Oregon: Would stricter gun-control laws have prevented the campus shootings?

So what is the solution for America? Is there one now?

I’m talking about mass shooting incidents and the proliferation of guns in that country. I know that many of the American readers looking in here are in favour of the type of gun control we have in Canada, that you feel it will lead to fewer mass shooting incidents like the one that happened in Oregon yesterday, Oct. 1.

I’m not convinced that tougher gun control laws would prevent the sort of incidents that happened in Oregon — even if America could get its citizens to give up the guns they already possess.

As some will point out, it’s not guns that kill people, it’s people who kill people.

It seems to me America has to do some soul-searching about the ways Hollywood, the video-game industry and some media glorify violence, specifically gun violence. Does it surprise anyone that out of millions of kids who play-kill people every day in the virtual reality games of the Internet that a few of them will act out similar violence in the real world?

Millions of Americans possess guns and use them responsibly, if they actually use them at all. Yesterday, one disturbed young man out of 350 million Americans killed 9 people out of 350 million Americans. The gun lobby will tell you those numbers are not enough to enact gun-control laws that would effectively keep your average citizen from owning one.

True, there are thousands of people killed by shooters every year in the United States. And there are thousands killed by drivers. And thousands by tobacco sellers. And thousands by alcohol sellers . . .

Thing is, Canada is not a shining example. We just have such a small population that our percentages are smaller that those of the United States. But we have had shooters on campuses. We have shootings happen in our streets. We have had ISIS sympathizers commit acts of terrorism — and killings. We have seen several of our young people run off to join ISIS. And we have all the other plagues of modern western civilization mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

I don’t know what the answer is. Some might point out, though, that if a teacher or another student had had a gun on them yesterday, he or she might have neutralized the killer before he had murdered 9 innocent people and wounded 10 others. It seems the murderer had the advantage, because nobody else had a gun . . .

— Jillian

40 thoughts on “Oregon: Would stricter gun-control laws have prevented the campus shootings?

  1. It is ridiculous to think that enacting a law banning something you think is evil will solve a problem like this. Look at the so called war on drugs in the U.S. Disarming law abiding citizens won’t help improve public safety.

    Like

  2. ALOHA JILLIAN:…… sadly, it appears all of the guns were legally purchased!… also, more people are killed in automobile accidents than by gun violence… nevertheless, yes, we need stricter gun laws PLUS enforcement of what is already on the books…. btw…. if all students attended classes naked, there would be no place to hide firearms… but we are hung up with nudity…. definitely some subtle and nuanced issues… and, sadly, our 2nd amendment was interpreted by the SCOTUS that individuals have the right to possess howitzers and automatic machine guns…. to protect themselves from buglaries……. aloha from the north shore of maui…..

    Like

  3. Nope. Old Law of Thermo-Dynamics. Water always finds the path of least resistance. Stricter access would help. But too little, too late. It’s like trying to stop the ivory trade in China. Sadly there are be always others who want to profit from people killing people. President Obama said it well: There is always our “original sin”. So Annie, “get your gun” %(

    Like

  4. More guns = more dead.

    It’s such a simple calculation that is borne out everywhere you look that it can only be ignored by the ignorant.

    Hollywood and games? LOL!!!
    You think that Hollywood and Video Games stops at the border? Those same movies and games that make using a gun to solve all your problems look easy, but only the US has serial killers and mass-shootings monthly. Only the US sees an epidemic of gun-related deaths this large. Only the US is so accustomed to gun violence that it takes a mass murder to even make the news. If Hollywood is so evil, where are the mass gun deaths in the UK or Canada? Where are the mass gun deaths in Australia? These three countries watch almost as much Hollywood ad the US do.

    Today (if this is an average day):
    162 people will be wounded by firearms in the US.
    53 people will kill themselves with a firearm.
    30 people will die in gun-related murders.

    And no, a “good guy with a gun” would likely just have added to the carnage and kill or injure others caught in the crossfire. and again, when the police arrive and see the good guy shooting a gun, just how are they to determine that he isn’t the bad guy? The chances are that your “good guy with a gun” would also be dead from police gunfire.

    Here’s an example of a “good guy with a gun”:
    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

    Yup. Real responsible “good guy” here.
    By the way, the carjackers also got away.

    I am just absolutely amazed that someone who appears to have a lick of common sense would want to invite this kind of carnage to Canada.

    This is another topic, but just last night we were watching some cop show on TV where the opening screen warned of nudity. Big, bold, all-caps warning that “this program contains NUDITY”. Halfway through, all the nudity we saw was a woman’s naked back from the waist up. And before that, more than a dozen really gory death scenes. But no warnings about the violence and gore. Just the horrific danger to society – nudity.

    Our society is so screwed up.

    Like

    1. That’s because “the good citizens” are all sitting on their hands. Hope not. Because if we don’t move on this soon, a whole lot of people will die big time when we all go to war against the bad guys. As the lady says: ‘nothing much has changed’. We Like killing. It’s what we do the best. Better than any other creature. Except maybe Matabele ants f*** %\

      Like

  5. I’ll write my reply in all caps so that the anti-gun crowd will hear it loud and clear:

    THE ONLY WAY TO STOP A BAD GUY WITH A GUN IS FOR A GOOD GUY TO STEP INTO THE SITUATION—WITH A GUN!!! WHAT DON’T YOU GET??!?!

    JUST AS IT HAS BEEN STATED PREVIOUSLY: STRICTER DRUG LAWS HAVE NOT TAKEN AWAY ILLICIT DRUGS. FOLLOW THE LOGIC AND GET RID OF YOUR DOUBLE STANDARD THINKING!! HOW WILL STRICTER GUN LAWS HELP? IF YOU NEED HELP WITH THIS, INSERT ANY PHRASE IN PLACE OF “GUN LAWS” INTO THE QUESTION AND THEN START TO ANSWER IT FOR YOURSELF WITHOUT THE FILTER OF DOUBLE STANDARDS AND LIBERAL BIAS.

    THE OREGON SHOOTER OBTAINED HIS GUNS LEGALLY. HE HAD NO HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR VIOLENCE. OK? SO WHAT IF HE HAD THESE ISSUES IN THE PAST?? HE WOULD HAVE THEN OBTAINED THE GUNS ON THE BLACK MARKET.

    STOP SITTING BEHIND YOUR KEYBOARD ESPOUSING FREEDOM IN ALL THINGS THAT YOU (LIBERALS) WANT YET TELLING ANYONE WHO DIS-AGREES WITH YOU THAT THEY CAN’T HAVE THEIR FREEDOMS–BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT EVER FREEDOM THEY ARE TRYING TO EXERCIZE. GET IT??!?

    FREEDOM IS A TWO-WAY STREET. DON’T LIKE GUNS? BY ALL MEANS, DON’T OWN ONE. BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP !!! TELLING ME THAT I CAN’T OWN ONE. IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS WHAT I OWN.

    IF YOU ARE SO DAMN CONVINCED THAT A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN WILL DO NOTHING POSITIVE IN A SITUATION WHERE A BAD GUY HAS A GUN, THEN BY ALL MEANS, SAY THAT TO THE GOOD GUY SO THAT HE DOES NOT WASTE HIS TIME TRYING TO SAVE YOUR ASS FROM BEING SHOT AND HE CAN GO AND HELP OTHERS WHO ARE THANKFUL THAT HE IS THERE.

    SON AF A BITCH!

    Like

    1. So I guess the anti-gun guys are all ‘bad guys’. Or Commies. But when you’re ‘up to your ass in alligators or Burmese pythons, don’t forget to drain the swamp’

      Like

      1. Chicago, Illinois (home to Barack Obama by the way) is a GREAT example of what stricter gun laws does for a community. Guess who has the guns? Criminals! The law abiding citizen cannot own a gun, at least not easily. What happened to the crime rate? It goes UP!! As do murders. I live in a rural area, WHERE GUNS ARE QUITE PREVALENT. Guess what? We don’t have a crime problem here–cause the bad guys realize we, the armed populous, CAN SHOOT BACK.!!

        It is a statistical FACT that crime goes DOWN when more guns are present in a community!

        Yeah, I’m one of those bitter clingers holding on to my God and guns. THAT’S RIGHT! A gun totin’, Bible beiievin’ old truck drivin’ American. I also believe in Live and Let Live. Your freedoms and mine are of equal importance.

        If you can’t fathom self-defense, then it is YOU who will be up to your ass in alligators one day—WITH NO WAY TO DEFEND YOURSELF!! Good luck with that.

        Like

  6. Guns are like abortions. They should be legal and rare.

    I can go to a gun show and buy all the weapons I want as long as I have the cash. No background check, no registration, no one cares if the weapon is blatantly illegal, such as a machine gun or a howitzer. All I need is cash.

    But, it’s gun nuts like Dave who oppose any common-sense legislation to close this loophole.

    The statistics Dave quoted are coincidental. There have been no peer-reviewed studies that supports Dave’s theory. You could just as easily find statistics that could “prove” that more guns reduces traffic fatalities and cancer. There is no provable cause and effect, just a coincidence.

    Want relevant statistics? Quoting facts to gun nuts is like explaining gravity to a rock, but rational people may want further reading:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/53345/states-with-most-gun-laws-see-fewest-gun-related-deaths

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/states-tough-gun-laws-shooting-deaths-study-article-1.2343815

    Like

    1. I think the government should confiscate all guns and to make sure that criminals don’t have guns, they will have to search all houses randomly. Every residence would need to be completely ransacked, use of metal detectors etc. about twice a year to be effective. If someone is found possessing a gun, they should serve mandatory prison time.
      Of course all cargo would have to be thoroughly checked and border crossings would all need to be staffed to search all vehicles and of course people would go thru metal detectors. Think airport.
      The beauty of it is, while they are at it, the government would of course confiscate any other illegal items such as drugs etc.
      Since the manpower is already there, to be efficient, ideally, other information the government needs to know could also be collected, illegal aliens, household make up, adequate care of children etc. Think homeland security, social services and census.
      As the government got more efficient and technology more sophisticated, they could start planting sensors at strategic places in houses to monitor illegal materials entering the house.
      The beauty of all this is that it would become such a wonderful tool for insuring compliance with all future laws as well. Policing would become so much more efficient and our lives would be so much safer.

      Like

      1. Why not just ban the sales of bullets and gun powder and guns? Only the military and police could have access to them.

        Of course, there is too much money to be made from selling ammunition and guns to the common folk in America . . .

        Like

      2. It worked for Australia. Voluntarily, I may add. Seems like the Aussies have a lot more common sense than Americans. Of course, with American Gun Nuts, any common sense is an oxymoron.

        Side comment – the CDC calls a shooting with four or more killed as mass shooting. With that definition, there has not been a single calendar week since 1980 without a mass shooting in the US.

        Jillian, as the US Gun Nuts keep referring to Switzerland as their shining example of guns for everyone, but no mass killings like we enjoy in the US. What they conveniently forget to tell you is that possession of ammunition is illegal in Switzerland.

        Like

      3. “You mean they can own guns, but not bullets in Switzerland?”

        From:
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/01/1190586/-Some-Truth-About-Switzerland-and-Guns

        “… to the chagrin of the NRA, Switzerland is a fine model for the intent of the American Constitution’s 2nd Amendment. They have a well-regulated militia instead of a standing army. They have universal background checks and universal licensing. They require firearm training before a gun can be owned. They have near total restrictions on the purchase and use of ammunition. In fact, they regulate and restrict much more than America does.”

        The militia who are allowed to keep ammunition at home are issued ammunition in a sealed container and audited.

        Like

      4. Simply a pile of lies. Guns can be bought in Switzerland just as in the U.S. Ammunition can be bought as well. Military ammunition is handed out free and therefore must be accounted for, but people are free to buy. Ammunition is sold at a discount at gun ranges to encourage use and must be used there for that reason.
        Anyone can spout lies and semi-facts and then make sweeping generalizations. More difficult to make an argument when all the facts are known and stated.

        Like

      5. A gun owner in Switzerland says it all: “There is no point taking the gun out of your home in Switzerland because it is illegal to carry a gun in the street. To shoot someone who just looks at you in a funny way – this is not America!”

        You can’t just walk into a WalMart in Switzerland and buy hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Not that there are any Walmarts in Switzerland, but you can only buy ammunition from a shooting range or licensed dealer. Even then you need a permit and your ID is recorded.

        Like

      6. Switzerland has a gun culture. It has the 4th largest number of guns per capita in the world. It has 3,000 youth gun clubs where children learn to shoot. Hunting is a major pastime. Carrying guns in the street is legal if you are going to hunt or going to a gun range, same in US.
        But Switzerland only has 10% of the violent gun deaths we have in the US.
        It demonstrates that it is not the guns. People kill people.
        Swiss culture is different. Swiss people are different. Read their history then read US history.
        Passing a law: easy. Changing people and culture: difficult.
        Concentrating on passing laws which people will only work around (how successful was prohibition?) takes our eyes off the ball which should be making better people. Not by mind control or propaganda (used by totalitarian gov’ts) but education free of propaganda. Teaching people to think and trusting them to think.

        Like

  7. The problem with banning guns or ammunition is that it does not solve the problem. Criminals and crazies will still have guns. It must be enforced. Passing a law will only change behavior of law abiding citizens. The same citizens who are not the problem. It must be enforced. There must be confiscation or criminals will simply steal guns from law abiding citizens. BTW, There is a big industry in home made ammunition, made in basements like beer. Home made guns with 3 D printers are already possible. Criminals and crazies will always be one step ahead, so law enforcement will need to be proactive.

    Like

    1. So, if common sense gun regulation can’t prevent ALL gun violence, then you would rather we do nothing? If we can only prevent a few thousand gun deaths out of the 30,000 each year, we shouldn’t do anything?

      Seat belts and air bags have saved 90% of the potential vehicle accident victims, not 100%, so we don’t need seat belts or air bags? That’s the argument of the gun nuts.

      Like

      1. Education is usually the best answer. Cars kill more people than anything else except war. No one is suggesting the banning of cars. Gun education would be a good start. Although Americans are 70 times more likely to die in a vehicle accident than by the accidental discharge of a firearm, gun education would improve that. Suicide by gun is high because it is so effective. But suicides would still happen. Kids, guns and accidents is about educating parents, gun locks etc. Gang members killing each other is invariably worse in cities with the toughest gun control laws. But, the real problem is a lack of will to stop the crime by the authorities.
        The majority of mass shootings are politically motivated or carried out by deranged individuals who left lots of signals of what was to come. But we have an administration that does not recognize that any of these mass killings are by terrorists. We have a President who actively seeks more illegals from all areas of the world to enter our country. It would be easier for our society to identify troubled individuals if they weren’t so busy monitoring the activity of every American citizen.
        We both want the same thing. But I would like the law to concentrate on seeking out illegals, Muslims, criminals, gangsters etc. rather than take the easy way out by adopting new restrictions which only restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens. Who coincidentally need guns because politicians do take the easy way out.
        In the meantime, to use your car analogy, although I feel perfectly safe walking the streets in America, I might avoid high crime areas at night and you might choose to wear an armored vest as well since we have no equivalent to seat belts..

        Like

      2. “We both want the same thing. But I would like the law to concentrate on seeking out illegals, Muslims, criminals, gangsters etc.”

        Why? Only one of the high-profile mass shooting was done by a Muslim, who also happened to be a US Citizen.

        According to data compiled by Mother Jones magazine, which looked at mass shootings in the United States since 1982, white people — almost exclusively white men — committed most of the shootings. And they were all US citizens.

        So, why the racist redirection?

        Like

  8. Ref: gentleman/woman suggesting Kevlar vest. So, in the end JP, what would you rather buy? Gun or bullet-proof vest? Education? Against Hollywood NCIS, Hawaii-Five O,etc. Whatever opinion(s) I lean towards Mr. Mann’s observation of “insanity”. Curiously, the APA(American Psychiatric Association) is so silent on the issue. Bought off by big Pharma. F**K x oo. K. zombies to rule soon by the end of the month. That’s a wrap

    Like

  9. “Although Americans are 70 times more likely to die in a vehicle accident than by the accidental discharge of a firearm, ”

    Why is the accidental discharge of a firearm an equivalent of auto accidents?
    Just to make the risk appear so dramatically different?

    How about comparing the number of auto accident deaths with gun violence deaths?
    Your basic hypothesis would still be correct, but not nearly as dramatic. More people die from automobiles than guns. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/gun-violence-car-deaths-charts). But the trend is that auto deaths are dropping and gun deaths are increasing.

    Both are preventable.
    In ten years, self-driving cars will be available. In 20-years they will be commonplace and death by auto accidents will be rare. My great-grandchildren will ask, “What’s a ‘steering wheel'”?

    But, the gun nuts who oppose ANY common sense gun regulations will still be proud of 30-40,000 gun deaths a year that continue to demonstrate that the US leads the world in gun violence.

    Like

  10. Definition: Escalation – to increase in intensity, magnitude, etc.:
    to escalate a war; http://tinyurl.com/pvvnvp3 So you can imagine if the person(s) in the SUV are packing as well. I can now see the Ads. for vacationing in the USA. “Come to America .. and get shot at. At least you will hone your target skills”. So Sad. Insanity

    Like

    1. With all the rantings about gun nuts, I have yet to hear a workable solution to the problem from you guys.
      Australia had a solution, they had a forced buy back of guns. Collected between a third to a half of all guns in the country. But since then, they had to make some changes that allowed people to again own guns so they could protect themselves from the criminals who did not turn in their guns. The result: there are now just as many guns in Australia as before the whole fiasco started.
      Come up with a solution that will not remove freedoms from law abiding citizens and the world will beat a path to your door.
      But solutions based on phony studies that purport to change the behavior of criminals and crazies are pie in the sky.

      Like

      1. “With all the rantings about gun nuts, I have yet to hear a workable solution to the problem from you guys.”

        How about eliminating the three day loophole?
        How about closing the gun show loopholes?
        How about requiring licensing and registration?
        How about safety training as a prerequisite?
        How about no gun sales to someone convicted of spousal abuse?
        How about smart guns that won’t fire except for the owner?
        How about a safe storage requirement?
        How about a ban of the purchase of firearms and ammunition on the internet?
        How about we limit the number of bullets a firearm can hold? (If you need 30 bullets to bring down a deer, you probably shouldn’t be handling a gun).
        How about a ban on armor piercing and hollow-tip bullets? (When is the last time a turkey was wearing a kevlar vest)?
        How about a hefty bullet tax? (Surely those owning guns for self-defense don’t need cases of ammo for the rare intruder. Use bullet tax revenues to treat victims of gun violence and educate the public about gun safety).
        How about making straw purchases illegal?
        How about repealing the horrible “Shoot First” laws?
        How about longer waiting periods?

        The lack of a single solution is not a valid excuse for doing nothing.

        Like

      2. None of these laws etc. would have stopped recent mass killings. Any statement that they would have is pure conjecture. They would have no effect on criminals or gangs.
        The worse mass killing in modern history happened in Norway, which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.

        Like

      3. “None of these laws etc. would have stopped recent mass killings.”

        So, by your logic, DO NOTHING?

        We can’t stop mass killings, so why bother making guns smart to prevent police from being killed with their own gun, or the three year old accidentally killing a sibling. Why mandate gun safes or trigger locks since it would only save a few lives – but since it won’t prevent mass killings, we choose to DO NOTHING.

        The FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon.

        But since a smart gun would only result in a few officer’s lives saved, and not stop mass killings, we should DO NOTHING?

        That is the logic from the gun nuts that I just don’t understand. If you can’t solve ALL of the shootings, then DO NOTHING.

        By that logic, we don’t need seat belts because they don’t prevent ALL vehicle deaths.

        Like

      4. There is nothing I am aware of that prevents police departments and individuals from buying those features right now.
        If they are effective, their use will spread. If not they will go away. The free-market will decide.
        Please don’t be presumptuous enough to advocate laws using untested technology.
        Get a grip man, we are living in peaceful times in this area of the world. Enjoy it while it lasts.

        Like

      5. The National Rifle Association’s Campaign To Stop Smart Guns
        http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/09/the-national-rifle-associations-campaign-to-sto/199235

        Proponents of ‘smart guns’ say NRA is the main obstacle
        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/03/proponents-smart-guns-nra-obstacle/13551659/

        Maryland gun store drops plans to sell ‘smart guns’ after threats
        http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-usa-maryland-smartgun-idUSBREA410SD20140502

        The Gun Lobby And A Dumb Law Are Keeping Us From Safer Guns
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/safer-guns_n_5570670.html

        Sale of personalized ‘Armatix iP1 handgun system’ being blocked by NRA and gun activists
        http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/smart-guns-sale-of-personalized-armatix-ip1-handgun-system-being-blocked-by-nra-and-gun-activists-24670

        Yup, reasonable bunch, those gun nuts.

        Like

      6. These organizations are exercising their rights just as your propagandists are exercising theirs. I celebrate the freedom. God forbid your bunch ran the country.

        Like

      7. Just correcting your erroneous assumption:

        “There is nothing I am aware of that prevents police departments and individuals from buying those features right now.”

        Like

  11. the pro-gun lobby keeps telling us that good guys with guns would stop the bad guys with guns from shooting everyone in the school/church/shopping mall/street. given tehre are so many guns around, where have the good guys been each time the bad guys started shooting? Seems the bad guys have only stopped when the police arrive, and it’s either the police who shoot them or they shoot themselves.

    But actually the whole gun debate in the US is pretty academic. Let’s be frank, trying to change gun laws is too little too late – the guns are already there in great numbers. Even if there were a total ban on gun sales tomorrow, and all the gun shops were shut down, there are enough weapons and ammunition roaming free to refight the Civil War several times over.

    peter

    Like

    1. I agree with your 2nd paragraph. But for the record, mass shootings have been happening at locations that have specifically forbidden the carrying of guns. At these locations, owners, administrators etc.have superseded local laws under the presumption that outlawing guns would prevent gun crimes. Unfortunately, criminals and crazies who do not follow laws, don’t follow rules either. In fact, it creates a situation were shooting innocents is like shooting fish in a barrel..

      Like

      1. Again, the facts don’t match the gun nut’s fables.
        Oregon is an open-carry state, and there was one armed good guy with a gun there. He was shot multiple times but he never drew his gun that he was carrying.

        In two mass shootings at malls with gun-free signs, armed citizens attempted to intervene. In the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Oregon, a permit holder confronted the shooter (but did not fire) at the end of the rampage; in the Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City, an off-duty police officer helped subdue the shooter. Both men were in explicit violation of the mall gun-free policies — but their presence means that for the shooters’ purposes, those malls were not gun-free zones after all.

        Almost half of the mass shootings in public locations have occurred in Right to Carry states, yet when citizens stopped the shooter, they were more often than not, unarmed.

        You are relying on the the John R. Lott hypothesis that has made the ambitious claim, on numerous occasions, that “with just two exceptions, every public mass shooting in the United States since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens were banned from carrying guns.”

        That alone is factually incorrect, but when studied without his preconceived conclusion, Lott’s statement falls apart every time. Lott made the typical Right-Wing malpractice of ignoring data not trending toward his desired conclusion, such as excluding mass-shootings where the shooter was already committing a felony such as a robbery despite the fact that almost 40% of mass murders occur during a crime.

        The most glaring flaw in Lott’s flawed study is the assumption that the shooters are rational people who target gun free zones and act with rational calculation. In fact, most mass shooters are anything but rational. Even Lott admits that most mass shooters have a mental illness. According to the FBI, 63 percent of the mass shooters have an emotional grievance or attachment to the location or people they target.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s