Gun Control & the Catholic Church

Ray_Scheel · Jul 22, 2007

Bennie_P said:
Everyone of those are from pro-gun advocates, I wouldn’t consider them unbias nor verifiable,.

Speaking of, I don’t recall you ever recanting or retracting your parroting of the Brady misinformation after you initially defended them and then simply shifted topics following the effort I made to spell out how the majority of their fact sheets were a mixture of misinformation and data irrelevant to the claim they were trying to make at the time. In fact, you’ve continued to use many of their preferred approaches through this entire thread, including your habit of clarifying your actual goals when what you were claiming your goal was not lining up with what you were proposing to get there…

Bennie_P · Jul 22, 2007

Ray_Scheel said:
Bennie:

Do you agree or disagree that a set of uniform laws would be most sensible if modeled after the regulations in place where the public is in the least danger of being a victim of violent crime?

Also previously asked but ignored: Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your proposal for stricter gun registration reduces gun or other violent crime?

Bennie_P · Jul 22, 2007

Ray_Scheel said:
Speaking of, I don’t recall you ever recanting or retracting your parroting of the Brady misinformation after you initially defended them and then simply shifted topics following the effort I made to spell out how the majority of their fact sheets were a mixture of misinformation and data irrelevant to the claim they were trying to make at the time. In fact, you’ve continued to use many of their preferred approaches through this entire thread, including your habit of clarifying your actual goals when what you were claiming your goal was not lining up with what you were proposing to get there…

Instead in getting into a debate whose information was or was not tainted or twisted, I start using information that could not be considered tainted, that is information not from any gun-control lobby group, and information that was not being presented by the source to prove the points of discussion here. So I feel it is only fair if some one wants debunk that information concerning crime rates vs gun laws then they also need to come up sources and information which are independent of the gun lobby. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If I’m able to present a case for my ideas based on independant information, …

besides the so called facts SirKnight was using was paste and cut staight from a pro-gun “booklet” Gun Facts which to verify each and every source of “fact” of that 90 plus page book is impossible, which there are several versions posted online. gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.1/GunFacts4-1-Print.pdf

I tried looking up some that information separate from it’s own pages and it seems not to be available except from other pro-gun sites.

Crime rates seem to run in cycles, so really you need to look where rates are low and rates are high, look at the laws in place, if crime goes up a percentage or two after a law is passed is not a good indication if the law is working or not, for without the law it could of been possilbe the rate would of increased in the double digits - but there is no way of truly telling. So it would seem better to compare rates between cities based on the laws in place, if there is a big gap between a cities with strict laws to ones with lax laws that is a better indicator, pluse you should look at the laws in the surrounding states see if thier laws are underminding other laws in place. This a reasoning behind uniform of laws.

Man · Jul 22, 2007

melensdad said:
First, I am pro-gun, but you are certainly correct that I typically see this from the perspective of a US citizen.

As for “who is anti-gun?”

Take a look at the writings of the USSCB. The US organization of Bishops clearly takes much of its anti-gun writing DIRECTLY from Sarah Brady’s anti-gun campaigns!

Unless people can learn to keep their handguns locked up or deployed (one or the other), it is going to be a societal problem, and the government is going to want to regulate it.

Bennie_P · Jul 22, 2007

Bennie_P said:
Crime rates seem to run in cycles, so really you need to look where rates are low and rates are high, look at the laws in place, if crime goes up a percentage or two after a law is passed is not a good indication if the law is working or not, for without the law it could of been possilbe the rate would of increased in the double digits - but there is no way of truly telling. So it would seem better to compare rates between cities based on the laws in place, if there is a big gap between a cities with strict laws to ones with lax laws that is a better indicator, pluse you should look at the laws in the surrounding states see if thier laws are underminding other laws in place. This a reasoning behind uniform of laws.

I want to continue on this one idea here.
You noticed I listed cities and not state crime rates. This is something I noticed while participating in this thread and it is something I think both the pro-gun and pro-control or antigun people miss, they debate crime rates in states, but those rates are misrepresenting the problem IMO. Because of the number of cities within a state will skew the results of the effect of laws. You can have a state which overall crime rate is low yet it’s cities will have some of the highest crime rates in the nation. Yet it may be proven that carry laws will reduce crime, but without strict registration of handguns and laws in place to prevent the profitabilty of ‘strawpurchaes’ such as multiple sale restrictions, waitng periods and such, strict measure are nullified in the states with them. A combination of carry laws and the other measures I noted may be the closes thing to a real solution. Not a total gun ban, and not just carry laws. But this all or nothing attitude will keep both sides at odds and I’m afraid the anti-gun lobby will win in the long run, if the pro-gun lobby isn’t willing to sacrafice convenience and take the lead in implementing sensible gun control.

Sir_Knight · Jul 22, 2007

Bennie_P said:
besides the so called facts SirKnight was using was paste and cut staight from a pro-gun “booklet” Gun Facts which to verify each and every source of “fact” of that 90 plus page book is impossible, which there are several versions posted online. gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.1/GunFacts4-1-Print.pdf

I tried looking up some that information separate from it’s own pages and it seems not to be available except from other pro-gun sites.

Yes, they are from a pro-gun publication BUT they used INDEPENDENT sources to arrive at their conclusion and they listed those sources. While these sources may not be available online, they ARE available if you disbelieve them. I do not. If you do, you are free to re-verify their sources.

Ray_Scheel · Jul 22, 2007

Bennie_P said:
Arkansas is one of the most liberal gun law states in the nation, along with Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama. Look at the Liberal gun law cities compared to strict gun law cities.

So, the question is are you?

I couldn’t help but notice that you still didn’t take a firm position on the question yourself. You also again avoided addressing whether you had any proof at all suggesting that increasing registration requirements for legally held guns had any impact on crime rates. All in all, it looks like you are bound and determined to avoid tying yourself to any particular goals if there is a chance the sensible methods for getting there might not include your pet ideas for additional gun control.

Bennie_P said:
Crime rates seem to run in cycles, so really you need to look where rates are low and rates are high, look at the laws in place, if crime goes up a percentage or two after a law is passed is not a good indication if the law is working or not, for without the law it could of been possilbe the rate would of increased in the double digits - but there is no way of truly telling.

Wow. You better get on the stick telling all the statisticians that everything they’ve worked out about standard deviations and measurable effect is unreliable when dealing with measuring the impact of gun regulations on crime rates. That is, presuming you have some sort of proof beyond what you feel has to be the case as to why the foundational premises of the field of statistics needs to be re-written…

Bennie_P said:
So it would seem better to compare rates between cities based on the laws in place, if there is a big gap between a cities with strict laws to ones with lax laws that is a better indicator, pluse you should look at the laws in the surrounding states see if thier laws are underminding other laws in place. This a reasoning behind uniform of laws.

We already have statistically relevant examples of what happens with the implementations of certain gun regulations and restrictions when implemented across an national front to know what to expect regarding before and after changes in crime rates (e.g. Australia and Britian, added: Canada) as well as states large enough where the more central cities had an effective geographical buffer to serve to isolate them. Since we have those relevant examples, there is no logically legitimate reason to ignore those cases when trying to determine what would happen if certain restrictions were implemented where easy transport from region to region was not a factor, so why are you continuing to insist on putting personal conjecture above what has been repeatedly demonstrated in practice?

Bennie_P said:
if the pro-gun lobby isn’t willing to sacrafice convenience and take the lead in implementing sensible gun control.

So, what exactly is your problem logically with the gun lobby’s proposal that we first try to better enforce gun laws in the cases where people are already possessing and trafficking them illegally? Why, exactly, are you so sure that additional gun control regulations will be more effective than what is currently on the books without additional enforcement of any of the gun laws?

Ray_Scheel · Jul 22, 2007

Sir_Knight said:
Yes, they are from a pro-gun publication BUT they used INDEPENDENT sources to arrive at their conclusion and they listed those sources. While these sources may not be available online, they ARE available if you disbelieve them. I do not. If you do, you are free to re-verify their sources.

Bennie: To follow up on Sir Knight’s comments here, a great many of those sources could be obtained through the libraries of major universities, in particular, of one which offers criminal justice or related degree options.

We’ve already done a dance a few times about what constitutes acceptable sources, it now appears you are trying to gloss over your continued adherence of the conclusions of Brady et all despite their provable lack of foundational support while also looking for arbitrary reasons to dismiss sources that contradict the "feels right’ swags you have generally relied on through this and related thread.

Bennie_P · Jul 22, 2007

Sir_Knight said:
Yes, they are from a pro-gun publication BUT they used INDEPENDENT sources to **arrive at their conclusion **and they listed those sources. While these sources may not be available online, they ARE available if you disbelieve them. I do not. If you do, you are free to re-verify their sources.

Which studies and sources did they omit? What is the motivation of thier report and fact sheets? Did they only seek out sources and reports which “fit” the conclusion they wanted to have or present?

This is the conclusion I have come to, the majority of cities which have lax gun laws have high crime rights, the majority of cities that have that have strict gun laws have lower crime rates.** Fact.**

Developed countries that have strict gun laws have an ultra low murder rate as compared to the United States. **Fact **

You can dispute it all you want, it will not change those facts.

You can follow what you see as facts spooned feed to you by the gun lobby, but your position, which I stated at the beginning of all this has a foundation motivatied on greed of those that want to sell you your toys, and they keep it alive by feeding gun owners with fear,i.g. fear of crime, fear of your goverment, even fear of foreign invasion.

As to Gun Control and the Catholic Church? Curbing and stopping sensless violence is the constitent pro-life positon.

The Catholic Church teaches that violence and excessive use of force is unacceptable Fact.

The Catholic Church teaches that legimate goverments have the duty to regulate the manufacture and sales of arms Fact.

USSCB promotes reduction of violence in the United States through passing laws which include, but not exclusive to controlling the access of firearms. Fact.

The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law. And that, knowing the season, that it is now the hour for us to rise from sleep. For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed. The night is passed And the day is at hand. Let us, therefore cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light.
http://www.lamblion.com/images/2006/Jesus_teacher.jpg

For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise: and the prudence of the prudent I will reject. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:19 - 20
P.S the Brady information being disputed wasn’t any of the information I was using.

That’s enough!

melensdad · Jul 22, 2007

Bennie_P said:
Which studies and sources did they omit?

Unlike the Brady Campaign’s “cooked” facts, the studies were scholarly studies and used scientifically acceptable and verifiable methodology and the anti-gun crowd no longer even tries to rebuke them because the reports are FACTUAL.

Bennie_P said:
What is the motivation of thier report and fact sheets?

Well Lott and a few others were university studies. Others were government reports from federal agencies. Not sure they had any real agenda.

Bennie_P said:
Did they only seek out sources and reports which “fit” the conclusion they wanted to have or present?

No. Clearly they did not. In fact attempts have been made to refute the studies but as they were used scientifically acceptable and verifiable means of collecting and categorizing data they have been used to refute BOTH pro-gun and anti-gun reports by others!

These reports seem to refute the “facts” you present. Further, the website that you draw your conclusions from shows no trend data. Further, many of the cities you use for crime rates have in fact recently eased their gun laws so the crime rate you show may not even include any effect of the new carry permits, etc. Realize that some states have had carry laws for a very long time, other states have only ratified carry laws, castle docterines, etc within the past year or two.

whatevergirl · Jul 22, 2007

Sir_Knight said:
Then, you are wrong. A similar situation to the one that happened at Virginia Tech occurred on January 16th, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia. A disgruntled former student began a similar shooting spree. The difference in this case was that the attack was stopped by three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns. Unfortunately, the attack was not stopped until three people had been killed and three more wounded. Why did it take so long to stop the attack? The good guys had to retrieve their guns from their parked cars before they could confront the gunman because ALS was a gun-free zone.

All you have is your opinion, like mine. None of us can honestly say with 100% certainty that had the students been carrying guns, this incident wouldn’t have esclated to this level of violence. You cannot say I’m wrong…if you don’t like my opinion, you can say that. But, you don’t know…I could be right.

Sir_Knight · Jul 22, 2007

whatevergirl said:
All you have is your opinion, like mine.

I have an opinion which I have backed up with an actual event which SUPPORTS my opinion. You have an opinion which LACKS real world events to support your opinion.

whatevergirl said:
None of us can honestly say with 100% certainty that had the students been carrying guns, this incident wouldn’t have esclated to this level of violence.

This is true. NONE OF US can say with 100% certainty of what WILL happen. However, what HAS happened in the past is more likely to continue to happen in the future or happen more often than something which has not YET happened.

whatevergirl said:
You cannot say I’m wrong…if you don’t like my opinion, you can say that. But, you don’t know…I could be right.

Yes, I can say that you are wrong because what you have described has NOT happened YET. If and when it does, it will then be compared to my opinion to see which is more likely to happen based on which ones have happened more often. So far you have 0% actual events to support your position.

Sir_Knight · Jul 22, 2007

Bennie_P said:
Which studies and sources did they omit?

I don’t know. You tell us.

Bennie_P said:
What is the motivation of thier report and fact sheets?

To present the truth.

Bennie_P said:
Did they only seek out sources and reports which “fit” the conclusion they wanted to have or present?

Those are the tactics employed by the Brady Bunch. They’ve been caught in those attempts more than once.

Bennie_P said:
This is the conclusion I have come to, the majority of cities which have lax gun laws have high crime rights, the majority of cities that have that have strict gun laws have lower crime rates.** Fact.**

No, this is NOT a fact. It is YOUR conclusion. A conclusion which is NOT supported by the facts.

Bennie_P said:
Developed countries that have strict gun laws have an ultra low murder rate as compared to the United States. **Fact **

This MAY be a fact for GUN murders recent stats in Britain and Australia show an increase not a decrease in other types of murders and violent crime in general.

Bennie_P said:
You can dispute it all you want, it will not change those facts.

I don’t see any facts. I see a very simplified argument made.

Bennie_P said:
You can follow what you see as facts spooned feed to you by the gun lobby, but your position, which I stated at the beginning of all this has a foundation motivatied on greed of those that want to sell you your toys, and they keep it alive by feeding gun owners with fear,i.g. fear of crime, fear of your goverment, even fear of foreign invasion.

Greed? Gun makers are not very big and, while they do make a profit, it is not great.
Toys? No, tools. The tools of freedom.
Fear of crime? Yes, we live in a free society.
Fear of government? “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.” – JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Fear of foreign invasion? Did, or did not, Japan say that the reason why they did not invade mainland America during WWII was because there was a “rifle behind every blade of grass.”? Is the same thing true today? Are terrorists not targeting mainland America? 'Nuff said!

Bennie_P said:
As to Gun Control and the Catholic Church? Curbing and stopping sensless violence is the constitent pro-life positon.

So is having the ability to defend oneself

Bennie_P said:
The Catholic Church teaches that violence and excessive use of force is unacceptable Fact.

True. The Catholic Church also teaches that we have a greater duty to take care of our own life than that of another and we are NOT guilty of a sin if we kill someone during an act of self-defense.

Bennie_P said:
The Catholic Church teaches that legimate goverments have the duty to regulate the manufacture and sales of arms Fact.

The Catholic church also teaches that our right to self defense justifies the private ownership of firearms.

Bennie_P said:
For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise: and the prudence of the prudent I will reject. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Right back at ya!

Bennie_P said:
1Co 1:19 - 20
P.S the Brady information being disputed wasn’t any of the information I was using.
That’s enough!

http://showcase.netins.net/web/antlurz/wall.gif

Ray_Scheel · Jul 22, 2007

Bennie_P said:
Which studies and sources did they omit? What is the motivation of thier report and fact sheets? Did they only seek out sources and reports which “fit” the conclusion they wanted to have or present?

This same thing could much more easily be applied to the citations you have recently started spewing forth without an explanation of how they relate or establish trends.

Bennie_P said:
This is the conclusion I have come to, the majority of cities which have lax gun laws have high crime rights, the majority of cities that have that have strict gun laws have lower crime rates.** Fact.**

Did you just claim the majority of cities meet that pattern?!?! What was the definition you used for city? (population size, density, etc). How about your sample size? Controls to make sure you were not picking and choosing (like a list of all localities sorted by population)? Accomodations to reflect differnces in urban structure from one region to another (e.g. collections of many adjoining urban area on the east coast versus mega-metro areas in the South)? In other words, did you perform anything even vaguely resembling due diligence on this claim before tagging it as “fact”?

Bennie_P said:
Developed countries that have strict gun laws have an ultra low murder rate as compared to the United States. **Fact **

This has been beat to death with those making this calim regularly trying to ignore the trends in developed countries otherwise that serve as well-known counterpoints to this claim. By the way, it is VERY dishonest to intentionally pose a claim you know to be strongly disputed on a academic level as an established fact.

Bennie_P said:
You can dispute it all you want, it will not change those facts.

When fully half of the “facts” you presented are only half-fact or simply a statement of your arguments, a big issue would be your misrepresentation of them as established fact as opposed to your personal “feel-good” arguments. You have now fully crossed an ethical line that you have flirted with several times previously.

Bennie_P said:
You can follow what you see as facts spooned feed to you by the gun lobby,.

Do you have any idea how shallow that sounds coming form someone who has been repeatedly caught parroting unprovable claims by Brady et all and presenting them as proven fact when they were at best unprovable and often contradicted by existing cases?

Bennie_P said:
As to Gun Control and the Catholic Church? Curbing and stopping sensless violence is the constitent pro-life positon.

Yes, and you have repeatedly refused to answer clearly whether you would accept a plan for accomplishing that goal if it included protecting the right of the individual to legally protect themselves from both oppressive governments and lawless members of society using the means most effective at doing so, whatever that form might take (even including relaxing the restrictive gun regulations commonly present in the most violent cities and states.

Bennie_P said:
The Catholic Church teaches that violence and excessive use of force is unacceptable Fact.

No argument from me on inappropriately excessive use of force, or random violence, though I’m not sure you are stopping there or intending to insinuate that he opposition of the Church to those extremes should be taken to mean opposition to response levels it has explicitly endorsed or even encouraged.

Bennie_P said:
The Catholic Church teaches that legimate goverments have the duty to regulate the manufacture and sales of arms Fact.

Yes, but again I’m not sure you are stopping at simple regulation or intending to insinuate that he opposition of the Church to extremes should be taken to mean opposition to levels it has explicitly endorsed or even encouraged.

Bennie_P said:
USSCB promotes reduction of violence in the United States through passing laws which include, but not exclusive to controlling the access of firearms. Fact.

Which brings us back to again asking whether you have any factual or statistical backing for a claim that something is required to accomplish a reduction in violence using firearms beyond enforcement of regulations already on the books nationally?

Bennie_P said:
P.S the Brady information being disputed wasn’t any of the information I was using.
That’s enough!

You have indeed previously parroted the Brady argument about the dangers of guns in the home, and the reason Brady came up was your citing them as a source. Why are you trying to misrepresent that prior exchange now?

Sixtus · Jul 22, 2007

Sir Knight posted:

1 murder rate per 1000 is smaller when compared to other cities such as …

Baltimore: 42.0
Detroit: 39.3
St. Louis: 37.9
Washington, DC 35.4

… which have restrictive gun laws.

Then thank God I do not live in USA. In UK things are very much different. In our area murder rates are 1 per 60,000.

In UK we have very restrictive gun laws. That said, criminals carry them with impunity

We are not allowed to possess or purchase pistols unless they are black powder muzzle-loaders.

Rifles are only allowed to be purchased according to licence.

One must be able to justify why one needs a rifle before a licence to purchase is permitted eg target shooting. One must also be a member of a Home Office approved club.

It is very difficult to obtain a licence. Before issuing a licence, police check an applicants medical records, state of mental health and mental health record. Convictions are a bar to obtaining a licence apart from minor motoring violations. An applicant must also have to very good referees who must be people of good standing [judges, clergy civil servants] if you cannot supply those, you do not get a licence period.

Once issued, licence holders have to justify the use of the weapons, if they are not used in strict accord with the licence conditions or one holds them without using them, then they are automatically siezed and destroyed.

Marital or domestic difficulties, separation and divorce have to be reported to the police and weapons surrendered until the police are satisfied the crisis is resolved.

Club safety officers are required to report any ‘concerns’ they may have about a persons suitability to hold a licence. This information is not shared with the licence holder. Their licence may be revoked on the strength of it.

One criminal conviction revokes a licence. Violent conviction and the revocation is for life. There is no appeal.

There has not been a single murder for licence holders anywhere in UK for past 10-years.

Generally licence holders in UK are treated as second class citizens. Owning a weapon is regarded by many as a sign of mental ill health.If you possess a licence you certainly do not boast about it.

In UK the Catholic Church does not look favourably on any member who possesses a fireams licence. Catholics generally treat licence holders with suspicion and contempt.

You are unlikely to be invited to serve on any committee at your local Catholic Church if it comes to light that you possess a fireams licence.

Sixtus · Jul 22, 2007

In UK among Catholics, possessing firearms on a licence is on a par with being a freemason and sex offender and treated with the same degrees of contempt, suspicion and dishonour.

Legal licence holders even if they do not have a criminal record, are regarded by most UK Catholics as Offenders and not given any positions of trust either in Church or in the work-place.

Man · Jul 22, 2007

Sixtus said:
In UK among Catholics, possessing firearms on a licence is on a par with being a freemason and sex offender and treated with the same degrees of contempt, suspicion and dishonour.

Legal licence holders even if they do not have a criminal record, are regarded by most UK Catholics as Offenders and not given any positions of trust either in Church or in the work-place.

I find it interesting that people in western countries feel threatened enough to “need” a firearm. Certainly, however, I doubt that the Church is anti-gun for Catholic living in Lebanon or Iraq.

It is obviously a matter of prudence, and we need to de-escalate the current situation, not make it worse.

Ender · Jul 22, 2007

Sixtus said:
In UK among Catholics, possessing firearms on a licence is on a par with being a freemason and sex offender and treated with the same degrees of contempt, suspicion and dishonour.

Legal licence holders even if they do not have a criminal record, are regarded by most UK Catholics as Offenders and not given any positions of trust either in Church or in the work-place.

I have no reason to doubt your opinion (I don’t live in the UK) but, if you are right, this is depressing statement on the level of catechism in that country.

Ender

Sixtus · Jul 22, 2007

Man posted:

Certainly, however, I doubt that the Church is anti-gun for Catholic living in Lebanon or Iraq.

It is obviously a matter of prudence, and we need to de-escalate the current situation, not make it worse.

No doubt there are parts of the world where clergy are armed. After all, His Apostles did not set a very good example in this respect

But I agree with you that there is an urgent need to de-escalate the current situation where it seems * what the stats are for firearms per head of population in USA and elsewhere.

I personally do not share the view held in UK by most Catholics towards licence holders. I think it is outright discrimination and prejudice. I see no reason why a licence- holder should not hold office in Church or serve on a Committee.

I also fail to see how a licence holder should be regarded as mentally sick just because they own a firearm for recreational use. That said, I do not see how citizens in USA justify to themselves such scandalous and prolific possession of firearms. But then again we do not have your scandalously prolific murder rates [thank God] so who am I to say.

I do think there is a relationship between the number of firearms in the population and murder rates. It has long been established in UK that the possession of weapons does de-sensitize citizens attitudes towards the value of human life.*

Man · Jul 22, 2007

A clarification anyone?

“Benedict XVI Pleads for End of War”

zenit.org/article-20191?l=english

Gun Control & the Catholic Church

Ray_Scheel

Guest

Bennie_P

Guest

Bennie_P

Guest

Man

Guest

Bennie_P

Guest

Sir_Knight

Guest

Ray_Scheel

Guest

Ray_Scheel

Guest

Bennie_P

Guest

melensdad

Guest

whatevergirl

Guest

Sir_Knight

Guest

Sir_Knight

Guest

Ray_Scheel

Guest

Sixtus

Guest

Sixtus

Guest

Man

Guest

Ender

Guest

Sixtus

Guest

Man

Guest