Junk Gun Control Research

I have a confession to make, an emergency physician like me, named Art Kellerman, was one of the most junk science perps of the last 15 years on issues of gun control.

I am ashamed of him and his research.

Art hated guns and some of his junk science included making it seem that the victims of gun violence were children–only he included adolescents of gang banger age. You know gang bangers, they shoot with their guns sideways in the movies.

He also made a case for acquaintance gun crimes but failed to warn that he included john v pimp or prostitute, or even customer v cab driver, anything that was acquaintance, even gang banger crimes where the perp knew the name of the victim.

Art did one where he tried to show that guns in the home were more likely to kill the homeowner, failing to point out that suicide is a different thing.

Lastly, junk scientist Art did a study on how home guns increased the rate of gun violence, failing to adjust for socioeconomics and neighborhood consideration, like if I live in a violent neighborhood, if I have a gun it might be for sensible self defense?

Art Kellerman wanted to disarm Americans. He apparently lives in a nice neighborhood in Atlanta.

I think Art Kellerman is a mountebank and slug, a junk scientist extraordinaire and don’t trust me, gun control researchers like Gary Kleck and John Lott have exposed this junk science clown researcher.

So, by golly, here comes another essay discussion the nature of guns and gun defense in America. Also the subject of gun killings and violence. It isn’t really an anti Democrat piece as much as a piece that describes a subset of the crazy Democrat party. I can’t help them, they are barbarians or they support barbarians.

I would recommend that every woman in America learn to handle and use a gun to good effect. It eliminates the advantage us big boys, us males, have in a confrontation. Trust me, you don’t want to be at a disadvantage–that’s not prudent. You have children and a family to consider, not to mention yourself, shoot to kill.

Learn to shoot to kill. For amateurs and less than extreme experts, no head shots, no wing ‘em shots, shoot center mass, then again, and again. When faced with lethal threat, return the threat, emphatically. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Some cities are a damn jungle. Do not underestimate the danger–or you will be a victim.

Don’t pull a gun to threaten, pull it to shoot if the perp doesn’t immediately obey the command to lie down hands behind the head or something similar in effect to eliminate the threat to life. Don’t apologize, this isn’t about manners, it’s about survival.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/guns_dont_kill_people_democrats_kill_people.html

About these ads

38 responses to “Junk Gun Control Research

  1. What an article. When people cherry-pick results to make their points they ought to look a little deeper than the surface. Having lived in Louisiana and currently live in Virginia, I can make an excellent guess on where the homicides occurred. The anti-gunners keep coming up with such fun and interesting stats.

    BTW: gun control is Grip, Sight, Press.

  2. With all do respect, this is suppose to be a site that tries to get the bias out of interpretation of data. I Have been a reader and commenter for many years. Parroting a bunch of NRA slogans is no better than the people you criticize. The second amendment gives you the right to have a gun under reasonable regulations (can’t have machine guns or recoiless rifles). It does not say you have to have a gun. This is blatant promotion and John, you should recuse yourself when you personal biases are involved, Otherwise I suggest you give up your editor position. While I know that you share a more liberal view of gun ownership, as does Steve, the above remarks are way over the top.

    • You are uninformed scarletk. People can and do have machine guns.

    • “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I don’t see the part about reasonable regulations.

      As Gamecock said you can legally own machine guns. You might even be able to own recoiless rifles (the 105mm is used for avalanche control), but the ammunition would be difficult to come by and would probably be pretty expensive. If you want a Tommy gun, and live in a state that doesn’t suppress the second amendment, all you need is $200 NFA stamp, 6 months of background checks and something in the range of $30k in cash to buy one.

      As for reasonable regulations, my 1978 KMart Glenfield Model 60 .22 rifle is illegal under New Jersey’s reasonable regulations because the tube holds 17-19 rounds. Makes it a highly dangerous assault weapon, I haven’t checked to see if my Henry .22 lever gun is a highly dangerous assault weapon in NJ. I’d guess it would be in NYC.

      The point of the article is the authors of the study cherry picked the states used. Why not all 50? If you look at demographics based on which party wins precincts, it was found that the numbers were mostly in strong democrat precincts.

      • Bob, I hear what you’re saying in re: the Fifth Amendment, but even the First has its caveats and limitations, the “shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” example being the most famous. Since that is a case of an individual excercise of First Amendment rights infringing upon the rights and liberties of others (namely, directly causing avoidable, imminent danger to public safety) it is unreasonable to expect that the Fifth Amendment, et al., should not have some similar limitation(s) based on similar principle(s). It is not a carte blanche to own/operate weapons freely.

        Since my carrying a gun (or a sword, or a mace, &c.) on my hip doesn’t present any such inherent danger to others, it should be allowed by default, regardless of location (school, shopping mall, govt bulding, and so on). However, carrying a 2,000lb. “bunker-buster” in the back of my pick-up DOES present a danger to others around me, and is thus rightfully subject to state regulation. Also, operating that gun/sword/&c. in a public place DEFINITELY presents public safety issues, and so is most definitely subject to limitation.

        Just for drill, mini-guns have NEVER been banned for private ownership in the US — I think there are maybe a dozen or two floating around under private ownership right this minute, at least there were the last time I heard — nor should they be as, in and of themselves, they present no inherent danger to the general public. Their use, on the other hand, IS regulated, and rightfully so given the rate of fire, range, and ability to cause damage during use, intentional or otherwise. I imagine a 105mm (or a 120mm mortar system, e.g.) splits the difference here: not banned outright, but not only regulated in terms of use, but also (in this case) the proper transportation, storage and handling of the ammunition.

        • You seem to be stretching to find exceptions to the 2nd Amendment. Most really don’t apply and are extraneous arguments. I haven’t looked at recoiless rifles and, now, mortars in years, but I’m willing to bet if you had enough money there are places you could own and fire them. I haven’t been interested in that since Uncle Sugar and I parted ways. I don’t know how mini-guns are regulated, but Gatling guns are technically semiautomatic firearms. I’m sure several states would have the vapors. Magazine size? If you want to waste money and lots of .22lr ammo you can make a gatling gun out of some Ruger 10/22′s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2yzcMPQZdU

        • Look up where that phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” comes from. It’s a fascinating tale of Supreme Court failure. It was used as a supporting argument for the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold convicting a man for distributing pamphlets in protest of the draft. The legal test “clear and present danger” that it was meant to illustrate is no longer used as a legal argument. Today “inciting imminent lawless action” is the basis for restricting speech.

          Also, the word “arms” in the context of the bill of rights meant weapons or armor which can be carried by an individual. The word has been stretched since then with phrases like “nuclear arms”, but arguments about reasonable restriction that center around artillery, tanks, and other large explosives are generally just a distraction.

          As for the legality of fully automatic weapons, while it is true that they have never been explicitly banned, the $200 price for a tax stamp was imposed for the express purpose of placing a financial restriction on ownership. That was a lot more money when the act was originally passed. Congress of the day recognized that they had no authority to pass an outright ban and instead used their power to regulate trade to make certain weapons too expensive for the average citizen. The ban on new manufacture and import made all fully automatic weapons rare collectibles further guaranteeing that only the rich could own those weapons.

          • @ GH05T: I can carry a Stinger system by myself, or an AT-4 with two more slung over my shoulder just fine. Do those count? What about hand grenades? Or an AR-15/M-16 with M203 30mm grenade launcher slung underneath? These are all legit one-person weapons that could reasonably be considered hazardous to others without proper regulation. Does the 2nd Amendment (I’ve been pleading the “Fifth” this whole time, LOL) really allow my neighbors to stock a bunch of Claymore mines in their garage (each about the size of a to-go box weighing in at <10lbs.) without any hindrance at all?

            I'm not trying to say such arms should be banned, I'm simply saying the 2nd Amendment (and none of the others either — your story makes my point for me even if the popular excuse isn't legally used) does not provide automatic blanket coverage for ownership or use of such weapons. The fact that the logic is then stretched (not to say "tortured") into the mostly nonsensical regulations we see nowadays does not negate the valid priciple itself.

            @ Bob: I've never seen a minigun that was anything other than belt-fed. Semi-auto + long-barrel + no magazine = legal in all 50. Just saying. Gotta love stupid legislators who think it's the rifle that’s “high-powered.”

            • Smokey, I agree the amendment “does not provide automatic blanket coverage for ownership or use of such weapons.” However I feel the area for legal control is in the use. Murder is illegal. Blowing up other people’s property is illegal. Transporting explosives in an unsafe manner is illegal. If all of the reasons someone may be concerned that their neighbor owns claymores are already illegal, then why would we need to further restrict their behavior? To restrict non-criminal behavior on the basis that it may lead to criminal behavior is tantamount to prosecuting people for “precrimes”.

              All of my other qualms with laws regarding guns are based on the ineffectiveness of the law or a lack of reasoned judgment behind it. For instance, suppressors are treated the same way fully automatic weapons are in this country simply because Hollywood made them out to be the tool of spies and assassins. Short barreled rifles and shotguns are similarly restricted out of an irrational fear that these weapons are somehow more prone to use in crime. One of the many features banned by President Clinton’s executive order was barrel shrouds, the sole purpose of which is to make the weapon safer. Laws written out of irrational fear are always bad in my judgment, whether they be about guns, bombs, drugs, or the environment.

              I think I may not have given enough detail in the story if you feel it made your point. The reason people to this day use the phrase “fire in a crowded theater” is because Justice Oliver Wendell Jones Jr. used it as a seemingly logical justification for persecution of people who publicly expressed disapproval of the government during WWI. That court case stood until the 60’s. I wasn’t trying to be a smartass when I recommended you look it up. I really think you’d be interested in the story and it’s far too detailed to get into here. The point I was trying to make is that “reasonable controls” are often the disguise given to efforts to undermine the citizens’ protection from the government. Bad laws are always written for a good reason.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

            • I think I may not have given enough detail in the story if you feel it made your point.

              GH05T, all I was trying to demonstrate there was the idea that there are theoretical limits even on the broadest reading of the Bill of Rights in terms of their power and extent. The specific (more legally defensible, I will admit) reason for the limitation of the freedom of speech which you went on to offer is what I felt helped my point in that regard. I will agree with you, however, that those otherwise reasonable constraints often end up tortured into excuses for ridiculous limitations on individual rights. Any limitation making use of the principle should be scrutinized closely before approval or acceptance.

              I do remember the case you mention, but when I get a chance I will definitely go back and re-read it. Iirc, your assesment of it is entirely accurate but it never hurts to refresh one’s memory.

  3. Excellent article, John. Living in the city, I had the personal experience of an attempted home invasion where three individuals tried to kick in my front door, only my doors are steel with steel frames.

    It is a fact that when the invaders know you’re at home, which was obvious in my case, they have every intention of killing you as statistics bear out.

    Had the perpetrators breached the door, it would have created an argument between my wife and I… who got the kill shots in. Seriously, I would not have hesitated in using deadly force against the SOBs and I’m proud that my wife and children are all well trained in the use of their guns (yes, they each own one or more) for self defense.

    It’s charlatans like Kellerman that cause more harm than good.

    Keep up the good editorials.

  4. Good post.

    However, I take exception to “Learn to shoot to kill.”

    This is bad advice. In a defensive situation, you shoot to stop. Shooting to kill is immoral and can get you in serious legal trouble.

    • How does one learn to shoot to stop? Stopping generally results in killing because the only sure way to stop the threat is a center mass shot. If you’re shooting for an arm or leg, you’ll be out of rounds and dead trying such “trick” shots. In the very stressful situation where you have to mount a defense against a killer, you don’t mess around playing Annie Oakley.

      I can’t imagine how or why killing someone you know darn well is “immorally” intent on killing you and your family imminently equates into an immoral act?

    • Rule #1 when teaching people how to use firearms is “Weapons are ALWAYS loaded.” This holds true no matter how often you’ve checked to see if it isn’t. As a direct result, Rule #2 is “NEVER point that weapon at anything you do not intend to kill/destroy.” This holds true, no matter how many times you’ve checked the safety, loaded/unloded status, et cetera.

      This leads to two inevitable outcomes. First, people who take this to heart do not shoot things by accident, whether it’s themselves or anyone/anything else. Second if they do have that weapon out in self-defense, they are already morally commited to that person’s death in their own protection. If the assailant lives, that’s fine, heck maybe even desirable in the grand scheme. But you shoot until they are no longer a threat, dead or otherwise.

      (That usually means dead, btw, though as you point out, that does NOT mean you put all of your rounds into the perp, be it 6 or 60. That’s just silly.)

      If one is morally not okay with this, then one does not need a firearm for self-defense.

      • “(That usually means dead,”

        Nope. 90% of gun shot victims DO NOT DIE.

        I’ll repeat for the hard of hearing: in a defensive shooting situation, the objective is to stop the threat.

        • We’re not talking about any old random gunshot victim. Show me where it says that 90% of people shot in self-defense or home invasion live and then I’ll start listening. Don’t conflate statistics.

          I’m also not hard of hearing. I just think that in practice, your reasoning is fatally flawed. Shooting “to stop” is lunacy.

          • Shoot to kill implies murderous intent. It is a failure of character, and in many states, actionable. In self defense, one is entitled only to stop the threat. Legally and morally.

            • I’m sorry, but I am I the invader? Did I make statements earlier in the day/week/month that I planned to kill this person? Do I even know this person? NO? Then by definition it cannot be “murderous,” and your characterization becomes spurious at best. Further, deadly force is authorized in all 50 states in the direct defense of one’s own life. Use of a firearm everywhere I know of constitutes “deadly force” by legal definition. Thus your statements regarding legality are patently false as such; “shooting to kill” legally occurs every single time one points a gun at another human being and pulls the trigger in an attempt to do harm, regardless of the actual result.

              For the record, I’m NOT an advocate of “finishing someone off,” or anything similar if it’s clear they’re out of the fight: THAT falls in the immoral category, I believe, provided it’s clear to you at the time they really are no longer a threat. (Tossing their own weapon and running out the door, far, far away counts.) Until that time though, the safest, most effective way to eliminate the threat is to put them down first.

              If you, personally, do not believe in killing someone to prevent your own death, so be it. Some honestly believe that dying in such a situation is preferrable to defending themselves or others in ANY way. So be it. That is your own decision to make, and I am THE LAST PERSON who would force that on you or anyone else. But anyone using a firearm in their own self defense needs to understand that by definition firearms constitute “deadly force,” and so had better be okay with killing a perp before even owning a gun for self-defense, let alone drawing one. The heat of the moment is NOT the time to make that call.

              If that’s a problem for you, get a taser or some pepper spray instead. As far as I’m aware at least 90% of those victims live through the experience.

            • Rule #1: Never, ever point a weapon towards someone/something that you don’t intend to do harm towards.
              Rule #2: Anyone/anything that comes in my house unexpectedly, is larger than a raccoon, and I don’t recognize them, is probably going to be shot, several times, by my Trench Gun. We’ve had bears in the yard several times, one of which left large deep scratch marks in the back door.
              I am a little old lady, 5′ 2″, mature body build (which means I don’t move very fast and don’t fit through doorways as easily as I used to). I guess my “failure of character” is that I realize my vulnerability because of my gender and age, and I will not bother myself with trying to sort out any mental derangement of a home intruder (whether bear or human). A shotgun loaded with buckshot is, by itself, an intention to kill and not wound. And though I would probably have nightmares the rest of my life, after shooting someone, at least I would be alive to have the nightmares.
              As to the moral issues, Gamecock, tell me what you would want your mother or grandmother to do, in case of a home invasion.

          • Show me where it says that most usually die.

        • What does it matter that 90% do not die? At least 10% did die and the intent of the individual defending their family and home was to kill before being killed. If they didn’t succeed in killing the person it wasn’t because they didn’t try.

          I’m still mystified by the notion that somehow there’s a difference between shooting to stop or shooting to kill a perpetrator who is an immediate deadly threat to you or your family. Explain the difference in technique. If there is a 10% chance you will kill them then you shoot with the intent to kill, period, end of report.

          If someone kicks in my door I absolutely will assume their intention is to kill me or other members of my family because statistics bear that assumption out. I therefore have a moral obligation and legal right to use deadly force to stop them. To think otherwise is idealized fantasy.

          If you don’t want to kill a person threatening to kill you or members of your family then don’t own a gun. Try to scare them off with threats of legal action or something.

  5. Guns are an extremely unreliable method of killing people. They are however quite good at making people stop what they are doing.

  6. Scott Scarborough

    Gamecock,

    No it is good advice. That is the most reliable way of stopping someone. If you are considering the safety of an attacker when you and/or you family are being attached YOU ARE IMMORAL.

    • In some states, such as mine, idle chatter post-shooting that you were trying to kill the bastard will be smiled at. In blue states, it will get you 20 years.

      Additionally, once the threat is stopped, it behooves you to look around, to make sure the perp wasn’t alone. Emptying your gun into a corpse is stupid.

      The objective is to stop the threat. Whether the perp dies or not is totally irrelevant.

      • Idle post-shooting chatter is a separate issue from whether or not the perp’s death in one’s self-defense effort is justified. That’s just a matter of situational awareness: don’t talk to the press; talk in detail only to your lawyer and the investigating police; say only what you need to on the stand, if called.

        Generally, the only people who routinely empty magazines into dead perps are cops, and then only when there’s more than one or two of them present. I’m not faulting them, generally; psychologically, it’s hard to stop shooting yourself if other people are still shooting because it tends to indicate (however inaccurately) that a deadly threat is still present. In those cases it takes someone actively assessing the situation and deliberately and clearly calling for a cease-fire. That assessment can often be hard to make before 20, 30, 40 or more rounds have gone downrange, depending on the number of officers present.

  7. But, but….you can’t report things like that. It’s racist. /sarc

  8. Granny, excellent points, when I qualified last year for another term of c and c, the guy who ran the range told of a very old woman who lived on a ranch west of us, And she brought a 45 to the qualification shoot and put her target on the front porch of her ranch house after qualifying quite well.

    For informational purposes i Suppose, since sometimes strangers from a strange land walk across Texas ranch land and consider taking advantage of those who live isolated.

    The thing i forgot to put in my first essay was advice on shotguns.

    Shotguns are just fine for home defense, nothing like the sound of a pump shotgun to get the attention of an invador, but the guns expert for the sheriff that i work for recommended I put away my buckshot loads and go with no 8 bird shot, to reduce the chance of harming an innocent on the other side of a wall without reducing the stopping ability of the 12 gauge.

    • “the guns expert for the sheriff that i work for recommended I put away my buckshot loads and go with no 8 bird shot, to reduce the chance of harming an innocent on the other side of a wall without reducing the stopping ability of the 12 gauge.”

      You were given bad advice.

      Ballistic weapons work by penetration. #8 shot won’t penetrate humans. Bird shot is good for birds. 00 buck provides the best balance between penetration of humans and limited penetration of walls.

      http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3_2.htm

  9. At the risk of tenderizing an expired equine…
    If you make the decision to use a firearm in self defense, you have to decide the circumstances you will use one and how you plan to use it. I’m fair shot with a handgun when the target is stationary and don’t shoot back (I have noticed that the black dots have recently started jumping out of the way of the bullet). I’m not quite as good with the fast draw and rapid fire. At 20′ your decision time short and ability to accurately place one shot is very limited. If I am at that point, I truly believe I am under a serious threat to my life. Like Janice, I’m not a candidate for successful application of the Nike defense.
    The gun is loaded, it isn’t pointed at anything I don’t intend to destroy, I identify the target and I know what’s around it. To the best of my ability.
    @Smokey: The minigun is a belt fed, electrically operated 6-barrel Gatling gun.

  10. American cities and states that enact draconian gun control laws find that their violent crime rates go UP, at a time when comparable statistics are going down in most of the rest of the country.

    Arizona did not experience the blood-bath, predicted by gun control advocates, when their shall-issue law went into effect.

    Pop quiz: Which state has the lowest rate of violent crime? Answer: New Hampshire. Would you believe that NH is a Second Amendment-friendly, shall-issue state?

    A confounding issue is that NH does not have any big cities. A fun study would be to compare violent crime stats of towns in NH with demographically matched towns in a strict gun-control state, like Illinois.

  11. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-defence

    “he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger”

    You have the right to use deadly force to stop an assailant; you have no right to kill them once you have stopped them.

    This distinction is very real. You will go to prison if you violate it.

    • It’s the idea that we should somehow be concered BEFORE the assailant is stopped that has us worried about your advice, Gamecock. That’s where all the flak is coming from. ONCE the assailant is stopped, then we can worry about whether the assailant is still alive or not. Not an instant before.

      • I took exception to Dr. John’s statement. It is bad advice. Legally. You shoot the perp center mass, regardless. To stop them. Period.

    • Gamecock, it seems like you’re debating literalism with legal semantics. If your point is that you shouldn’t say you will shoot to kill because your words can be used in a court of law to prove intent, then I agree, but that is a matter of legal self-defense in a world where the law doesn’t always protect the innocent.

      However, if you are saying that it is morally wrong to kill someone who intends you harm if you want them dead, but not if you only want them to stop trying to harm you, then I disagree. Deliberately firing a gun into a person’s chest cannot be construed “accidental death”. Even a .22lr can be lethal from 100 yards. The fact that it isn’t always lethal isn’t a good reason to teach gun owners that it’s ok to shoot at people they don’t want to die. The defining factor in self-defense cases should not be intent, but motivation. I don’t believe that “I didn’t mean to kill him” would stand in a court of law if you deliberately took aim and fired.

      If you know that the action you are about to take has the potential to take someone else’s life, and you decide to go through with that action, then you have decided that the consequences of that person’s death are worth the benefits. If you point a gun at someone’s heart and pull the trigger, you don’t get to say you didn’t mean to kill him. If a person’s personal morals won’t allow that, then they should investigate the many “less than lethal” options on the market.

      • “Gamecock, it seems like you’re debating literalism with legal semantics.”

        It isn’t semantics. It’s twenty years in prison. [Okay, Smokey, I don't have a source for that. Maybe it's 5 years plus probation.]

        You can’t learn to “shoot to kill,” as Dr. John says, then tell the cops you were shooting them to stop them. How you train is how you will respond under stress.

        “However, if you are saying that it is morally wrong to kill someone who intends you harm if you want them dead, but not if you only want them to stop trying to harm you, then I disagree.”

        I provided you with a link to the legal philosophy. There’s nothing else I can do for you.

        If someone is attacking you, shoot the bastard in the upper chest. Absolutely. That’s what I will do. If they die, well that’s just too bad. But for the last time: DO NOT SHOOT THEM TO KILL THEM.

        • I think the only real disagreement here is in the definition of the phrase “shoot to kill”. In my estimation, putting a .45 slug in the upper chest of a person is shooting to kill. That’s what I meant by semantics. You’re saying you’d do the same thing, you’re just calling it something different. I don’t understand how you can aim for a person’s heart and pull the trigger without intent to kill.

          You are correct that a person will respond according to their training. How would you train to shoot not to kill?

        • A quick addendum, the link you provided leads to this.

          “A man may defend himself, and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. 1 East, P. C. 271; 4 Bl. Com. 180. A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, property or habitation, against anyone who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist, and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.”

          Again, the defining factor in self-defense cases is the motivation of the defendant. Did the defendant act out of fear for his or someone else’s safety? Intent, on the other hand, is the defining factor in accidental deaths such as in the case of a negligent discharge. You may be thinking of “imperfect self-defense” in which the defendant “honestly, but unreasonably” believed that deadly force was necessary. This may result in a reduction from murder to manslaughter even though the defendant intended to kill his assailant and it is upheld that a reasonable person would not have done so. Also if a defendant obtains “control of the situation” prior to killing his assailant, a case for murder could be pursued.

          If any lawyers in the audience would care to clarify these points, I’d be appreciative.

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