Iyfjky

Question

Background

In a country with similar demographics to Switzerland, the gun ownership is high for the population (60 - 70 guns per hundred people) while the police force are not armed on a regular basis and have small armed police units (armed response) that will tackle gun crime.

There is a low level of crime at this point due to the ban on firearms recently being lifted (all weapons are allowed under the law in this fictitious country, with the exception of explosives).

How would a country such as the one described police this country where there is high gun ownership?

You mentioned that "gun ownership is high" and "ban on firearms recently being lifted". Does it mean that people have embarked on "arms race" and everybody who never had a gun before is suddenly armed? — 18 hours ago
Can you elaborate as to why a country with widely-accepted gun ownership wants its police to be unarmed? A country allowing citizens to own any kind of weapon implies widespread cultural acceptance of personal armament, which typically extends to police as well. — 18 hours ago
Are the policemen not citizens? I would think that if the police department doesn't arm them, many would simply go to the gun store and arm themselves. Or, are we dealing with a country where police are positively prohibited from carrying arms on duty? — 17 hours ago
Gun ownership does not equal crime. Low ethics, morality, respect... High poverty, greed, jealousy... those equal crime. The presence of firearms generally only exacerbates the violence of crime when it happens (i.e., people generally don't kill their cheating spouse simply because they have a gun....). A sociologist might explain that Switzerland and its compulsory miltary service has high guns/low crime due in part to the training and sense of unity/nationalism (ethics... morality... respect...) that came out of that service. — 16 hours ago
Police without guns, in a well armed society, are uniformed targets for criminals. — 15 hours ago

Sasha 4,173935 · Answer 1 · 2018-09-19 17:28:15Z

Domestic Disturbance

Most police occurrences are not violent crimes, your cops would be trained to descalate situations, act as a mediator between the people, and know how to administer first aid.

Forget the idea of the armed, armored military police kicking doors and shooting at suspects, you will have the friendly cop next door, they guy that should know everyone on his patrol route and is always ready to lend a helping hand.

There will be some cops trained to respond to violent crimes, but those will be a small force of highly trained specialists, maybe even attached to the armed forces.

Free Drugs

Lots of countries have showed the positive effects of having legalized drugs avaible to the population, besides this would allow your police force to avoid wasting time with teenagers that decided to smoke some weed.

Guns, not ammo

If you are following Switzerland style, you could have citzens allowed to have any weapons they desire, but ammo is highly regulated and most people would be able to have ammo only in shooting clubs.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. — 29 mins ago

Willk 87.9k22171379 · Answer 2 · 2018-09-19 19:20:35Z

Deputize the citizenry.

deputized!
http://mayberry.wikia.com/wiki/Goodbye,_Sheriff_Taylor

A police officer can deputize citizens for extra help.

http://thelegalgeeks.com/2015/08/11/bat-jim-is-the-hero-we-deserve/

Private persons may assist law-enforcement officers in effecting
arrests and preventing escapes from custody when requested to do so by
the officer. When so requested, a private person has the same
authority to effect an arrest or prevent escape from custody as the
officer making the request. He does not incur civil or criminal
liability for an invalid arrest unless he knows the arrest to be
invalid. Nothing in this subsection constitutes justification for
willful, malicious or criminally negligent conduct by such person
which injures or endangers any person or property, nor shall it be
construed to excuse or justify the use of unreasonable or excessive
force.

In your world, if a law and order matter requires firearms, there is fortunately a large body of armed private citizens that the unarmed officer can deputize to help in the matter. Carrying a weapon means consenting to be deputized to use it in time of civic need.

If you deputize a number of individuals this might be equivalent to raising a militia.

"Carrying a weapon means consenting to be deputized to use it in time of civic need." - There is no need for that (also that is sudden stroke of unreasonable coercion). People who care about something dangerous or criminal occurring in their neighborhood are likely to voluntarily go or join and resolve the issue. I for one am somebody like that, and yes, recently something occurred and I grabbed a weapon to ensure that I have the option to act according to the situation if needed. And I wasn't there alone either. Force me however, and consider me your enemy instead. — 2 hours ago

score 11 · Answer 3 · 2018-09-19 18:44:43Z

The country could be policed just like any other country.

Police: Hey you, stop right there!

Pedestrian: What is the problem, sir?

Police: That was an illegal jaywalk you just performed. Do you have a
license to perform illegal jaywalks?

Pedestrian: Why yes, sir, I do. Here you go, have a look at this.

Police: This license is expired! You are under arrest for "jaywalking
with an invalid license." Put your hands behind your back.

Pedestrian does so.

Police cuffs and jails the heinous criminal.

Just like that.

A high percentage of gun ownership among the populace does not change anything that just happened. Most of the time, the firearm possessed by police does not even enter the equation and has no part in an event.

Potential problems?

Now let us examine the other extreme, where someone might think this could actually be a problem.

Assume a violent criminal possesses a firearm and that the law enforcement officer does not. This is the scenario in which trouble could arise. But think about that statement for a moment... "a violent criminal possesses a firearm." If this person is a violent criminal, then the fact that firearms are entirely legal is irrelevant. This person very well might have a firearm even if they were not legal.

So the exchange which could be problematic is not unique to a country where a pedestrian has a gun but police do not. In fact, this situation actually happens in reality. I recall an event, in London if I recall, a few years back in which two criminals were armed with a knife and a gun, and the local police, being unarmed, could do nothing but shout at them until the armed police unit arrived. The criminals were free to shoot at everyone until that time.

Potential benefits?

Now let's look at this from a different angle, about the possible benefit.

In the situation I mentioned in London, if a nearby pedestrian was armed with a gun, they could have helped the defenseless police instead of waiting and risking more lives. Or, if it is illegal in your hypothetical country for a pedestrian to do this, they could hand their gun over to the unarmed police to use in this life threatening situation, expecting it back after.

In fact, armed civilians have helped police in the past. There are instances of criminals attacking police and having them pinned down, where some nearby pedestrian has shot the criminal and saved the police.

Also, in a famous case where a pair of robbers wearing heavy full body armor were in a shootout with police, the police shots were not harming the criminals because of their heavy body armor. The police needed something better, and a local gun shop nearby handed over higher powered weapons for the police to use in the fight.

Also, in countries where firearms are illegal, the crime rates are generally not lower. Some people claim otherwise, pointing to gun-specific crimes being down, but the violent crime rates overall are generally not lower. In some such places, the crime rates are even higher, and interviewed criminals in prison have stated that they feel safer committing their crimes in those areas because they know the populace are not armed.

Conclusion

So how could they police the country? Well, they could allow civilians to take part in the policing. Or there could be a law that anyone who is armed and not in immediate danger must surrender their weapon to the police to use against a nearby threat (or it could just be a voluntary thing).

This could be a good thing as well, as it could help to reduce abuse by police. In most situations, the police are armed and those they are interacting with are not, so the police are able to easily bully people. This happens often. If you get too far out of line, they will draw their weapons. If they get too far out of line and you respond in your defense, they will draw their weapons. In your situation, people would be more free from the threat of police violence.

If you have a responsible populace, similar to Switzerland, this will likely be a more peaceful and safe place to live than what most of us are used to.

Some points to consider

Alexander asks,

"The problem here is not the legality of firearms, it's abundance of
them. In day-to-day operations, police has to react to a number of
incidents. Some of those incidents are involving guns. If number of
those incidents are high (more than armed policemen can handle),
should police dispatch unarmed officers to deal with them?"

That is a good question.

That depends on what you mean by "involving guns." If guns are being fired at people, then no, sending unarmed officers is just dumb. If by "involving guns" you mean "Police are responding to a non-violent crime, and the suspect just happens to have a pistol at their side or a rifle over their back," assuming you have a mature population, then yes, go ahead and send unarmed officers. The suspect is armed. So what? Police deal with armed suspects all the time without even knowing it in US states where open carry is illegal and everyone carries concealed; that has not been problematic.

The problem here is not the legality of firearms, it's abundance of them. In day-to-day operations, police has to react to a number of incidents. Some of those incidents are involving guns. If number of those incidents are high (more than armed policemen can handle), should police dispatch unarmed officers to deal with them? — 17 hours ago
By "involving guns" I mean that suspect(s) is considered "armed and dangerous". Also, having a "mature population" can be a key to success here, but I am afraid that in the context of this particular question, country's population has no culture of gun ownership. — 16 hours ago
@Alexander I read the question as meaning that gun ownership was high, and now a certain weapon ban has been lifted, meaning that people will own even more guns and more types of guns. If it is stating that the country is shifting from an English style of "Guns are practically banned" to a Swiss style, then things might be different, though I would still stand by my answer in general and merely admit it's even more uncertain. Also, in that case OP needs to explain why gun ownership is already so high; did everyone already own guns, just illegally? I'll ask OP. — 16 hours ago
@Aaron: I think Alexander's point is more that knowingly sending an unarmed officer to deal with a (likely) armed suspect can be considered reckless endangerment by the police department. Simply put: how many unarmed police officers need to get shot by armed civilians before you (the police department/government) decide to no longer send unarmed police to their nigh inevitable deaths? — 4 hours ago

Pyritie 503521 · Answer 4 · 2018-09-20 10:39:00Z

In a "Switzerland like nation", there might be a cultural way of explaining this.

In the real Switzerland, there is a universal draft for all male citizens. If you are not a conscientious objector (can't remember the proper term in Switzerland), then you receive standard military training and are issues an automatic rifle. Once you complete your term of service, you are released to the Reserve and take your automatic rifle home with you. I'm not clear if this has changed, but it also used to be common for each citizen solder to have 200 rounds of ammunition at home. They were encouraged to go to the local range and practice, and could purchase replacement rounds at a low cost to keep their stockpile at home to 200 rounds.

The Swiss Citizen Militia means the population has an almost 100% availability of automatic firearms among the population (even the United States has nowhere near that availability of automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons" is a scare term to describe semi automatic firearms derived from AR-15 platforms), yet some of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. This is largely because each citizen has been carefully instructed and drilled in the proper use of firearms through military service.

When the United States was more rural in nature (really up until the 1950's), most homes had firearms of some sort, hunting rifles or shotguns. Proper use of firearms was a family responsibility, with fathers, uncles and grandparents teaching their children and minor family members (usually through taking them hunting). In fact, this can be found in other places and times, if you read Conan-Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" stories, Watson is routinely armed, and there are some occasions where they actually access firearms or armed help from other people in London, England. Try doing that now and it will be a different story.

So an armed population does not necessarily equate to a dangerous one, so long as firearms owners are trained and educated in the proper use of firearms. The police in Switzerland are not alarmed in any way that any house they visit has an automatic rifle (they have one too), because they have a virtual certainty that the owner is a responsible citizen.

Yes, the obvious answer is "the way Switzerland does it"...
â€“Â RonJohn
13 mins ago — 13 mins ago

Keith Morrison 4,2581717 · Answer 5 · 2018-09-19 21:54:01Z

I don't see how such a situation would arise in the first place.

If you look at the world ranking of estimated civilian guns per capita, you'll note that it's the United States and then everyone else. Switzerland, incidentally, which is frequently brought up has a lower rate than Canada, which some people (ie, Americans) overestimate when it comes to gun control. Anyway, if you're talking about a modern country, the majority of people would live in cities and quite honestly owning a gun in an urban is more bother than it's worth, especially if, as stated, a gun ban was recently lifted. Some people may rush out to get a firearm just because, but the majority of people in cities would not. So it's difficult to see how the ownership number would get so high.

Moreover, there is no way in hell there'd be freedom to own everything save explosives. Again, the United States (or at least some components of it) are very much the exception in the breadth of firearms allowed on the civilian market. For essentially everyone else there'd be restrictions on firearms in place, and I don't see how your country would be any different.

Something probably worth considering is that the United States likely has a very high, relatively, number of guns per gun owner, with many gun owners having quite a few. I think that Switzerland has a lower number of guns per gun owner, and therefore a higher percentage of gun owners. That is, a higher percentage of people in Switzerland own guns than in the United States, with each gun owner owning fewer guns on average than a United States gun owner. — 11 hours ago
Concerning explosives, interesting to note even explosives are not necessarily illegal in the United States. Some states require licensing, but my understanding is it is legal in some US states to own some types of explosives without any permits or licenses. I have seen YouTube videos of ordering materials sold with the explicit purpose of making explosives and using it to blow stuff up on their property. If you think about it, it's not as insane as it sounds: bombs are actually easier to make than guns, so why bother outlawing? Anyone holding a full gas can is holding a potential bomb. — 11 hours ago

Sasha 4,173935 · Answer 6 · 2018-09-19 17:28:15Z

Domestic Disturbance

Most police occurrences are not violent crimes, your cops would be trained to descalate situations, act as a mediator between the people, and know how to administer first aid.

Forget the idea of the armed, armored military police kicking doors and shooting at suspects, you will have the friendly cop next door, they guy that should know everyone on his patrol route and is always ready to lend a helping hand.

There will be some cops trained to respond to violent crimes, but those will be a small force of highly trained specialists, maybe even attached to the armed forces.

Free Drugs

Lots of countries have showed the positive effects of having legalized drugs avaible to the population, besides this would allow your police force to avoid wasting time with teenagers that decided to smoke some weed.

Guns, not ammo

If you are following Switzerland style, you could have citzens allowed to have any weapons they desire, but ammo is highly regulated and most people would be able to have ammo only in shooting clubs.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. — 29 mins ago

Willk 87.9k22171379 · Answer 7 · 2018-09-19 19:20:35Z

Deputize the citizenry.

deputized!
http://mayberry.wikia.com/wiki/Goodbye,_Sheriff_Taylor

A police officer can deputize citizens for extra help.

http://thelegalgeeks.com/2015/08/11/bat-jim-is-the-hero-we-deserve/

Private persons may assist law-enforcement officers in effecting
arrests and preventing escapes from custody when requested to do so by
the officer. When so requested, a private person has the same
authority to effect an arrest or prevent escape from custody as the
officer making the request. He does not incur civil or criminal
liability for an invalid arrest unless he knows the arrest to be
invalid. Nothing in this subsection constitutes justification for
willful, malicious or criminally negligent conduct by such person
which injures or endangers any person or property, nor shall it be
construed to excuse or justify the use of unreasonable or excessive
force.

In your world, if a law and order matter requires firearms, there is fortunately a large body of armed private citizens that the unarmed officer can deputize to help in the matter. Carrying a weapon means consenting to be deputized to use it in time of civic need.

If you deputize a number of individuals this might be equivalent to raising a militia.

"Carrying a weapon means consenting to be deputized to use it in time of civic need." - There is no need for that (also that is sudden stroke of unreasonable coercion). People who care about something dangerous or criminal occurring in their neighborhood are likely to voluntarily go or join and resolve the issue. I for one am somebody like that, and yes, recently something occurred and I grabbed a weapon to ensure that I have the option to act according to the situation if needed. And I wasn't there alone either. Force me however, and consider me your enemy instead. — 2 hours ago

score 11 · Answer 8 · 2018-09-19 18:44:43Z

The country could be policed just like any other country.

Police: Hey you, stop right there!

Pedestrian: What is the problem, sir?

Police: That was an illegal jaywalk you just performed. Do you have a
license to perform illegal jaywalks?

Pedestrian: Why yes, sir, I do. Here you go, have a look at this.

Police: This license is expired! You are under arrest for "jaywalking
with an invalid license." Put your hands behind your back.

Pedestrian does so.

Police cuffs and jails the heinous criminal.

Just like that.

A high percentage of gun ownership among the populace does not change anything that just happened. Most of the time, the firearm possessed by police does not even enter the equation and has no part in an event.

Potential problems?

Now let us examine the other extreme, where someone might think this could actually be a problem.

Assume a violent criminal possesses a firearm and that the law enforcement officer does not. This is the scenario in which trouble could arise. But think about that statement for a moment... "a violent criminal possesses a firearm." If this person is a violent criminal, then the fact that firearms are entirely legal is irrelevant. This person very well might have a firearm even if they were not legal.

So the exchange which could be problematic is not unique to a country where a pedestrian has a gun but police do not. In fact, this situation actually happens in reality. I recall an event, in London if I recall, a few years back in which two criminals were armed with a knife and a gun, and the local police, being unarmed, could do nothing but shout at them until the armed police unit arrived. The criminals were free to shoot at everyone until that time.

Potential benefits?

Now let's look at this from a different angle, about the possible benefit.

In the situation I mentioned in London, if a nearby pedestrian was armed with a gun, they could have helped the defenseless police instead of waiting and risking more lives. Or, if it is illegal in your hypothetical country for a pedestrian to do this, they could hand their gun over to the unarmed police to use in this life threatening situation, expecting it back after.

In fact, armed civilians have helped police in the past. There are instances of criminals attacking police and having them pinned down, where some nearby pedestrian has shot the criminal and saved the police.

Also, in a famous case where a pair of robbers wearing heavy full body armor were in a shootout with police, the police shots were not harming the criminals because of their heavy body armor. The police needed something better, and a local gun shop nearby handed over higher powered weapons for the police to use in the fight.

Also, in countries where firearms are illegal, the crime rates are generally not lower. Some people claim otherwise, pointing to gun-specific crimes being down, but the violent crime rates overall are generally not lower. In some such places, the crime rates are even higher, and interviewed criminals in prison have stated that they feel safer committing their crimes in those areas because they know the populace are not armed.

Conclusion

So how could they police the country? Well, they could allow civilians to take part in the policing. Or there could be a law that anyone who is armed and not in immediate danger must surrender their weapon to the police to use against a nearby threat (or it could just be a voluntary thing).

This could be a good thing as well, as it could help to reduce abuse by police. In most situations, the police are armed and those they are interacting with are not, so the police are able to easily bully people. This happens often. If you get too far out of line, they will draw their weapons. If they get too far out of line and you respond in your defense, they will draw their weapons. In your situation, people would be more free from the threat of police violence.

If you have a responsible populace, similar to Switzerland, this will likely be a more peaceful and safe place to live than what most of us are used to.

Some points to consider

Alexander asks,

"The problem here is not the legality of firearms, it's abundance of
them. In day-to-day operations, police has to react to a number of
incidents. Some of those incidents are involving guns. If number of
those incidents are high (more than armed policemen can handle),
should police dispatch unarmed officers to deal with them?"

That is a good question.

That depends on what you mean by "involving guns." If guns are being fired at people, then no, sending unarmed officers is just dumb. If by "involving guns" you mean "Police are responding to a non-violent crime, and the suspect just happens to have a pistol at their side or a rifle over their back," assuming you have a mature population, then yes, go ahead and send unarmed officers. The suspect is armed. So what? Police deal with armed suspects all the time without even knowing it in US states where open carry is illegal and everyone carries concealed; that has not been problematic.

The problem here is not the legality of firearms, it's abundance of them. In day-to-day operations, police has to react to a number of incidents. Some of those incidents are involving guns. If number of those incidents are high (more than armed policemen can handle), should police dispatch unarmed officers to deal with them? — 17 hours ago
By "involving guns" I mean that suspect(s) is considered "armed and dangerous". Also, having a "mature population" can be a key to success here, but I am afraid that in the context of this particular question, country's population has no culture of gun ownership. — 16 hours ago
@Alexander I read the question as meaning that gun ownership was high, and now a certain weapon ban has been lifted, meaning that people will own even more guns and more types of guns. If it is stating that the country is shifting from an English style of "Guns are practically banned" to a Swiss style, then things might be different, though I would still stand by my answer in general and merely admit it's even more uncertain. Also, in that case OP needs to explain why gun ownership is already so high; did everyone already own guns, just illegally? I'll ask OP. — 16 hours ago
@Aaron: I think Alexander's point is more that knowingly sending an unarmed officer to deal with a (likely) armed suspect can be considered reckless endangerment by the police department. Simply put: how many unarmed police officers need to get shot by armed civilians before you (the police department/government) decide to no longer send unarmed police to their nigh inevitable deaths? — 4 hours ago

Pyritie 503521 · Answer 9 · 2018-09-20 10:39:00Z

In a "Switzerland like nation", there might be a cultural way of explaining this.

In the real Switzerland, there is a universal draft for all male citizens. If you are not a conscientious objector (can't remember the proper term in Switzerland), then you receive standard military training and are issues an automatic rifle. Once you complete your term of service, you are released to the Reserve and take your automatic rifle home with you. I'm not clear if this has changed, but it also used to be common for each citizen solder to have 200 rounds of ammunition at home. They were encouraged to go to the local range and practice, and could purchase replacement rounds at a low cost to keep their stockpile at home to 200 rounds.

The Swiss Citizen Militia means the population has an almost 100% availability of automatic firearms among the population (even the United States has nowhere near that availability of automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons" is a scare term to describe semi automatic firearms derived from AR-15 platforms), yet some of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. This is largely because each citizen has been carefully instructed and drilled in the proper use of firearms through military service.

When the United States was more rural in nature (really up until the 1950's), most homes had firearms of some sort, hunting rifles or shotguns. Proper use of firearms was a family responsibility, with fathers, uncles and grandparents teaching their children and minor family members (usually through taking them hunting). In fact, this can be found in other places and times, if you read Conan-Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" stories, Watson is routinely armed, and there are some occasions where they actually access firearms or armed help from other people in London, England. Try doing that now and it will be a different story.

So an armed population does not necessarily equate to a dangerous one, so long as firearms owners are trained and educated in the proper use of firearms. The police in Switzerland are not alarmed in any way that any house they visit has an automatic rifle (they have one too), because they have a virtual certainty that the owner is a responsible citizen.

Yes, the obvious answer is "the way Switzerland does it"...
â€“Â RonJohn
13 mins ago — 13 mins ago

Keith Morrison 4,2581717 · Answer 10 · 2018-09-19 21:54:01Z

I don't see how such a situation would arise in the first place.

If you look at the world ranking of estimated civilian guns per capita, you'll note that it's the United States and then everyone else. Switzerland, incidentally, which is frequently brought up has a lower rate than Canada, which some people (ie, Americans) overestimate when it comes to gun control. Anyway, if you're talking about a modern country, the majority of people would live in cities and quite honestly owning a gun in an urban is more bother than it's worth, especially if, as stated, a gun ban was recently lifted. Some people may rush out to get a firearm just because, but the majority of people in cities would not. So it's difficult to see how the ownership number would get so high.

Moreover, there is no way in hell there'd be freedom to own everything save explosives. Again, the United States (or at least some components of it) are very much the exception in the breadth of firearms allowed on the civilian market. For essentially everyone else there'd be restrictions on firearms in place, and I don't see how your country would be any different.

Something probably worth considering is that the United States likely has a very high, relatively, number of guns per gun owner, with many gun owners having quite a few. I think that Switzerland has a lower number of guns per gun owner, and therefore a higher percentage of gun owners. That is, a higher percentage of people in Switzerland own guns than in the United States, with each gun owner owning fewer guns on average than a United States gun owner. — 11 hours ago
Concerning explosives, interesting to note even explosives are not necessarily illegal in the United States. Some states require licensing, but my understanding is it is legal in some US states to own some types of explosives without any permits or licenses. I have seen YouTube videos of ordering materials sold with the explicit purpose of making explosives and using it to blow stuff up on their property. If you think about it, it's not as insane as it sounds: bombs are actually easier to make than guns, so why bother outlawing? Anyone holding a full gas can is holding a potential bomb. — 11 hours ago

Search This Blog

Iyfjky

How to police a state with high amount of gun ownership where the police are not routinely armed?

Background

Background

Background

Background

5 Answers
5

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Your Answer

Post as a guest

5 Answers
5

5 Answers
5

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Post as a guest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

List of Gilmore Girls characters

One-line joke

Category

Random preview

How to police a state with high amount of gun ownership where the police are not routinely armed?

Background

Background

Background

Background

5 Answers 5

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

5 Answers 5

5 Answers 5

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Potential problems?

Potential benefits?

Conclusion

Some points to consider

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

List of Gilmore Girls characters

One-line joke

5 Answers
5

5 Answers
5

5 Answers
5