Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   Current Events and News (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/current-events-news-541/)
-   -   Pleased that parents may be liable for school shootings (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/current-events-news-541/pleased-parents-may-liable-school-shootings-352754/)

Tvflguy 09-06-2024 08:15 AM

Pleased that parents may be liable for school shootings
 
Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

ThirdOfFive 09-06-2024 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tvflguy (Post 2367720)
Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

Absolutely. The reason that kids under 18 cannot PURCHASE firearms is because (IMO) the law believes that they haven't yet developed, or have been taught, the sense of responsibility to OWN (or at least to have unfettered access to) firearms.

Unfortunately firearm possession and handling is far from the only area that irresponsible parenting is causing others to suffer from that irresponsibility.

Taltarzac725 09-06-2024 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tvflguy (Post 2367720)
Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

We need to approach this terrible problem from every angle and get local communities very much involved in preventing them. My Villages' former neighbors lost their 14 year old granddaughter in the Parkland shooting. They moved from the Villages but it is now like almost everyone knows someone who has loved ones involved in these tragedies.

We need to encourage our younger generation members to befriend the loners and misfits so that these kids do not resort to violence.

retiredguy123 09-06-2024 08:47 AM

I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.

Chellybean 09-06-2024 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367737)
We need to approach this terrible problem from every angle and get local communities very much involved in preventing them. My Villages' former neighbors lost their 14 year old granddaughter in the Parkland shooting. They moved from the Villages but it is now like almost everyone knows someone who has loved ones involved in these tragedies.

Although i agree with this, it is also becoming dangerous to our 2nd amendment, if they start holding gun manufactures liable as well.
They are chipping away of our rights as legal gun owners!

Taltarzac725 09-06-2024 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chellybean (Post 2367746)
Although i agree with this, it is also becoming dangerous to our 2nd amendment, if they start holding gun manufactures liable as well.
They are chipping away of our rights as legal gun owners!

I do not see any practical reason to own the kind of gun used in the Georgia shooting. But there are so many of these weapons out there that it would be impractical to remove them. Criminals would sell them as well, etc.

Taltarzac725 09-06-2024 09:26 AM

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

Rainger99 09-06-2024 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367774)
2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and then goes on to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about the right to a well armed militia.

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.

The Militia and Minute Men of 1775 - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Bill14564 09-06-2024 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tvflguy (Post 2367720)
Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

...

That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.

manaboutown 09-06-2024 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taltarzac725 (Post 2367774)
2nd amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

Wrong!

Bill14564 09-06-2024 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2367782)
It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and then goes on to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about the right to a well armed militia.

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.

The Militia and Minute Men of 1775 - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

You can't completely isolate the first half of the sentence from the second. The sentence was written as a single thought.

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people who will be part of that militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because those armed people will be part of the well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state.

Volumes have been written on this subject, it isn't going to be settled here.

Bill14564 09-06-2024 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manaboutown (Post 2367786)
Wrong!

Well forget the volumes I mentioned in the last post, this simple exclamation certainly puts the subject to rest.

scubawva 09-06-2024 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367751)
I do not see any practical reason to own the kind of gun used in the Georgia shooting. But there are so many of these weapons out there that it would be impractical to remove them. Criminals would sell them as well, etc.

Do you know the type of gun? It’s common, used often in competitions, many home owners. It’s not an automatic weapon.

No kid should bring any gun to school, automatic or AR or hand gun.

phylt 09-06-2024 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2367785)
That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.

--------------------

Sorry - I am a Conservative and see the validity of the Second Amendment.

But - enough is enough - we MUST act in this country, despite the 'slippery slope'. We MUST hold parents responsible - especially in the case of the last two shootings (MI & GA). In MI the parents were convicted, and the recent GA case is pretty cut and dry. Parents MUST accept responsibility. Even for minor offenses such as robbery, driving, etc. The buck must stop somewhere. Kids AND parents must be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

ThirdOfFive 09-06-2024 10:25 AM

This discussion is about parental responsibility regarding guns. To allow it to degenerate into partisan flag-waving accomplishes only one thing.

Reuters, in a recent article, states: "Lankford's study found that the "deadliest" shootings comprised 25% of mass public shootings from 1966 to 2009, but from 2010 to 2019 had increased to 50% of mass public shootings, in which there was "direct evidence that perpetrator was influenced by another specific attacker or attackers." (''Copycat' mass shootings becoming deadlier, experts warn after New York attack", Tim Reid and Kanishka Singh, reuters dot com, May 15, 2022)

In other words, there are few if any ways to assure the continuity of such shootings, than rancorous public discussions, especially that which concerns "military style" weapons. It doesn't take much to tip an unsocialized kid over the edge, than the guarantee that his name will be national news AND associated with an AR-style weapon.

Is it really worth more shootings, to have such discussions?

Rainger99 09-06-2024 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phylt (Post 2367792)
--------------------

Sorry - I am a Conservative and see the validity of the Second Amendment.

But - enough is enough - we MUST act in this country, despite the 'slippery slope'. We MUST hold parents responsible - especially in the case of the last two shootings (MI & GA). In MI the parents were convicted, and the recent GA case is pretty cut and dry. Parents MUST accept responsibility. Even for minor offenses such as robbery, driving, etc. The buck must stop somewhere. Kids AND parents must be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

At what age are parents no longer responsible for their kid's actions?

In Michigan, the parents were convicted of involuntary manslaughter. In Georgia, the father is being charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second-degree murder (I don't understand which two were second degree murder).

As far as I can tell, they only go after the parents in a school shooting. Have they gone after parents when the kid kills someone while robbing a gas station or shoots another person on the street? Or just mugs someone?

Juvenile offenders were involved in about 1,122 murders in the U.S. in 2020, representing about 8% of all known murder offenders.

I guess if the murder is a mass school shooting, the parents are also responsible. If it isn't, the kids are responsible.

Caymus 09-06-2024 10:43 AM

Times have changed. My High School had a rifle team which practiced on site with live ammo.

tophcfa 09-06-2024 10:44 AM

Guns have been around forever, but the problem at hand has grown very bad much more recently. Connect the dots, these shootings have increased exponentially along with the growth of social media.

Chellybean 09-06-2024 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2367785)
That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.

Very well said my exact point!

Rainger99 09-06-2024 11:16 AM

I just heard on television that the judge told the shooter that he faced the death penalty or life in prison. Apparently the judge didn't know the law. He had to bring the shooter back into the courtroom and tell him that he was not facing the death penalty.

Judge Mingledorff initially told the suspected shooter that he could face the death penalty as a result of his actions. He later called Gray back into the court room to clarify that, as a minor, he is not eligible for the death penalty.

I would think a judge that is on national tv would know that in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that people who are under 18 at the time of the crime can't be executed for their crimes.

https://cfsy.org/wp-content/uploads/...ns-Opinion.pdf

Not sure if the court needed 87 pages to write the decision.

mraines 09-06-2024 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367737)
We need to approach this terrible problem from every angle and get local communities very much involved in preventing them. My Villages' former neighbors lost their 14 year old granddaughter in the Parkland shooting. They moved from the Villages but it is now like almost everyone knows someone who has loved ones involved in these tragedies.

We need to encourage our younger generation members to befriend the loners and misfits so that these kids do not resort to violence.

We need more gun control. Allowing all these guns is ridiculous and being able to buy one at a yard sale even more so. This is an American problem. We need to fix it. If this comment is allowed, I will probably tick off some people but it is what I believe.

Chellybean 09-06-2024 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2367820)
I just heard on television that the judge told the shooter that he faced the death penalty or life in prison. Apparently the judge didn't know the law. He had to bring the shooter back into the courtroom and tell him that he was not facing the death penalty.

Judge Mingledorff initially told the suspected shooter that he could face the death penalty as a result of his actions. He later called Gray back into the court room to clarify that, as a minor, he is not eligible for the death penalty.

I would think a judge that is on national tv would know that in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that people who are under 18 at the time of the crime can't be executed for their crimes.

https://cfsy.org/wp-content/uploads/...ns-Opinion.pdf

Not sure if the court need 87 pages to write the decision.

Our whole legal system is up side down. Unbelievable. If he is tried as a adult I wonder if that still applies. I personally think It should!

Pugchief 09-06-2024 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2367800)
As far as I can tell, they only go after the parents in a school shooting. Have they gone after parents when the kid kills someone while robbing a gas station or shoots another person on the street? Or just mugs someone?

Excellent point. Charging the parents of gangbangers would go a long way to reducing inner city violence.

Many cities have chosen the alternate option: charge and prosecute no one. How's that working?

Rainger99 09-06-2024 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chellybean (Post 2367831)
Our whole legal system is up side down. Unbelievable. If he is tried as an adult I wonder if that still applies. I personally think It should!

It doesn’t matter if you are tried as adult. If you were under 18 at the time of the crime, you can’t be executed.

manaboutown 09-06-2024 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2367859)
Excellent point. Charging the parents of gangbangers would go a long way to reducing inner city violence.

Many cities have chosen the alternate option: charge and prosecute no one. How's that working?

This is an ideal test case because the father is the perfect target as he is not a member of a protected minority. It will be used by the antigun crowd to argue for confiscating guns from responsible citizens.

IMHO the father should not have bought his obviously deranged 14 year old son a gun and so bears some responsibility. If the boy had acquired a gun on his own, say on the street, and the parents were unaware he had one it would be a different story.

Somewhat analogously, If a mentally disturbed boy was older and of driving age perhaps a parent should not allow him to drive as he could drive a vehicle through a crowd, killing and maiming people.

The problem is the boy is mentally disturbed and a parent provided him with a means to murder.

retiredguy123 09-06-2024 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2367859)
Excellent point. Charging the parents of gangbangers would go a long way to reducing inner city violence.

Many cities have chosen the alternate option: charge and prosecute no one. How's that working?

I agree. If a teenage gangbanger commits a murder with a firearm, and his mother doesn't even know who the father is, or where her son is most of the time, or when he last attended school, law enforcement doesn't even consider any criminal charges against the mother. But, in this case, the father is being charged with murder. If this isn't selective law enforcement, I don't know what is. Our laws should be evenly enforced.

Byte1 09-06-2024 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2367744)
I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.

TOTALLY agree. Charging a parent with murder for something a high school student is guilty of, seems a bit extreme though. It is legal for these kids to operate a motor vehicle, so if they are guilty of DUI, does that mean that the parents are responsible and should lose their license to drive? I agree totally that parents allowing children to handle guns should be responsible to a certain extent, but MURDER? Why are the parents of kids that commit murder in the ghetto treated so lenient? Just saying. Not disagreeing with parents being held responsible. When the powers that be decide that parents are not allowed to discipline their children, it certainly makes it a bit difficult to monitor their kids' actions.

Byte1 09-06-2024 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caymus (Post 2367801)
Times have changed. My High School had a rifle team which practiced on site with live ammo.

We had a rifle safety and target shooting club after school in Junior High/Middle school. Not one accident ever and none of us were even old enough to drive or even get a learner's permit. Society dictates how much violent crime occurs. And that says something of today's violence in society.

phylt 09-06-2024 01:04 PM

We were very "fortunate" that the MI & GA mass shooters were cowards. Rather than being killed by cop, they gave up. That's very good and very rare. Upon investigation and interviews, we are finding that the parents WERE in fact culpable. They KNEW their teen was troubled. They KNEW he was bullied and troubled at school. They provided access to the weapons.

At some point in time WE (the public) MUST point blame to parents - especially when the evidence is so clear.

I'm a Conservative, but SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. I believe that WE CAN abate some of these shootings without impacting the 2nd Amendment. Let's use common sense. I can't imagine our kids having to live (and learn) be concerned that another shooting may happen to their school. And YES - apply these same standards and new laws to "regular" shootings or violence as well...

Byte1 09-06-2024 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2367774)
2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

The 2nd does not prohibit the right to own a military style weapon either. Unfortunately, most NON-gun citizens do not know the difference between a military weapon and a non-military weapon. When the 2nd was written, the same weapons for self defense and hunting were used in combat. We can argue all day regarding what weapons should be allowed or disallowed, but it makes no difference when it comes to mass killings. four folks killed in a school can be killed with the average hunting rifle, knife, hatchet, bow and arrow, or a simple 22cal rifle.
This subject is not about type of weapon used, but the fact that the parent was charged with the crime, along with his son.

Normal 09-06-2024 04:14 PM

Various Means
 
If a student stabs someone, do you go after the parents because a knife was left out? All would say, “absurd!”


Seems like some just hate guns?

Perhaps the cause is more important. How many are desensitized to killing through gun shooting video games. You know, the one’s parents use as rewards and as a babysitter.

Number 10 GI 09-06-2024 05:06 PM

Yes, let's do like the North Korean government, jail the entire family for what one family member does. It is the "guilt by association" system that punishes relatives of the perpetrator, even if they did not commit the crime. This punishment can extend up to 3 generations.
If your alcoholic, black sheep uncle robs a bank, you as his nephew/niece will accompany him in jail also. Even a child born in prison to a woman sentenced under this system can possibly stay in prison for it's entire life.

OrangeBlossomBaby 09-06-2024 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainger99 (Post 2367782)
It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and then goes on to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about the right to a well armed militia.

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.

The Militia and Minute Men of 1775 - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."

That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

Caymus 09-06-2024 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2367985)
Yes, let's do like the North Korean government, jail the entire family for what one family member does. It is the "guilt by association" system that punishes relatives of the perpetrator, even if they did not commit the crime. This punishment can extend up to 3 generations.
If your alcoholic, black sheep uncle robs a bank, you as his nephew/niece will accompany him in jail also. Even a child born in prison to a woman sentenced under this system can possibly stay in prison for it's entire life.

Also, not a good place to be a government bureaucrat.

North Korea Executes Dozens of Officials - Reports - Newsweek

Byte1 09-07-2024 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2368018)
It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."

That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

The subject is not about type of weapons allowed by law.

TheWarriors 09-07-2024 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2368018)
It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."



That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

I don’t think you quite understand why the Second Amendment exists. Perhaps you would like to apply the same logic to all the other Amendments?

Normal 09-07-2024 04:49 AM

Shedding some light
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWarriors (Post 2368042)
I don’t think you quite understand why the Second Amendment exists. Perhaps you would like to apply the same logic to all the other Amendments?

The second amendment was adopted straight from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Gee, what better place to get rules than from the country we just broke from.

FredMitchell 09-07-2024 05:05 AM

////

JudyLife 09-07-2024 05:13 AM

Exactly!!!!! Why don’t people understand this?!!!

FredMitchell 09-07-2024 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2367744)
I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.

Those numbers fail the back of a napkin test. We don't have over 365,000 murders by any age annually.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.