools which can be used by attackers to cause mass death. Restricting material availability through bans may be effective at reducing the incidence rate of one such attack, but it cannot prevent all types of DAs, as there are simply too many ways to cause death on a mass scale, if the target is chosen properly.

 

RSes, however, are a slightly different animal. From what I've studied, it seems evident that each domestic RS in the United States is essentially a copycat crime, specifically copying the 1999 Columbine shooting, or a shooting that itself was a copy of that shooting. However, the Columbine shooting is widely misunderstood. It was not intended to be a classic "school shooting" as we are familiar with today, but rather a coordinated attack much closer to the Oklahoma City bombings or the later 2008 Mumbai bombings. Harris and Klebold were not simply frustrated teens taking out their rage, but seriously disturbed individuals plagued by megalomania, god complices, and other problems, who intended to cause massive cultural change with their actions. Their plan called for not only shooting, but the detonation of explosive devices (which failed), and car bombs which would kill rescue workers. They aimed for a death toll close to 1000, and hoped their actions would shock the country into a cultural shift. In this way, Columbine itself, though it provided the mold, was actually much closer to a classic terror attack in motive and (attempted) execution.

 

It is conspicuous, then, that almost every subsequent RS killer has not copied Harris and Klebold's actual mission, but only the fictitious version of their story which was created by and told through the media. Rampage shooters fantasize endlessly about their attacks, but rarely plan them well, and go in with little more than rage and a gun to assist them in conducting their murder. And most times, they see themselves as kindred spirits to the Harris and Klebolds of NBC, ABC, and CBS - people who never actually existed. (A major exception to this was the Vegas shooter, who planned his attack extremely well, was older, and had motives we are still trying to untangle). 

 

So what does this tell us? Well, two things:

 

1. You cannot stop every attack. We hear things like "we must prevent this from ever happening again". Nope, sorry. It will happen again. Maybe not exactly the same way, but for the same reasons, or different ones. It would be impossible to stop all future DAs from happening, even with a system that was brutally oppressive and tyrannical. We know this because DAs happen all the time even in brutal, tyrannical regimes. 

 

2. Rampage shootings are "memes". These are ideas planted inside the heads of their perpetrators long before they ever decide to conduct such attacks. Columbine occurred in 1999, the year Nikolas Cruz was born. He probably grew up hearing about school shootings, and that that's what disturbed, troubled kids do. And he's enough of a psychopath to actually do it. Preventing these ideas from soaking into the culture of society even more will be difficult, especially since the phenomenon does not seem to be slowing down.


TBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to point out that there is a roadmap for removing the Second Amendment that is built-in to the Constitution. That is to pass a Constitutional Amendment which repeals the Second Amendment.

Now, we usually hear from gun control advocates about how this is way too hard, and can't possibly be done, so it's not a viable path... But does that really make sense? After all, multiple amendments regarding things such as Congressional salary, voting rights, Presidential succession, eligibility to be voted President, Electoral College elector distribution, and even alcohol (twice!) have all been passed within living memory. So it really is not any harder than it needs to be, it's just that there's really no support for repealing the Second Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

It's A Fact Guns Prevent More Crime Then They Cause And Trying To Change The Law And Actually Take guns Away From Law Abiding Owners Would Cause A Revolt. I'm on my phone and its doing weird shit with capitalization,  but you are also wrong an insurgency couldn't fight the US government. There would probably whole states that would side with the citizens.

 

If you don't have the right to self defense you are not living in a free country.

 

Well it's not about crime it's about casualties, and I know that most death by firearm are suicides (60%)

And while you have the right to self defense (so do I) most gun owners fail to defend themselves and more often than not get their own weapon turned against them.

If guns may prevent some crimes they also tend to make them more violent.

 

Also even without taking away weapons (which is virtually impossible due to cultural reasons, I get it) states that places restrictions or impose safety measures on them have a lower casualty rate compared to their population and the amount of guns in circulation.

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/11/07/les-statistiques-le-confirment-aux-etats-unis-plus-d-armes-a-feu-en-circulation-entraine-plus-de-morts_5211448_4355770.html

 

I'm not saying that guns should be completely banned, but that more restrictions and a more thorough control on who can buy them should be put in place.

 

51 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

You are the victim of lefty propaganda if you think a problem that's causes far less death than cars and medical malpractice does is a big enough problem to stop people who have never broken the law with a gun from owning them.

 

Here I perfectly agree that a minor cause of death, no matter how horrifying it shouldn't be the number one priority.

However since placing restrictions on gun ownership actually reduce casualty why not do it? It doesn't infringe on the right to posses one, simply reduce the risk associated.

If the fix is cheap and (rather) simple you have no reason not to do it.

Just because there are other more important priority doesn't mean that you shouldn't do the easy fix (within the US legal frame that you know better than I do) on lower priorities.

 

The real question is where do you draw the line on restrictions (too much/not enough ?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

And while you have the right to self defense (so do I) most gun owners fail to defend themselves and more often than not get their own weapon turned against them.

 

This is flat-out false. Where do you get this fucking stuff, dude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

If guns may prevent some crimes they also tend to make them more violent.


Even left-wing estimates show that guns are used to stop crimes at about 10-20x the rate they are used to murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Also even without taking away weapons (which is virtually impossible due to cultural reasons, I get it) states that places restrictions or impose safety measures on them have a lower casualty rate compared to their population and the amount of guns in circulation.

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/11/07/les-statistiques-le-confirment-aux-etats-unis-plus-d-armes-a-feu-en-circulation-entraine-plus-de-morts_5211448_4355770.html

 

I'm not saying that guns should be completely banned, but that more restrictions and a more thorough control on who can buy them should be put in place.

 

Question: Whenever something bad happens, do a bunch of Americans show up on your forums and tell you every way that they think you should do things differently, even though they've never been to your country?

 

If yes, then I'm sorry, and also please stop doing it to us.

If no, then why are you doing it here?

Coming at it from another angle: We could castrate every boy at puberty, and I am 100% certain that violent crime would plummet. We don't do this. Why? I want you to think about potential answers to this question, and how they might be similar to the reasons Americans don't want to give up their guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Also even without taking away weapons (which is virtually impossible due to cultural reasons, I get it) states that places restrictions or impose safety measures on them have a lower casualty rate compared to their population and the amount of guns in circulation.

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/11/07/les-statistiques-le-confirment-aux-etats-unis-plus-d-armes-a-feu-en-circulation-entraine-plus-de-morts_5211448_4355770.html

 

I'm not saying that guns should be completely banned, but that more restrictions and a more thorough control on who can buy them should be put in place.

 

So here's the study they cite. What have we here?

j202MdM.png

 

3sa3nky.png

 

NEXT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

However since placing restrictions on gun ownership actually reduce casualty why not do it? It doesn't infringe on the right to posses one, simply reduce the risk associated.

 

Are... Are you OK?

Also I will be addressing why not to do it in my third installment, but I'm not sure when I'll get around to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×