Jump to content
Patticus

Gun Crime in the USA ~ Shootings and Killings

Recommended Posts

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, I've ran out of tea.

I've honestly became so sick of hearing about all these shootings across the pond, and what annoys me more is that people still defend gun ownership to the hills & back? I just don't see why anyone would want everyone around them to be packing. But, I suppose that's the difference over there, and here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I condone Adams actions I don't. What he did was awful one of worst things you could do as a human being. But until I hear or see some evidence that drove him to cause such acts of violence he ain't getting any sympathy from me and no one is taking an interest too busy blaming this and that for his actions rather trying to get into his state of mind. Not that Gun Control or Mental health aren't Issues they should be as I and others have discussed. I just hope we get at least some insight into what drove him to this.

 

I do however have sympathy for his family and I couldn't begin to imagine what hell they must be going through as well as the families of the teachers and Students that were killed.

 

Christ that was difficult to writesleep.png

Edited by BW199148

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is with all these mass shootings in a row? I can understand like 2-3 a year (granted they are still terrible tragedies), but, like so many in a row??!?!?! What the fuck is going on!?!?

 

I have a strong feeling that the press is partly the cause of these killings. The way they report them, incessantly showing pictures of the killer, naming him, describing his attire and weaponry and painting him like some kind of anti-hero. These people become household names. I saw a magazine in Walmart the other day, 'Life' I think - the entire issue was dedicated to the Newtown slayings. This kind of infamy has got to be a motivation for some people. The TotalBiscuit video posted earlier in the thread put the argument better than I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember when Bill Clinton asked for 60 million dollars to put armed gaurds in schools during his administration?

Did you know that Obama's daughters go to a school with ELEVEN armed gaurds?

No? How convenient.

 

Are you certain that that is part of some Democrat agenda, and not because of the fact that it's the friggin' President's kids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember when Bill Clinton asked for 60 million dollars to put armed gaurds in schools during his administration?

Did you know that Obama's daughters go to a school with ELEVEN armed gaurds?

No? How convenient.

 

I don't see what's so horrible about this, these just seem like provisions to keep the children safe :U

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you know that Obama's daughters go to a school with ELEVEN armed gaurds?

No? How convenient.

Interesting point. Obviously this has to do with liberal conspiracies and selective memory and not at all the fact that you're comparing two completely different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devil's Advocate: What makes it different? All of the kids at that school are going to be the safest in the world, and in theory that's for the exact same reasoning that the NRA is parading about.

 

 

Granted, there is a specific set of circumstances for it in this case that makes it impractical to carry over to all but the a very few similar situations, but he's (I think) making the comparison from a conceptual viewpoint.

Edited by Tornado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory. But then there's the fact that the president's daughters are far more likely to be targets than a school of all ordinary kids. Also, the president (or whoever hires the guards) will be cherry-picking for the best guards available, which means that they will be physically and mentally checked so that they don't go cuckoo on a dime. Normal schools don't have the budget or luxury for that, which means that bad apples are more likely to slip through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In theory. But then there's the fact that the president's daughters are far more likely to be targets than a school of all ordinary kids. Also, the president (or whoever hires the guards) will be cherry-picking for the best guards available, which means that they will be physically and mentally checked so that they don't go cuckoo on a dime. Normal schools don't have the budget or luxury for that, which means that bad apples are more likely to slip through. 

Exactly.

The President and his family are always protected because they need it- threats against them are taken incredibly seriously, even when they're empty. Hiring guards and arming them to the teeth for the incredibly rare occasion that some nutjob opens fire in some random school doesn't make as much sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By itself, it's a perfectly acceptable rebuttal. Especially the first part, which would be nice to see some sort of source for.

To answer your question: Yes, Clinton did call for armed guards after Columbine. Does that make him back then any less extreme than the NRA? No. 

 

It introduces children to the criminal justice system since it looks like they are in a prison environment and they are the inmates. No, this is a problem since there have been instances where kids have been put in prison for stealing paper and pencils when it would have been left up to the school. For example, get in a fight at school with an armed police guard around, you are more likely to get tazed than having teachers or whoever break up the fight and let the school handle it. It is excessive. Not to mention that shit can quickly escalate and then we have another Trayvon Martin scenario where kid gets shot for reasons that indicate self-defense. Introducing more guns to school just seems...counter intuitive.

 

EDIT: After looking into it, yeah...umm the NRA is crazy. It wouldn't be just armed policed guards, but armed volunteers. This is what differentiated from Clinton who did get armed guards after Columbine. What they are suggesting is for any old shmuck with a gun to guard the kids along with the additional security guards that are already there. Fuck that noise. That is a terrible idea.

Edited by turbojet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you know that Obama's daughters go to a school with ELEVEN armed gaurds?

You mean the Secret Service? You know: the group who's very job is to protect the president and his family in case some nutjob actually manages to kidnap them and hold them for ransom or some other political gain among other things?

 

Why no, I never knew that at all.

 

EDIT: Beating a dead horse, I know. But I just wanted my 2 shots.

Edited by ChaosSupremeSonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triforce (whom I have personally met at a con) bites back at the recent disaster. http://m.complex.com/video-games/2012/12/interview-isaiah-triforce-johnson-calls-shenanigans-on-the-nra

 

Just read that and the NRA are blaming Mortal Kombat does series even have any gun violence? What year is this 1993? huh.png

 

According to some people online are saying that the shooting was an inside job to enforce stricter gun controls and that the victims that lived are actors.

 

No words can express at how pissed off I am at hearing this stupid bullshit. dry.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly not a killing, but three police officers reportedly shot inside a New Jersey police station.

 

Three New Jersey police officers were reportedly wounded during a shooting inside the Gloucester Township Police station.

 

MyFoxPhilly.com reports that the suspected shooter has been shot and killed.

 

One male officer was shot twice, including once in the abdomen below his bulletproof vest, and underwent surgery Friday morning. The unidentified officer is reportedly in stable condition at Copper University Hospital.

 

Injuries to the other two officers, a male and a female, were "very minor,” sources said.

 

The early Friday morning shooting apparently occurred inside the police station, possibly near a stairwell in the rear of the building. Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect.

 

Authorities said the situation has been contained and there's no danger to the public.

 

A neighbor told the station she heard sirens just before 6 a.m. and saw authorities place a police officer into the back of an ambulance, which then proceeded to a nearby trauma center with a police escort.

 

Additional details were not immediately available.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/28/three-cops-reportedly-shot-inside-new-jersey-police-station/#ixzz2GMm6w1jh

 

Apologies for using Fox as a source. How long until the NRA issues a statement suggesting that the police need more guns? They're just dumb enough to do it.

 

I bet the media's going to completely sensationalize this event too, which will probably inadvertently lead to another shooting in a few days or weeks. A ratings-driven vicious circle. Sigh.

 

 

In other news, the N.R.A. is again proving itself to be part of the problem:

 

The N.R.A.’s Blockade on Science

In the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., and the resulting renewed debate on gun control in the United States, The Stone will publish a series of essays this week that examine the ethical, social and humanitarian implications of the use, possession and regulation of weapons. Other articles in the series can be found here.

~~~

Maybe this time will be different. Maybe the horror of first-graders gunned down in their school will shock us into action on serious gun control. I hope so, but I also know that our usual pattern is emotional catharsis that turns into inconclusive wrangling, until the next big issue distracts us, and gun control once more slips beneath the political horizon. The National Rifle Association wins again.

My view is that the destruction has been so great and the case against gun control so weak that we should move forward immediately with much tougher gun laws. It’s just common sense that we need a radical reduction in the number and kind of guns for sale. But if the past is a guide to the future, the likelihood is that, despite fervent pleas, nothing will happen. What then?

The N.R.A. hasn’t been winning only because it’s persistent to the point of fanaticism or because it has a powerful political organization. It also wins because it has a strong argumentative advantage in the political debate about gun control.

It has been able to neutralize empirical cases for control. In contrast to the debate over global warming, opponents of gun control aren’t easily cast as scientific know-nothings. On the contrary, they often plausibly present themselves as tough-minded empiricists offering facts to counter liberal emoting.

They can do this because — amazingly — there is no current scientific consensus about guns and violence. The most thorough and authoritative analysis is the 2004 report by a panel of leading experts, “Firearms and Violence,” sponsored by the National Research Council. Its startling conclusion was that we simply don’t know enough to make scientifically grounded judgments about which approaches — from gun-control measures to permission-to-carry laws — are likely to work. The panel’s primary recommendation was simply: “If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue.” Or, as an expert quoted in the Times article on the report said, “The main thrust of it is, we don’t know anything about anything, and more research is needed.”

In the years since the 2004 report, research on firearms has, despite the panel’s recommendation, significantly decreased. According to a 2011 Times article, researchers in the field report that “the amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result.”

It’s not that scientists are uninterested in gun research or don’t know how to study guns’ connection to violence. It’s rather that the N.R.A. has blocked most efforts at serious gun research, going so far as to restrict access to the highly informative data available from Justice Department traces of guns used in crimes. As The Times reported, “Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.”

As a result, things still stand pretty much as they were in 2004. There is no scientific consensus on the best approach to limiting gun violence, and the N.R.A. is blocking work that might well lead to such a consensus.

This gives the N.R.A. a strong advantage because America is a gun culture. Most Americans think of guns on analogy with alcoholic beverages: dangerous if misused, but nonetheless something to which most people should be have ready access. Guns, however, are much more similar to highly addictive drugs. Very few people should have them, and their purchase and use should be strongly regulated.

Because a solid majority of Americans accept the gun culture (and almost half say they have a gun at home), the N.R.A. has no need to defend its highly questionable assumption that guns of almost every sort should be widely available. This is why there is little chance — even at this moment of moral pain and outrage — of our passing legislation that will significantly stem gun violence. At best, we will get legislation that works at the margins by, say, making it harder for criminal and mental patients to get guns and to limit availability of some of the most destructive weapons. And the carnage will continue.

What we need is a major effort to convince the American public that most people simply should not have guns. To do this we need a continuing stream of solid research (comparable to the constant accumulation of evidence for anthropic global warming) on gun violence. If this research eventually shows that widespread gun ownership does not increase gun violence, so be it. But even the small amount of recent work (for example, that of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins) suggests this would be an unlikely outcome.

Following the horrific Newtown, Conn., murders, the American public may be willing to start moving away from the gun culture. But it will be a long process, and if we want an enduring transformation, this is the time to insist on an end to the N.R.A.’s cynical blockade of scientific research on guns and violence. The organization has announced that it plans “meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again” and holds a press conference on Friday to detail its ideas. Giving up resistance to gun research should at the top of its list.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/the-blockade-on-science-on-gun-violence/

A sad state of affairs, indeed. The N.R.A. needs to be cut down at the knees; its all-pervasive influence is toxic, corrupting and in dire need of washing away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You apologize for using Fox as a source (for something that isn't even relevant to this thread, frankly), but then you post that shit afterwards without a similar warning? Bias works both ways, you know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the record, there is a wealth of statistics surrounding gun violence, gun crime, gun murders, gun ownership... the whole nine yards. Readily accessible by everyone, in fact. It's not like the United States just doesn't bother keeping records unless they throw money at some college to do them for them, or that the NRA can restrict access to stuff like that when it is on the DoJ's website. That there are no dedicated studies for the topic just means that no one is particularly interested in wasting money to put some statistics together and write a journal on it (which is something that also goes both ways, by the way) when anyone can do the same thing, and regardless of how some douche from the New York Times wants to spin that to mean that there is some conspiracy to keep those statistics from being compiled, that doesn't make any of it credible in the slightest (Because, really, outside of borderline-rantings of a conspiracy, why should anyone care what that guy's opinion is in the first place? Because he writes for a newspaper?).

Take your anti-NRA blinders off, please; or at least put them on for things have some demonstrable basis of truth.

Edited by Tornado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NYT is a much more credible source of information than Fox, hence the warning on one article but not the other.

 

And yes, there might be a wealth of statistics surrounding gun violence, crime, ownership, murders et al, but how much of that is very recent or ongoing and relevant to the US? I don't believe that, of all the many thousands of scientists and researchers all around the globe, none are interested in performing studies of the gun crime phenomenon in the US, when it takes so many lives every year and seems so grimly inevitable and unstoppable.

 

I have anti-NRA views for a reason; look how much effort it's putting into weakening or destroying firearms legislation (much of it common sense) nationwide. Its solution to gun crime is "moar gunz hurr durr." Its leadership is fanatical to the point of being actually rabid, and is literally incapable of seeing any kind of gun law as a positive thing. Its holds entirely too much influence among politicians, too. Those things combined with the fact that science as a whole seems to be less trusted than Al Qaida by this country's populace (despite reaping the benefits of its many luscious fruits) kinda really makes an NRA fight against new studies of guns and their links to crime and whatnot look pretty likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NYT is a much more credible source of information than Fox, hence the warning on one article but not the other.

 

For regular news, no it's not. Not in this situation at the very least, since this was nothing more than reporting on something that happened during an arrest. Fox staff might not have even written that article, and probably just sourced most of it from whatever local news story originally covered it. And even if the NYT was inherently more credible, it certainly isn't when talking about what basically amounts to the newspaper equivalent to some asshole with a blog. You still haven't answered that part, either. Why is his opinion something anyone should care about? Why is his opinion any different from when someone goes on Fox News and spouts their bullshit? Why is that article linked in this topic as if it means anything?

 

Where is the proof that the NRA is suppressing scientific studies? All he said that there haven't been any in 8 years, and acted as if that by itself was proof that the NRA is stopping them. Where is the reasoning that Americans need to treat firearms similar to narcotics rather than treating them more similar to alcohol? All he said was that the current mindset is wrong, and we're supposed to take that at face value. Where is the evidence that the NRA is somehow able to do what the government itself has a hard time doing and keep groups from accessing readily available public records? Nevermind that you wouldn't even need to get anyone's permission to do such a study using said records in the first place.

 

 

 

Him backing up what he's saying by going "well, what else could it be if it's not what I'm saying" doesn't make it more credible. You highlighting the particularly sensationalized bits of the article doesn't make it more credible. You agreeing with his base feelings about gun control doesn't make it more credible. Which is the issue, because there is nothing credible about that second article. He wrote it up to get like minded individuals to keep agreeing with him, because if they agree with him than they won't worry about whether or not what he's saying is actually true (because it has to be, because they agree with it).

 

 

And yes, there might be a wealth of statistics surrounding gun violence, crime, ownership, murders et al, but how much of that is very recent or ongoing and relevant to the US?

 

Seriously? The FBI and Department of Justice track and report all of those crime statistics each year. The FBI has an entire webpage for 2011 alone. They even show trends for most of it. Gun ownership rates are more tricky to track down, but still not particularly difficult to find.

 

 

 

What exactly did you think happened? The US just doesn't keep track of crime rates or something?

 

 

I don't believe that, of all the many thousands of scientists all around the globe, none is interested in performing studies of the gun crime phenomenon in the US.

 

Even assuming that there is a large group of like-minded individuals who want to conduct a study on gun crime in the U.S., being interested in something doesn't mean the same thing as having the ability to study something. How do you do the study? How do you make sure the study isn't filled with the exact kind of biased crap that article pushes? Who's going to pay these scientists to gather all of this information? And it's likely no one is interested in funding a study because:

  1. No one, on either side of the debate, wants to risk the chance that the study would find results against their cause (and, to be frank, it would probably bite Mr. Newspaper Writer in the ass before it bit the NRA; but the risk is still there for both).
  2. Since the United States government does track these things each year anyway, there is little benefit to be had from the type of study the article mentions that you couldn't get just looking at the statistics yourself and applying some thought.

 

I have anti-NRA views for a reason; look how much effort it's putting into weakening or destroying firearms legislation (much of it common sense) nationwide. Its solution to gun crime is "moar gunz hurr durr." Its leadership is fanatical to the point of being actually rabid, and is literally incapable of seeing any kind of gun law as a positive thing. Its holds entirely too much influence among politicians, too. Those things combined with the fact that science as a whole seems to be less trusted than Al Qaida by this country's populace (despite reaping the benefits of its many luscious fruits) kinda really makes an NRA fight against new studies of guns and their links to crime and whatnot look pretty likely.

 

That sounds an awful lot like a perception problem on your end than something that is actually the case. You can be anti-NRA all you want, and there are certainly reasons to be even for people who are against gun control. You can even act as if there is some sort of anti-science mentality in this country, regardless of how ridiculous that is, if you want to reaffirm your opinion to yourself.

 

But don't pull up opinion pieces which amount to nothing more than the opposite of a Fox News conspiracy article and present that as credible proof for why others should be when said pieces don't even bother justifying themselves; and certainly don't do it in the same post where you complain about the media sensationalizing this sort of thing. Assholes like the guy who wrote that article are no better than Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, and they are no more concerned with the reality of the situation instead of pushing their own agenda than those two are.

Edited by Tornado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is his opinion something anyone should care about? Why is his opinion any different from when someone goes on Fox News and spouts their bullshit? Why is that article linked in this topic as if it means anything? Where is the proof that the NRA is suppressing scientific studies? All he said that there haven't been any in 8 years, and acted as if that by itself was proof that the NRA is stopping them.
Because it's an article on a subject not often touched upon, because the media's too busy plastering killers all over the damn place, painting them as anti-heroes and effectively providing incentives for other unstable people to make a break for glory and commit even nastier crimes.

The NRA has on several occasions successfully lobbied to "choke off" research grants, because they believe that less data means less knowledge, which in turn amounts to less policy-making.

 

Where is the reasoning that Americans need to treat firearms similar to narcotics rather than treating them more similar to alcohol? Where is the evidence that the NRA is somehow able to do what the government itself has a hard time doing and keep groups from accessing readily available public records?
Well, how do you think treating firearms like alcohol is going so far? They're freely available to everybody over a certain age, and can be purchased privately with no need for ID, background or mental health checks. I think the country would be a lot better off if they were more heavily regulated and controlled, and treated in the home more like certain medicines in hospitals - i.e. locked away.

The N.R.A. is a wealthy gun lobby group which is very good at the whole lobbying game, and both its wealthy members and backers, and it as an organization, have a lot of influence. As its interests are focused on a specific handful of related subjects, it's probably able to bring a lot of weight to bear when its leadership feels it is needed.

  

Him backing up what he's saying by going "well, what else could it be if it's not what I'm saying" doesn't make it more credible. You highlighting the particularly sensationalized bits of the article doesn't make it more credible. You agreeing with his base feelings about gun control doesn't make it more credible. Which is the issue, because there is nothing credible about that second article. He wrote it up to get like minded individuals to keep agreeing with him, because if they agree with him than they won't worry about whether or not what he's saying is actually true (because it has to be, because they agree with it).
It may not be backed up well, I do concede that I should have picked another article on the subject (if there are any more), but the gun lobby is dead set against further studies into gun crime, and has a record of lobbying to prevent them. That's not so incredible to me.

 

Seriously? The FBI and Department of Justice track and report all of those crime statistics each year. The FBI has an entire webpage for 2011 alone. They even show trends for most of it. Gun ownership rates are more tricky to track down, but still not particularly difficult to find.
Alright, so there are statistics and trends, thank you. I wasn't sure if there was publicly available data or not.

 

Even assuming that there is a large group of like-minded individuals who want to conduct a study on gun crime in the U.S., being interested in something doesn't mean the same thing as having the ability to study something. How do you do the study? How do you make sure the study isn't filled with the exact kind of biased crap that article pushes? Who's going to pay these scientists to gather all of this information? And it's likely no one is interested in funding a study because:
  • No one, on either side of the debate, wants to risk the chance that the study would find results against their cause (and, to be frank, it would probably bite Mr. Newspaper Writer in the ass before it bit the NRA; but the risk is still there for both).
  • Since the United States government does track these things each year anyway, there is little benefit to be had from the type of study the article mentions that you couldn't get just looking at the statistics yourself and applying some thought.
 

Oh, I'm sure that with each new mass killing/shooting there are more and more people who would like to dive into the subject. But they need the funding to do so, and you need to make sure it's independent and as unbiased as it can be, which means that its funding must be independent too, and it should be legally protected from corrupting influences like lobby groups who might pressure the government to cut off funding.

Yes, there is a risk that the studies' results might not favor me or whoever else wants them done, but I for one would still like to see them happen. And yes, the gov't does track these things, but they don't study them and related factors and publish their findings and conclusions in scientific journals or anything like that. There is work to be done here. Or at least, I think there is. And I think that it remains to be seen whether any kind of benefit can be gained from it or not.

 

Funny thing about common sense, but probably shouldn't get into that now. Regardless, though, that sounds an awful lot like a perception problem on your end than something that is actually the case. You can be anti-NRA all you want, and there are certainly reasons to be even for people who are against gun control. You can even act as if there is some sort of anti-science mentality in this country, regardless of how ridiculous that is, if you want to reaffirm your opinion to yourself.

 

But don't pull up opinion pieces which amount to nothing more than the opposite of a Fox News article and present that as credible proof for why others should be when said pieces don't even bother justifying themselves; and certainly don't do it in the same post where you complain about the media sensationalizing this sort of thing. Assholes like the guy who wrote that article are no better than Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, and they are no more concerned with the reality of the situation instead of pushing their own agenda than those two are.

Alright, I should've found a better article, but I don't see how I have a perception problem RE: much of the country's seemingly anti-science/pro-religious bent and the NRA's worsening toxicity. Well, maybe the anti-science one is a bit skewed, but given the hostility of the NRA towards any kind of firearms legislation, even probably discussion of the subject itself (echoing the policy of governmental and congressional silence on the issue of slavery during the antebellum era), and given their track record, I do not see that I have a perception problem there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two people were shot at in a Californian school today, though only one was hit and is now in hospital. The gunman was arrested by local police.
 
The drama started after 09:00 local time (17:00 GMT) when the gunman, also a student, arrived late, armed with a shotgun, at the school in the small town in California's central valley.

 

Students and staff telephoned police, but before officers could arrive, the suspect had shot at two people in a class in the science block. One shot missed its target.

 

The teacher, who had been grazed by a pellet, then intervened.

 

He and another school official who entered the classroom are reported by US media to have warned the suspect that there would be no shooting in his class - at which point the gunman put down his weapon and police officers arrested him.

 

"They talked him into putting that shotgun down. He in fact told the teacher, `I don't want to shoot you,' and named the person that he wanted to shoot," Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said.

 

 
Tell me again, Mr. LaPierre, how the only person able to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. rolleyes.gif
 
Oh well, at least this one didn't turn into another Newtown, VA Tech, Columbine or [insert shooting spree here]. Let's all sit back and watch as the media once again behaves completely inappropriately and sets the stage for another shooting in a few weeks' time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.