Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

Do guns kill people or do people kill people?

What are your beliefs on gun control? Etc.

Report as

A gun doesn't shoot by itself. It takes a person to pull the trigger. The answer is pretty obvious.

Helpful (12) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

People kill people with guns that help with killing with the killing being on purpose or not. There!

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

people kill people with guns

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
That's what I was gonna say! (At first until I decided to make my answer longer.
Report as
people kill people... with whatever they want to kill that person with. They don't always have a gun. That's why I want a gun so I can defend myself from the killer with the best weapon available.
Report as
ok
Report as
lol
Report as
Add a comment...

I believe citizens should have the right to own weapons and that the Background process (when you purchase gun) should be a lot tougher to weed out the crazies and criminals but the problem is, criminals will always get weapons, one way or another, legal or not

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (17)
Report as
Do you think they should minimize the amount of bullets a magazine holds?
Report as
I do. In my opinion, there's really no need for 30 or 40 rounds in a gun. Like, what would you possibly use that for? It's dangerous.

Now if our country was at war or our country was going through drastic changes in which we the public needed to defend ourselves from a serious threat, then that's a different story. But that's not the case haha
Report as
Haha yeah I agree, the only people who should have those magazines is our troops
Report as
But what if you miss?
Report as
I think that if people are getting guns anyway, why not outlaw them completely? i mean, just look at places like the UK. They don't have anywhere near the amount of gun related deaths as in the US. We wouldn't need guns if nobody had them in the first place.
Report as
Onegreen
I agree with Swane. I know that I have virtually no chance of being shot today. Why? Because I live in the UK. It seems to me that most people in the United States have given up trying to solve the most unattractive thing about your great nation, guns!
Report as
@swane, we aren't the u.k.,american wackos would import from the south if need be. we're such innovators. criminals that want guns will find a way.
Report as
@janiepa yea i guess you're right. They will always find a way, but i'm sure there will be a lot less violence is the laws are more strict. It may not solve the problem but hey, the less deaths the better.
Report as
Swane just because it works in other countries doesn't mean it would work here. The fact is there's already tons of guns in America and banning them won't do much to get rid of them.
Report as
Banning guns in the USA will never happen because it would cause so much uproar and half of America will be pissed. It just won't happen. What I think should happen is they should make punishments more severe for gun related crimes
Report as
True.
Report as
Swane, you'd better check the statistics for UK crime again.
You've got your eyes half-closed and are seeing glitter and unicorns, I think.
Your own Home Office reported that violent crimes with handguns are UP by 35% (in 2012 compared to 2011) in England and Wales. And this was the fourth consecutive year that the figures have risen.
In fact, the Home Office stats report that since the post-Dunblane massacre gun ban was enacted, the number of violent crimes with guns has DOUBLED. Your own government is wringing it's hands on what to try next, since the ban isn't helping. Criminals can get guns, but law-abiding UK citizens can't and are vulnerable.
Yep, the US stats are higher in general, but the US also has almost 5 times the population of the UK. And our country isn't a couple of islands. :)
Further, in Washington, DC (our capital) where they repealed their gun ban -- gun crimes have since gone Down significantly.
Sorry to disillusion you, but your blind wishful thinking about danger in the UK might put you at risk, so please be watchful. You seem like a very nice person.
Report as
OOOPS -- so sorry Swane!
Onegreen is the one my comment was meant for -- because of his/her statement that:
"...I have virtually no chance of being shot ... because I live in the UK".
[You seem like a nice person, too, Swane, even if I disagree with your statements.]
Report as
Onegreen
We haven't banned guns since Dunblane, we never had the things in the first place! And we are not at risk, we have an amazing Police force, and they don't carry guns.
Report as
Onegreen
PS: thank you LandSakes for your kind remark about being a nice person. I don't know about that, but my friends are and none of them worry about being shot by a guy who is legally entitled to carry a leathal weapon when they go to the shop.
Report as
How can the police protect against crimes with a deadly weapon?
Report as
TheDefiantOne, police are trained to use their weapon only in life or death situations, when their lives or the lives of the public are immediately threatened
Report as
Add a comment...

People have to protect yourself.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
True, but many people don't remove the prospect of danger to begin with
Report as
a real world.
Report as
Add a comment...

Guns defend people from people with smaller guns.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
Onegreen
Thats a lame excuse and doesn't solve anything does it?
Report as
It's a joke. Don't you watch American dad?
Report as
It's a joke!
But it's also true.
Report as
lol American Dad is halarious.I'm gonna be swinging my baby lassoo tell i get me a man(roger quote)
Report as
Lol.
Report as
yeah i know lmfao
Report as
Add a comment...

guns kill people, thats what they were made to do...

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (7)
Report as
Not just people.
Report as
They can also be used for hunting.
Report as
true :)
Report as
A gun does nothing on it's own, it is an inanimate object incapable of performing any act unless brought into action by a person, much like an automobile or chainsaw, etc. The correct answer is that guns do not kill people!
Report as
Yup.
Report as
HonestJohn4reel
You are wrong, firearms were a developement for the need to hunt,as well as a means to protecttion; before firearms people would use stones,sticks,etc. to use. Guns are to violence as flys are to garbage! Your interrogatory is silly, of course guns don't kill people, peole kill people! You should ask 'why do people kill people', unless you are just another misguided, uneduacated,shallow thinking person; don't feel bad though, you are not alone..........
Report as
HonestJohn4reel
My beliefs on gun control are fundamental; gun-control means keeping rounds on target. As far as politics are concerned, stay off 2nd amendment! If one does not like an 'amendment, then change it constitually, if one does not know what that is, one should not exspect nothing more than another so-so opinion! Uneduacated, ignorant piss me off when they start blathering about subjects they know little about!
Report as
Add a comment...

Ppl kill ppl

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Obvious people can control the trigger, you know.. Pull it, people HAVE to have guns to protect themselves from criminals, they should HAVE the background checks... But the things is, is that imagine.. If someone has ADHD, Bi-polar, or Schytsofrenia, they are walking around town and notice someones wearing their least favorite color for example it's red. "Oh my god I see someone wearing red. I hate red! *Grabs gun and shoots them*". Or even people with worse mental problems buy a gun and pass the background check.. They shoot people, go to court and their only excuse is insanity and they are mentally unhealthy! Ridiculous!
They should run full criminal, traffic, hunting, fishing, and medical background checks on people who purchase guns! If someone is on probation, or got out of jail for murder, assault, attempt of murder, lying to the police, or drunk driving five or less years before they buy the gun, they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun! Nuff' said!
Now this is just a 13 year old Alaskans opinion, so if you disagree, don't go crazy on me, I'm only 13, and homeschooled.
Leave your disagreements, agreements, or concerns and comments below! :)

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
It's spelled schizophrenia.
Report as
TheDefiantOne.... Thank you.. My spelling isn't perfect.. I actually score lowest in that in testing... But Thank You. ^.^
Report as
And I have ADHD but you don't see me shooting people. >:(
Report as
ADHD and schizophrenia are nothing alike, people with schizophrenia do not think properly at all, they are truly insane, there is no other way to describe it really. My cousin is schizophrenic and she truly believes things that are just not possible and has logical explanations for all of it, heck she can convince sane people she is right, She went undiagnosed for years and while the stories she told were ...hmm kind of dramatic... most of the time they were not beyond the realm of the possible, As it progressed the stories became less and less plausible though and she became violent.
Report as
Wow. I'm so sorry sherry.
Report as
TheDefiantOne didn't I say I'm only 13 and please don't freak out on me?
SherryA.. I'm sorry! Gosh that's sad. I understand that Schizophrenia and ADHD are nothing alike. I wasn't shooting for diseases that are very much alike.
As I did research on Schizophrenia about a year or two ago, I was told that Schizophrenia was like living a double life, different personalitys, almost like severe cases of Bi-polar, and it's different for everyone. Most poeple get it from doing Drugs or Alchohol as children! Sometimes Concussions and brain tumours can cause it, even Amnesia, or even just getting serverly abused as a child and getting hit in the head hard enough you lose some of your marbles!
I've met people with really bad cases of Bi-Polar, I met a homeless guy once I figured he was Schizophrenic because one day I saw him and he was really nice and the next day he was like really depressed, and the next day he said his name was "Mark" and not "Steven" even though the day I met him his name was "Steven".
Report as
Add a comment...

People kill other people with guns. They're just tools the ones at fault are the ones using them.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Onegreen

I'm British and I live in England where it is illegal to have a firearm in a public place (or even to possess one). The only exception to this is if you have a legitimate reason to have a shotgun (a farmer for example) or if you participate in a shooting sport (and the regulations for storing and transporting the weapon from A to B are very strict). I prefer to live in a country where guns are not allowed and the United States gun law rows intrigues me. Why on earth do you think that allowing people to have guns will make your society a happier, safer and more attractive place to live?

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (14)
Report as
I understand what you mean. The only problem is there are already tons of guns in America so banning all of them won't do much.
Report as
That's why we escaped British rule & established our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. So NO government, foreign or domestic, can overtake and rule our country. WE THE PEOPLE run our country & I'm proud of it, warts and all!
Report as
I agree ddoswald.
Report as
I'm not.
Report as
I don't agree. I am totally against people having guns. And, there are many many more like me.
Report as
Onegreen--
I commented to your comment on AliensExist's answer (although I mistakenly first addressed it to Swane, there).
Anyway, I don't see that your own country's experiment with banning guns is working after all, by your own government's statistics. Gun crimes have doubled in the UK since the gun ban there. Your overall crime rates are rising pretty spectacularly, as well.
-- You might want to check with the Home Office's published statistics over the last 10-15 years, yourself? They tell a rather different story about the result of guns being banned in the UK.
Report as
Mr. Or Ms. Onegreen;
Let us turn the question around and ask if the disarmament of the English people by your strict gun laws has made your society safer, happier, and more productive? According to your crime statistics, your emigration numbers, and your unemployment rate, the answer appears to be no. So why in the world should the United States adopt policies that have so obviously failed in our sister nation?

The difficulty Brits, Piers Morgan for example, have in understanding American attitudes may originate in the profound differences between our governments. I am a citizen of a democratic republic; you are a subject of a constitutional monarchy. I have the right to own real estate; you must lease the home in which you live, because the ground upon which it is built belongs to the Crown. My rights as a citizen are enumerated in a written Constitution and Bill of Rights; your rights are granted to you by the Monarchy and Parliament, subject to change or revocation at their will. As a subject, you are, in my view, one step up from a serf. It's not surprising you have difficulty understanding the American concept of Liberty, having grown up in a society that does not enjoy that blessing.
Report as
Onegreen
Thank you guys for the comments, genuinely interested in your attitudes to these things. Yes, we are quite different clearly. LandSakes: we don't have an experiement with banning guns, we have never have allowed guns in public and the ownership of any firearm is subject to strict conditions here. Anybody in the UK would say we have a better society for our gun rules, no UK government would even think about changing that. I'm not sure what the connection between immigration, and unemployment and guns is for you though. The real culture difference is that you in the U.S don't seem to mind having people wandering around with guns, whereas we certainly do. Veryold: Your understanding of land ownership is not quite accurate I'm afraid. I own land and a house and so do most people here, nothing whatsoever to do with leasing from the Crown. I suppose, from your final comment, that we are blessed with good manners and that you are not representitive of the thoughts of your fellow Americans (we have a very high regard for The United States). Our weather is bad, apart from that we are very blessed indeed. As for Piers Morgan, is that a type of Champagne?
Report as
I like England. I like the fact they are different. They don't understand our constitution, however. It's not how they do things.
America has always been a frontier nation, one with a wild and untamed side. Our farmers had bears and wolves and other such creatures to contend with; we also had to fight against the tyranny of England's oppression. The gun is part of our national history, our daily tool box, and how we protect ourselves.
As we grow into cities, we find that the freedom to bear arms is limited by the freedoms other have to life-- to not be shot. If you live on a farm, you almost can shoot without hitting anyone; not so in the city. So just like smoking, we limit the right to shoot firearms in the city. But merely owning a gun isn't a crime, here. It's a difference between britain and USA, and one we like. Oh, and our gun violence numbers are a third what they are in South America, and declining; why not take your disgust to Mexico and tell them to curb the violence?
Report as
Onegreen
My disgust? You mean my opinion about guns? To take your historic argument seriously shineypate1, we in the UK would still be walking around armed because Italians came here (we were invaded by the Romans). The gun is part of your national history of course. We used to burn witches at the stake. Happily, we no longer do things that were 'important' to some in the past.
Report as
Shinypate why would they get upset at Mexico for guns? It's illegal to own one there.
Report as
Onegreen
TheDefianteOne, I didn't know that it's illegal to own a gun in Mexico. I've certainly learned something today. I just assumed that everyone in Mexico had a gun! we have so much mis-understanding about each other's country. Thanks for that.
Report as
Although you were right about most people probably having guns. Lol. I live on the border so I hear a lot of news about Mexico. It's like the Wild West there.
Report as
HonestJohn4reel
Great you're friggin British, that's bloddy wonderful. Keep your ass there and your opinions concerning our nation there as well; we kicked your asses twice, saved your asses twice and speaking for myself, we should have let Hitler invade your bloody country!
Report as
Add a comment...

People kill people, not guns. It takes someone to pull the trigger, yes. But using the Boston Marathon & the horrible murders there as an example, pressure cookers were used in the bombings. People kill with knives. If a person is sick enough to murder, they will find a way - gun or no gun. As to the British guy above: We escaped British rule & tyranny and created our government FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE! Our Second Amendment gives us the Right to Bear Arms so that we can protect ourselves from any enemy, foreign or domestic. I believe that criminals will have access to guns & the general population not if gun control is implemented. We have the right to protect ourselves & our families.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
Onegreen
Serious question to all you Americans: What would you honestly prefer? To have a nation where carrying a firearm is illegal? or where people walk around armed to the teeth with guns? A no brainer if you ask me. Yet you all get so wound up about gun control and your Second Ammendments. Laws surely should be fit for purpose in the age that they are in place?
Report as
Like I said there are already too many guns in the country and banning them now wouldn't do much to get rid of them.
Report as
Add a comment...

People kill people. Guns are only used to help kill other people. A gun alone can't do anything

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Both!

Helpful (1) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
I agree
Report as
Add a comment...

I firmly believe in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
However, there are many ways to effectively negate that right, without an outright gun ban -- and all these ways are being attempted, as I write.
It's a complicated issue.
Setting aside the desire to protect ourselves and our families, it has been shown again and again that banning guns (even in the UK, please note!) has only resulted in increased gun-related violent crimes.
However, my primary reason is one that that our Founding Fathers would have thought was obvious:
I don't wish to be part of a disarmed population, who are then completely at the mercy of the government. Too many other countries (about 20+, at last count) completely banned civilian guns -- and then their governments morphed into monsters that killed millions of people. Yes, millions! Do not think for a minute that Nazi Germany was the only, or even the worst, offender. They were pikers at only 13+ million deaths.
"Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!"
I love our country the way it is, but we have to make sure it doesn't get corrupted by giving it total and absolute power over its citizens.
Do NOT give our government absolute power by banning guns to civilians. Do NOT let them legislate a virtual ban with other "limitation" laws, like severe taxation, super-high registration fees, magazine limits (a slippery slope, there).
There are gun background checks laws in place. There are gun sales and licensing/registration laws in place.
Insist loudly that those are more rigorously enforced, but do Not, please, give up the right to own a gun, or let that right be legislated into a red-tape nightmare or make it financially inaccessible to the average citizen.

Helpful (1) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (8)
Report as
Unfortunately, the government has a lot more power than it should from the 17th amendment. They the liberals in congress will push through another gun laws whether people want them or not. Most people will say "Calm down it's only magazines that is being limited." Your right. Right now but what about 5 years from now? Now that the federal gov. has the power to limit guns what else do they want to limit? This is how tyranny happens!
Report as
You took the thoughts right out of my head. I agree completely that the slope slide has already begun. Scary.
.
There's an old Middle East axiom about "Never let a camel stick his nose in the tent, because the rest of the camel will inevitably follow. " (And, of course the tent will be pulled down easily from the inside.)
-- I'm afraid that, for us, the camel is already pooping on our rugs, and leaning on the tent ropes.
I haven't decided yet about the worthiness of the 17th amendment, but I am definitely leery of allowing some state legislature body (Elected Appointed?) elect senators. Most high level state offices (elected or not) are held by people with a yen for money and an itch for power, which does not bode well for my interests, IMO.
I'm from Illinois. We've already had 2 (or is it 3?) governors indicted/convicted for corruption in office in recent years, not to mention a raft of lesser office holders currently in or going to jail. This does not engender confidence in their ethics or concern for the public good.
These people can't be trusted to choose senators. Heck, I wouldn't trust them with the key to the outhouse.
Report as
And our last governor was brought down for trying to make deals for the Senate seat Obama left vacant !! ... I'm not so naive that I don't think that was exactly what was happening all over the country before the 17th amendment was enacted. It still happens now, but they have to be even sneakier when campaigning to the public.
Report as
the problem with the 17th amendment is that the core principle is to give the federal government MORE power over the state government. The triangle of power should ALWAYS start with the PEOPLE then the STATE and then the Federal Government. Since the addition of the 17th amendment the federal government has manipulated the system by corrupting senators to sign their bills into laws. You're right to say there was corruption before the amendment. But, that was corruption of the state and that is much easier to fix than federal corruption. And according to Judge Andrew P. Napolitano in his book Theodore and Woodrow, in 1906 there were two cases of corruption in the senate that scared enough people to believe the system was corrupt and to alter the way the constitution was created. I was bringing this up because the federal government will always have the upper hand until we get rid of that amendment,
Report as
I'm confused.
Exactly how does the 17th amendment increase federal power?
The scandals of 1909 were the spur to enact this amendment, which altered the constitutional arrangement. In the constitution, state senators were appointed by state legislators, and not elected by the people. The scandals involved people effectively buying their way into senate seats by throwing money around state legislators.
In 1912, the 17th amendment changed that, so that state senators are now elected by the people.
Where are you claiming this federal power is, in this setup?
Politicians broker deals for deals all the time, whether it's city, county, state, congress, senate, military, or federal. I hate that, but it's hard to control.
I'm wayyyyyyy more worried about the fact that the IRS now has been given control of Obamacare.
The IRS has NO checks and balances applied to it at all. In the last 60 years, more and more federal offices have used the IRS as a weapon, from the justice department, foreign affairs, military, the FBI and CIA, and of course almost every president.
There is NO department to police the activities of the IRS on a continual basis. They are way too powerful and getting more so now. Before they could just freeze and then strip you of finances and property overnight. That is bad enough.
But NOW they will have the power over health services, as well.
How long before the IRS bean counters are allowed to set up more and stricter boards that decide who's "eligible" for life-saving medical treatment? Probably within the next year and a half, I bet.
That's life and death stuff and should not be in the hands of the IRS.
Report as
You and I are of similar mindset. I agree that it's a HUGE concern that the IRS gave Obama control of Obamacare. However, the 17th amendment is so bad because it destroyed the very balance of power we had with the federal government and the state.government. Let me explain what the system WAS like before the progressives in the federal government changed it. Before the senate was considered part of the state government because they were chosen by the governors of the state to represent the state. They are the state's responsibility and can be held in check by the governor who appointed them. He could remove them from office whenever the people of the state felt he was not doing his job right. Now when they are elected by the people (you'd think it's a good thing) they become part of the national government and are therefore unable to removed from power by the governor. This gives the federal government more power because now senators are in office for six years and can do anything they want (besides break the law or commit treason) and they are no longer considered part of the state government. Now when the senators are corrupt, the people are stuck with them for six years because the progressives changed the very system that our Founding Fathers created to have balance between the state and the federal government.
Report as
Ah I see what you are saying now, I believe. However, you forgot to mention that the same problem of recall/removal is true for BOTH houses of the Congress, both House of Representatives ("congressmen") and Senate.
I agree that impeachment of US Senators and Congressmen should be possible from the state level. The federal level has always been loathe to act on expulsion procedures (except in cases of suspected "treason") because they are elected to office. It gets dicey.
But IMO there should be a mechanism for mid-term removal that originates and is enforced from the state level, whether by recall referendum on a mid-term ballot, or by vote by both houses of the state legislature. If 'we the people' can put them IN office, we should be the ones to take them OUT of office.
I agree that is a serious oversight in the amendment, but I don't want to "throw out the baby with the bath water" by revoking the 17th Amendment.
Frankly, if we can get a new amendment passed for term limits for both houses of Congress (as was done for President after FDR's getting a 4th term), then the mechanism for removal when necessary could be specified, too. It's way to loosely goosey now, the way it stands. And that is, I agree, too much federal power.
But leave the 17th as is, because it does have value, still, IMO.
Report as
I suppose so. But I definitely agree that senators need term limits.
Report as
Add a comment...

If it wasnt guns it would be other things. People kill people... Period!

Helpful (2) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
and that's the truth
Report as
Add a comment...
idkifimright

both

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Ask a gun. See what answers they can give you. None! They dont have a brain to know when their trigger is pulled. Save your time. People will always gave guns and nobody can change that.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

People kill people.
And even without guns they're knife.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

People can kill without guns, but guns can't kill without people. It's always the person behind the gun who kills.thats why we need gun control. Of course guns have always been controlled. it's the people we can't control. we need to at least try to identify the people who shouldn't legally own guns. background checks can do this to a certain extent.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Onegreen
The old gun control excuse again. The only sensible way to control guns is to ban them and kick anybody caught carrying one behind bars for a few years.
Report as
Onegreen, I feel your cliched comeback to gun control issues is a naive approach to the problem.
It simply isn't practical in a vast population. No city or even state police department has that much manpower to enforce it, nor can we afford jails to exact sentences. In most countries where it had been strictly enforced, it usually involved the national military and resulted in an disastrous imbalance of civilian vs. military power.
Report as
@landsakes also those countries never really had privately owned firearms before.
Report as
Add a comment...

That's a hard one the only way a gun can fire is if the trigger can be pulled.so let's think about this who can pull a trigger ?In my opinion a trigger can be pulled by a lot of people .Some might pull it and really not want to.like a child .Or mentaly unstable .Or the angry and full of rage and not think inking or the drunk.And on drugs person .Or. The criminal that finds your gun .Or a person that buys a gun out of fear and doesn't know a thing about guns .Pritty scary .Just because you have gun doesn't mean you will be safe .A gun is a gun .Thats all it is .And in the news I've been hearing a lot a bout guns has it helped I don't know what do you think?

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

One does not blame the tool for human error. God bless.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

People do......... and cancer, and aids, and car crashes, and war, and........ um..... lions, and bow and arrows..... yup..... bow and arrows.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Actually its the trauma that the bullet inflicts on a person that can range anywhere from mild to severe and will most certainly harm someone. Gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting illegal guns. When is the last time you saw a law abiding citizen hurt someone else? answer is never because of the definition of the words "law abiding"

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Well guns are a inanimate object, so people kill people, they just find ways to do it using something other than their bare hands... most of the time anyways.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches