Resilient actions

Amendoon Journal

Written by 10:15 pm Resilient Defense

Building Common Ground about Guns with Facts and Inclusion

PROLOGUE:  America is divided on what the Second Amendment means.  Is it an archaic provision mainly about muskets and colonial militias? Or does it preserve for all Americans an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms?  Opinion is greatly varied and is represented about a chasm between the two major American political parties and among Americans in all settings.

The arguments are normally emotionally drawn.  The empirical information for various perspectives is elusive.  Key terms such as “gun deaths” are used which may obscure understanding and paths to solutions because they aggregate deaths that are distinct in cause.  This may have political benefit, but does not edify. 

There is great value in understanding where proponents are coming from when they make their arguments.  It is most beneficial to understand their background and their acquaintance with firearms.

The US has a federal system.  Most of the legislation about firearms is in the states and they have taken distinct paths.  They have become laboratories of democracy.  We can learn much by looking at the measures they have adopted and the result.  We did this and used bivariate regression correlation on an Excel spreadsheet to compare.  Interestingly, we found there was little correlation between strong gun laws and low gun homicide rates.

On the other hand, we found a close correlation between strong gun laws and gun suicides.  These two facts suggest beneficial paths to solutions.  Opportunities are a focus on the community, including intervention in dangerous circumstances (e.g., red flag laws and intervention entities) and also an emphasis on community-based training programs.  In empirical research we cite, “gun control” historically has not materially reduced firearm homicides.

We are critically challenged by mass shootings involving 4 or more dead.  This should be an area of emphasis because its repeated shock deeply divides America.  We surveyed factors and found that stronger laws are not necessarily effective.  Instead, we must build our civic structure and increase meliorative local efforts to establish training and safety programs. 

We should improve the community’s common-ground and achieve broad based participation.  We cannot obsess on firearms nor stigmatize, dismissing them from civic culture and expect any long-term solution.

A DIVIDED AMERICA

Increasingly America is divided on many issues, not the least being firearm ownership and the civil right of self-defense. Some Americans see this civil right as essential, a benefit of our revolutionary heritage, while others disparage it as dangerous.

After the Highland Park massacre on July 4, 2022, many standard measures such as background checks, red flag laws, and firearm identification cards requiring parental endorsement failed to protect the victims.   We must search for measures that will.

How we view the right of self-defense and the related firearms issue has much to do with where we live. Those in rural settings are generally more supportive of firearms. For example, a 2021 Pew Research Center poll documented a nearly 30% difference between urban and rural residents on whether stronger gun laws should exist.

Sixty-six (66) percent of urban residents supported stronger laws, while 38% of rural residents did. According to HUD, in 2017, 52% of Americans reported they lived in suburban areas, 27% urban, and 21% rural.  Though rural residents are less supportive of stronger gun laws, America has fewer rural residents.  Most of the population is suburban and they contribute the most legislators effectively setting the priority for firearms legislation.

The differences in personal experiences between suburban, urban and rural may be explained by prose in addition to numbers. In this regard, I believe our experiences guide our paths. They are material in forming our perspective and in presenting information we should always disclose them.

My viewpoint is rural, and predictably, I view firearms as usual and helpful implements if handled safely.

Use of Firearms on Family Farm

I grew up on a farm in Tulare County, California. My father was a farmer, horse trader, and local official. Around 1960 he awakened me one morning and told me to fall out. Then, like a drill instructor, he explained how the Winchester pump-action .22 rimfire operated. Next, he showed me how to fire-prone, standing and on my knee. After that, I practiced dry fire for some time without bullets before firing at targets.

Living on a farm, we had to address the depredation from ground squirrels, so Dad charged me with hunting them.

They burrowed, and then irrigation water ran into the burrows housing their colonies. As a result, they washed out portions of pasture, cotton, and even prune orchard and were an economic challenge. I didn’t solve his problem but made a dent in it, reducing the number of burrows.

My father had a Winchester Model 94 lever-action rifle. Drought was an adversary on the farm in the 1960s as it continues to be today. One season it became so severe that the bears came out of the mountains, down the Tule River, and into our cotton fields. A bear startled the horses, killing one when it ran into the barbed wire, cutting its throat. At night, Dad loaded the Winchester and headed to the east pasture. Because time had passed, it was too late to confront the bear. The horse was dead, and the bear was not in sight having moved on. Nevertheless, it was reassuring for my father to have the means to address any confrontation which may have occurred while protecting his stock.

Around the same time frame, my father, an official in Tulare County, was away at a meeting. There was a knock late in the evening on our house’s front door.  We were isolated away from neighbors in a cotton field. Two guys were outside the screen door. They asked my mother to buy a magazine subscription, and even as a boy, I could see they were intimidating her as they appeared to press closer.

We had no dog in the house, but strongly I felt a need to protect her and myself, so I retrieved a Mauser pistol from my father’s bedroom drawer a few steps away. It was never pointed or brandished but was clearly in my pocket. I felt reinforced; In my perception, the situation de-escalated. She slipped a check under the screen door, and they left.

The magazine she ordered never arrived, but she called the publisher, and they made good on it. I believe having the correct tool available that evening and using it appropriately helped matters greatly.

My father allowed me to take three horses to the mountains a few years later. A friend and I rode into Mountaineer and Alpine Creeks in what is now the Little Kern Wilderness of the Central Sierras. When we visited in the 1960s it was an alpine paradise with meadows, cold streams, and abundant trout fishing.  The area was also very isolated, many miles from the end of the road.  We staked two horses and belled one in the Parole Cabin Meadow, prepared dinner, and turned in for the evening. Later I heard a loud, terrible scream.

It was a loud, primitive, wild, human-like sound, which has to do with mountain lion mating activity I have subsequently read.

The belled horse appeared spooked and was moving up the mountain on the opposite side of the meadow. It was very dark. I had brought a pistol and appreciated the ability to strap it on when searching for the horse while the screaming continued.

I found the horse several hundred yards from camp in the pitch dark. It was a distance up the mountain. I quieted him, led him down the hill and staked him in the meadow.

The pistol was a friend that night.  It reduced my sense of isolation and gave me a fighting chance should an engagement occur.

Firearms: Part of The Fabric of Life

For many years firearms were part of my family’s fabric of life. They were part of the rural lifestyle and were available in due course. This was not “gun culture” just a traditional way of life.

Safety and firearm proficiency were essential. It was customary for each youth in the area to attend a hunter safety course, which emphasized safe firearm handling. Later, when I served in the Air Force, my acquaintance with firearms prepared me for training before deploying to South Vietnam as a language instructor to the South Vietnamese Air Force and a member of the MACV defense force. I fired well on the M16 and carried it nearly every day of duty in Vietnam.

Though I was raised with specific skills and perspectives, I also understand we are a big country, and others have vastly different experiences. Furthermore, because we live in communities, neighbors typically have shared experiences which may result in similar perspectives. In the country’s original design, we addressed this with Federalism intended to accommodate the differences in states and communities.

The Diminution of Federalism

Federalism divides the power between the central government in Washington DC and the 50 states. Essentially, our Constitution reserves certain powers to the central government, and the states exercise others.

In my college political science courses, I learned Federalism was a layered cake. As time has passed with increasing federal involvement in localities, it has become a mottled cake with less linear separation and more marbling between state and federal. I am concerned increased federal national power has intruded into local daily activities within the communities and has made coordinated, harmonious governance much more difficult.

We have fifty states that have different sets of laws. They can differ in ways, large and small. The advantage to these other legal structures is that depending on community needs; we can formulate different regulatory schemes and then compare them among the states.

Laboratories of Democracy

Justice Louis Brandeis introduced the phrase “laboratories of democracy” in the 1932 Supreme Court case New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann. This concept emphasizes the ability of states to innovate to address and solve particular changes.  Though the boundary of the federal/state relationship may have changed since 1932, states may still apply particular policy formulations and if they are successful, the result may be accepted and applied in other states.

In this essay, we look at information from the various states to assess conditions against performance in lowering firearm homicides and suicides. We do not address “gun deaths” because we believe the term mixes distinct phenomena, the causes of homicide and suicide.

By looking at relationships between different factors among the states, we can focus on lessons from a contemporary laboratory of democracy.

The California Experience Case Study

Before looking at relationships among the states, let first assess a notable case study. Looking to laboratories of democracy, it is helpful to review the regulatory status of the largest U.S. state, California.  The state has undertaken an aggressive program to enact laws and rules concerning firearms.

According to the website calmatters.org in the updated May 11, 2022 article “How California got tough on guns,” researchers at Boston University “have counted 111 California laws that in some way restrict ‘the manner and space in which firearms can be used'”. According to the same source, in 1993, there were 57 different gun laws, so the legal framework has grown considerably. In contrast, the average number of laws in other states is about 18.

So much of the issue can serve a political purpose. According to the Sacramento Bee, on May 25, 2022 California Governor Gavin Newsom, in responding to a question, said,

“. . . from 1993 to 2017, these are exact numbers, California’s gun murder rate dropped 55%, the gun death rate dropped 62% outperforming the rest of the nation because of our gun safety laws. We don’t think they work; we know they work.”

Potentially more clarification is helpful to understand the rest of the story.  Much of California’s gun murders decrease was between 1991 and 1999 when Daniel Lungren was California’s, Attorney General. He was known for “Three Strikes You’re Out” and other criminal enforcement measures.

The implementation of California’s 1989 Assault Weapon Ban occurred between 1991 to 1999, but Attorney General Lungren was criticized for being weak in its implementation. The Los Angeles Times documents in a 1998 gubernatorial campaign debate, Gray Davis accused Lungren of failing to adequately enforce the state’s law banning assault-style weapons. “A judge said you put 16,000 more weapons on the street,” Davis charged, referring to a court ruling that found that Lungren violated state law by registering thousands of assault weapons after a legislatively imposed 1992 deadline. “

This period of profound gun homicide reduction referenced by Governor Newsom was a time of three strikes and removing criminals from the street. Regarding the Assault Weapons Ban, Attorney General Dan Lungren was criticized by future governor Gray Davis about AG Lungren not being diligent in implementing gun control.

In this context, how can Governor Newsom credibly say he knows it works?  Nevertheless, though it may have not been the assault weapons ban, something was the basis for the reduction of gun homicides in the state.

How do we evaluate the impact of criminal and gun legislation respectively? An article by Steven D. Levitt in the Winter 2004 Journal of Economic Perspectives offers insights into the reasons for the decline in crime during the 1990s nationwide. The conclusion involves four significant factors to explain the decline. One is the rising prison population that resulted from measures like the California “three strikes” law. Others include increased police officers, the receding crack epidemic, and the legalization of abortion. Finally, the article defines several factors they concluded did not contribute to the significant reduction, including gun control laws and expanding the opportunity to conceal carry firearms.

Interestingly, in this current period of increasing gun homicides, nearly each of the measures outlined by Mr. Levitt as reducing gun murders is being reconsidered. Instead of more police, the new rally cry is to defund the police, regulation of abortions has been sent to the states by the Supreme Court, there are significant efforts to reduce the prison population, and we have fentanyl instead of crack cocaine. Will the effect of these measures be to bend the gun murder curve up?

A concern here is if the curve bends up, will the advocacy be that we need more gun laws in California?  If so, I believe it is important to consider the impact from any reduction in police personnel and reducing prison populations and what is happening with illegal drugs if they are decriminalized, rather than just jump into more firearm legislation.

Comparing Firearms, Firearm Homicides, Firearm Suicides and Other Variables

To understand the conclusions and contradictions among the laboratories of democracy, we have reviewed Center for Disease Control information for firearm murders and suicides to tell the whole story.  We have compared factors using information from the CDC and other sources that may be found on the internet including the Giffords Law Center. 

For the effectiveness of firearms legislation in the states we have used the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Annual Gun Law Scorecard.  On the scorecard they assign a grade to each state.  In their presentation they indicate they believe that “states with strong gun laws see less gun violence.”  I respect their effort, but our findings are not consistent with theirs if the measure is firearm homicides.

A spreadsheet has been compiled listing each state and then defining per capita impacts.  A correlation is calculated on the spreadsheet between different sets of data such as Gifford state firearm grades, per capita homicide and suicide deaths reported from the Center for Disease Control, poverty rates, at the state level the percentage of households with guns.

The purpose is to establish among the states which factors are most related to others.  The analysis is at the reconnaissance level with a spreadsheet to document the results.

Households with Firearms: The strongest correlation we found was a very high .90 correlation in 2020 between firearm suicides and the percent of households with guns

A much weaker correlation of .24 between households with guns and gun homicides is an apparent contradiction.  Using the data, the percentage of households with guns in each state has a negligible relationship to the rate per 100,000 of gun murders in each state.  States with higher gun homicide rates cannot be easily determined by what the percentage of households with guns in the state.  It may be lower, higher, or in between.

The second most substantial factor was a high correlation of -.83 between fewer households with guns and higher Gifford scores. This suggests restrictive gun laws are easier to enact when fewer households’ own guns.

Poverty: The next factor, a high positive correlation of .73, suggests a relationship between higher poverty levels in a state and higher firearm homicides.  Understanding this relationship is key.  If we want to attack gun homicides, we will need to understanding the relationship between poverty and firearm use and address it at the community level.

When reviewing the same factor against suicide levels, the correlation is a negligible .28 correlation between higher suicide and higher levels of poverty.  This documents the great difference between firearms being used for suicide and homicide.  Again, documenting these differences could be very beneficial, especially for suicide prevention.

More Restrictive Gun Laws: A fourth factor is a relationship between Gifford scores published by the Gifford Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. A higher score which reflects stronger laws judged effective as a Gifford score, the lower the level of suicides. A correlation of -.72 is high, indicating more effective gun laws among the states, and lower firearm suicide levels.

For firearm homicides, the score is a -.29, which is negligible meaning there is not a moderate or substantial relationship between state laws and lower gun homicide rates in the states.  The factors supporting gun homicide likely reside in the community and are marked by conditions such as poverty.  We may want to consider it is not so much the gun as it is the community.  Likely if we build communities and learn how to intervene, we reduce firearm homicides.

Mental Health Care: In the public discussion, much is said about health care, suicide and homicide. We are reviewing firearm suicide and homicide rates against factors including spending for mental health care as a percentage of the budget in states, per capita, and per case. The correlation between firearm suicide and homicide, gun deaths, and mental health spending is negligible.

We found factors affecting firearm homicides and suicides are different.

  • The leading factor for gun homicides is poverty within the state.
  • We did not find another strong correlation.  My suggestion is that factors reducing gun homicide relate to the characteristics of communities which are represented to services provided and interaction and social structures within the local community.
  • Regarding per capita gun suicides, we found high correlations with the percentage of households with guns and the level of gun laws according to Gifford.  These are factors where there is particular impact on the individual or the family.

Are More Laws Better to Prevent Firearm Homicides?

Much of the effort of governments in the more liberal states with a lower proportion of gun ownership is to pursue more laws creating procedures and limiting access to firearms. The rationalization is that the “laws work,” which is justified by a flawed “gun death” (not gun homicide) analysis.

The difficulty is that factors affecting gun homicide and suicide numbers appear distinct and different. The correlation is only .09 among the states between gun homicides and suicides. Essentially, stronger gun laws tend to meliorate gun suicides but not homicides.

The massacres which happen too regularly and we see on cable news are culture-challenging events for nearly all Americans, especially in schools or against ethnic or racial minorities. Moreover, they undermine the ability to own and use firearms in a portion of the public mind, because we have not found an answer to stop them.

Weapon And Magazine Ban

We have all heard that George Santayana advised in 1905 “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  We should then take a lesson from the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution ratified in 1919. America could not solve alcoholism by enacting Prohibition, and from what I have learned we will not solve the massacres or especially the rising level of firearm homicides by increasing bans on firearms and deeply bureaucratic and intrusive firearm regulatory structures. You cannot just pass a law and expect things to change.

Nevertheless, at the national level the policy statements often focus around fire arm bans. Regarding modern firearms (aka “assault weapons”), in the “Report on Gun Violence 1994-2003” by the National Institute of Justice, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, Christopher S. Koper principally author concluded, “. . . Should the (Assault Weapons Ban) be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

This conclusion is consistent with the correlation analysis that there is only a -.29 correlation between enacting gun control laws and reducing gun homicides.  The issue is not “black or white” but instead nuanced.  We can build on it if we seek solutions, respect communities, discuss with various groups and relentlessly work towards common ground.

The Urgency for Common Ground

Our differences around America are profound and are primarily the case regarding firearms. Many folks believe we are exemplary as a country in having the right to self-defense. However, others typically describe America as an outlier in the World in terms of gun homicides, especially massacres. In their view, we are a dangerous place and fear can be contagious.  Mostly, at this point we are divided.

The difference drives us apart as a staccato repetition of the massacres we regularly watch on cable news.   We have little sense of time or space because cable news frames our perceptions. 

Looking at the literature, school massacres of four or more occurred in 2018, not in 2019 and 2020, but again in 2021 and 2022. During the same timeframe, 44 massacres occurred, killing four or more in the United States. In twenty-three (23) of these instances using 2021 Gifford grades, the states in which they occurred had a Gifford grade of C or better; in 16 cases, it was an A or A-.  Similar to our finding regarding gun murders, there is not a solid consistency between states enacting stronger gun laws and preventing massacres.  A high proportion of states experiencing massacres also received higher Gifford gun grades.

Therefore, we should look to other means to address the issue because gun legislation by itself has mixed results. So often, mental health is proposed as an area for spending and endeavor, and likely it may be in some form or fashion. Still, when looking at the correlations between mental health spending and a reduction in gun murders, there is, at best, a weak relationship.

Working on The Civic Structure

Gun murders relate to poverty which is manifest in communities.  To follow up on the community basis for gun homicides, we need to understand civic structure. In this regard, the Second Amendment protected the community and self-defense through organized militias, which was a prominent local civic institution around the founding and thereafter.

Militias, for this purpose, were in place until the Twentieth Century but the concept of organized militias was also clear. Professor David Yamane in his book Concealed Carry Revolution, cited the 1912 Arizona State Constitution language to clarify the meaning:

Art. II Sec 26:  The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

We should understand that organized militias have been community organizations for the purpose of joint defense, but they incidentally provided a community benefit through firearms proficiency, safety and self-defense instruction and testing. 

In general state and local governments have been tardy in actively addressing this need in each community as a coach, in a manner similar to militia officers. In many places, the relation between the state and local government and the firearm owner has grown hostile which cannot be beneficial in addressing a community-based problem.

The Second Amendment Balancing Test

The two clauses of the Second Amendment may easily be seen as a predicate and balance for community-based action.  States are called upon to assure the “security of a free state” through community action.  When assessing any legislation and how it impairs the right to keep and bear arms, a court should also assess the affirmative support the state has provided to community action organizing training about proficient firearm use, self-defense and firearm safety. 

The critical question becomes is there a balance between civic action on part of the state and recognition of and legislation impairing the right to keep and bear arms to some extent?  Because states similar to California have been particularly punitive to lawful firearm owners their regulatory structure would be unbalanced and, therefore, highly suspect.  Other states such as Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are better, but this largely because they are more libertarian in approach, not that they are affirmative in the firearm related services they provide. 

It is difficult to find states that are affirmative supporting efforts at proficiency, safety and self-defense similar to the federal Civilian Marksmanship Program., which is federally chartered 501 c3 and operates through a network of affiliated private organizations.  These organizations include shooting associations, 4-H shooting sports clubs, Air Force, Army, and Marine JROTC units, , Boy Scouts crew, collegiate rifle clubs, and many others. 

It provides opportunities for safety and marksmanship training and competitions.  Its highest priority is serving American youth with gun safety and marksmanship activities that according to its website “encourage personal growth and build life skills.”

There likely are possibilities for each state in association with the Civilian Marksmanship Program, but also active support through the conceal carry process which many see as a success.  It is very relevant and a place to start.

Defining Goals and Perspectives

Violence reduction and self-defense are essential goals. There must be a focus to achieve them involving each community’s public. Trust-building initiatives consistent with community-based policing must be undertaken as an aspect of a community-based policing program to engage communities about dangerous behavior. Improving engagement with the community is a difficult task but is critical to violence reduction in general.

Achieving this engagement is especially difficult when many proponents of firearm laws focus on a finding that firearms cannot assist you, but instead make you and your family less safe.

In Newsweek, Nina Vinik, in her July, 2022 opinion piece “A New Approach to Prevent Gun Violence,” argues “. . . to reduce gun violence in America, we needed to empower young people with the facts – that having a gun makes them less safe, not more.”

Ms. Vinik’s assertion is entirely counter-intuitive to my life experience, as outlined at the beginning of the essay. The correlation is low between gun murders and households having guns, is inconsistent with the research she has referenced.

We must address the fact; however, it is high when the measure is suicides.  This requires the individual and family-based approach, which separates guns from those suicide-prone. About 50% of the suicides in the U.S. involve firearms, so we need to be comprehensive and separate potential victims from a gun, rope, knives, pharmaceuticals, and high bridges when an effort at suicide is possible. 

In specific cases, this can involve removing the agent from the house hold, or likely place it in a safe or locked container to which there is no access for the suicide prone.  We also need to enhance access to crisis intervention, so we have ready access to help.

Suicide prevention is a great challenge; we must do better on all these fronts, but it does not justify harsh gun legislation at the state or federal level.  There are other, better, more comprehensive options.  In this regard the suicide issue is distinct from the challenge posed by gun murders.

Ms. Vinik’s statement boils the issue down to its current state: demonizing firearms by convincing young folks guns make them unsafe. When I read her article, I think of the many 4-H clubs I have seen at the range learning firearm proficiency and safety.  I have always viewed it as such a wholesome activity providing benefit to the young participants for many years.

Ms. Vnik’s message is not that firearms are powerful and can be very dangerous if they are not used and stored safely. Instead, the prime directive becomes “just say no”: Her option is not to develop community institutions that facilitate safe firearm use and increase community awareness about these measures. Demonizing rather than teaching firearms safety seems counterproductive and is not in the American tradition.

Building Common Ground

To be successful with this effort, we will need to build common ground and develop communities around it, not divide and stigmatize many Americans and their firearms and failing to recognize the challenge increasing violence presents.

I believe the most likely area for this could be the conceal carry of firearms.  It is a topic of this time and directly addresses the Constitutional right of self-defense.  Among the many states, we need to seek common ground and should likely form a broad group of experts, opinion leaders and normal citizens of diverse persuasions to address this and make unified recommendations to Congress, and each state legislature.

It would be an arduous effort, but if performed in good faith, with evidence introduced from many sources, and with an exchange of the challenges throughout the United States, it might bear fruit.  This will only be after significant commitment, persistence and effort.  It will require organization among the states for the effort and inquiry.

Hope Is Not a Strategy

I have been told hope is not a strategy, but it is the ultimate option for a beginning.  How we accommodate conceal carry among the states, without being overwhelmed or divided by power plays from the right or left, is an invitation to understanding our fellow American communities better, which will be essential to a working resolution. 

After reviewing elements of the gun story in this essay, I present the following considerations:

1. Guns are a beneficial aspect of many settings in America.  They are reasonably necessary, if they are used in a safe manner. They are normal.

2. Firearm safety is not achieved without instruction and practice.  Communities should provide opportunities to advance programs which advance proficient firearm use, self-defense and firearm safety. 

3. In the case study about California, the official statement is that “gun laws work.”  In investigating the proof, the cause for a decline in gun deaths was not accurately established which brings the official statement into question.

4. We should fully consider the lesson of Prohibition where banning alcohol resulted in dangerous unintended consequences.  Instead of bans, we should always consider Constitutionally grounded regulation and built broad based public support in various locales.

5. We found there is not a high correlation between stronger gun laws and lower gun murders.

6. We found there is a strong correlation between stronger gun laws and lower gun suicides.  We need to advance measures addressing suicide from many agents.

7. To fairly address increasing gun homicide rates, we must work among ourselves, building common ground.  We must listen to each other and consider other perspectives and set an expectation for fact-based dialogue.

8. When evaluating laws regarding firearms, statistical effectiveness should be considered but the right granted in the Constitution must be respected as an aspect of any consideration.

9. Communities should establish opportunities for gun owners to advance proficiency, safety, and self-defense.  The Civilian Marksmanship Program is an excellent model as is support for conceal carry programs.

September, 2022 by:

John Longley

PO Box 47                      

Keno, Oregon 97627

jlongley@eaglepublic.com

https://amendoon.net

 
(Visited 22 times, 1 visits today)
Last modified: December 1, 2022