Read (or listen) to the article posted on NPR. What problem is being addressed? HOw do guns create externalities? What is the proposal by economists? What type of incentives are they using? What is your analysis of their solution? What other incentive solutions could be used to fix the problem?
27 Comments
Sergio Nava
1/31/2013 11:27:25 am
In the article "should gun owners have to buy liability insurance?" Caitli
Reply
Estefani Ramirez
1/31/2013 12:53:13 pm
In the article “Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance” by Caitlin Kenney the problem that is being addressed is that if they should tax buyers or not when they purchase a gun and they feel that it would serve as a better way to control people from buying guns because of the higher cost of the guns and also the threats that society will be faced with and endanger others if it isn’t safely secured, but yet people have no say into what is going to be done with taxing the buyers because people will still buy guns and get the permission to own them. They can’t really go around asking people if they own a gun or not, also they can’t force the people to secure their guns because they wouldn’t be able to know who has a gun and who doesn’t. They believe that a better step to avoid the risk that gun owners face is by requiring liability insurance they believe it won’t fix all the problems completely but they feel it is the first step they can take to help control this situation better.
Reply
Sergio nava
1/31/2013 01:10:30 pm
In the article "should gun owners have to buy liability insurance?" Caitlin Kenney adresses the contreversial topic of gun violence. Ever since the tragedy at Newtown occurred in which a total of 26 innocent people lost their lives, many ideas have been proposed in an attempt of reducing gun violence. An externality is a term used by economists which says that your gun may be used to hurt others. Guns create externalities due to the fact that they're extremly dangerous and one has the guarantee that your gun is in a secure place, there is always the possibility that it ends up in the wrong hands. Some economists have proposed that all gun owners get liabilty insurance on every single gun they own. The reasoning behind this being that once a fee is added, people get rid of their guns or stop buying any new ones, this way gun violence could be decreased significantly. i dont believe taxing guns will stop a serial killer. Instead they should use social incentives. For example it should be publicated some where the name and picture of anyone who owns a gun around the area. That way people around them could at least know who is a possible threat. Then maybe gun owners feel a little social isolated and get rid of any guns they own.
Reply
Knute Meyer
1/31/2013 01:30:44 pm
In Caitlin Kenny’s article, “Should Gun Owner Have to Buy Liability Insurance?” the issue of control and how deal with it is the main concern. The problem with gun ownership is that guns create enormous social harm much like automobiles do. One idea being presented is liability insurance for gun owners. The key idea is that of treating guns like you would car insurance. Gun owners would be asked numerous questions much like you would when trying to purchase car insurance. To have these ideas adopted into gun control, incentives are being used that are similar to that of automotive incentives. If you are save with your firearm and keep stored and used properly, your insurance cost would be greatly reduced much like being a safe driver. I don’t believe this is the best solution for control, mainly because the law can easily be overlooked by criminals. They will simply avoid registering their weapons buy purchasing them on the black market. I think the best the solution to this problem, is not insurance but more strict background checks on those wishing to purchase firearms.
Reply
Steffanie Lopez
1/31/2013 02:32:14 pm
Caitlin Kenney's article "Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?," Kenney discusses the issues over gun control laws. In this article, economists are discussing different options to make owning a gun more difficult, such as needing liability insurance much like with cars, to make owners liable for damage their gun causes, whether or not in was an accident or even their fault. By this, economists are hoping that the incentives of being pricey, less people would buy a gun, and therefore, the problem of guns being misused would be solved. While this incentive sounds great on paper, I don't think it would really solve much. Criminals, regardless of the law, would find a way to get a gun and use it if they really wanted to. I don't think that there is much we can do to fix the situation except really be careful with our guns and keep them in a safer place and be more careful when selling guns. I think if a law was put into placed from the beginning, there wouldn't be issues, but that obviously didn't happen. I think the economists are heading in the right direction with the idea of placing liability insurance, but there needs to be more than that to control criminals from finding and using guns illegally to cause harm.
Reply
Ariadna Ramírez
2/1/2013 05:48:41 am
In the article “Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance” by Caitlin Kenney discusses the issues over gun control, whether if they should tax buyers when they purchase a gun or not. Economist think it'll make owning a gun more dificult. By this, they think that they can control buyers from buying guns because of the higher cost that this will have. They also think that this liability insurance can work just like with cars, that it will make gun owners liable for any damage their gun causes. I don’t believe that a liability insurance is the best solution, it will never going to prevent criminals from doing what they want to do. Car insurance hasn't elimanated the chance for accidents, so what makes them think that it will work.
Reply
Max Parriott
2/1/2013 06:57:13 am
Caitlin Kenney's article, "Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance" greatly explains the economists take on gun control and how the process in purchasing guns can be changed, to a safer and easier process. This process for purchasing a gun seems to be a good idea, but it wont fix what is currently going on with the US today. The fact that you would have to pay more money to already get an item that is costing you between $500 and $5000, bringing the total to possibly over $750 to $8000 is going to deter people from following the legal procedure. I honestly don't think that this process would help ultimately, but it could have be implemented into the current process it takes to buy a gun, but it shouldn't replace the current process that we already have. In the end it all revolves around money and how cheap people are, trying to save every bit they can.
Reply
Alex Radinger
2/1/2013 07:39:04 am
In Caitlin Kenney’s article “Should Gun Owners Have to Buy Liability Insurance?”, issues of gun control and how to reduce gun violence are discussed. In this article, Kenney gets opinions from three economists in order to see different views and ideas of how to regulate firearms. Justin Wolfers, a professor at the University of Michigan, begins his opinion by making the statement that “the real problem with gun ownership is that they involve externalities”. I think that what Wolfers said is absolutely correct. You never know if someone’s gun will end up in the wrong hands, and there are not many ways deal with this reality. He believes that people should be required to pay mandatory liability insurance, because most people would not be able to pay the damages done if their gun was used for violence. Robert Frank, a professor of economics at Cornell University, agrees with Wolfers as well, because forcing people to pay liability insurance on their guns seems like a good idea, as it will cause people to be more careful about where they keep their guns, and discourage others from purchasing guns in the first place. On the other hand, some, such as Russ Roberts of the Hoover Institution, believe that liability insurance on guns will cause more people to buy firearms illegally, without licensing and registering them. I agree with both opinions because I do think this could stop some people from buying guns legally, but insuring your guns is a harmful restriction. The economists in this article are using emotional incentives, by pointing out that innocent people could be hurt, such as the children and faculty in Newtown. I believe it is a good idea to make liability insurance on guns mandatory because we need some sort of restriction on firearms, without being too extreme, which this solution offers.
Reply
Tim Krausz
2/3/2013 06:41:17 am
Caitlin Kenney, in her article "Should Gun Owners Have to Buy Liability Insurance?" addresses the problem of the negative externalities of gun ownership. Essentially, when weighing the costs and benefits of owning a gun, the future consequence of possible harm to others does not enter the equation. The price of the gun and user utility are directly weighed in the purchase decision, but the possibility of the death of another individual is not. Methods have been proposed, however, to internalize these societal costs to no longer make them externalities. Costs of possible harm to others would be included in the rational decision-making process. To do this, financial incentives would be employed in the form of liability insurance on all guns, just like that on automobiles. Now it is true, as Russ Roberts notes, that this hefty economic incentive has the potential to discourage honest gun ownership and push people to the black market. However, I do not agree with Roberts' notion that it would be wrong to place this financial burden on "honest, law-abiding" gun-owners. In my opinion, when one obtains the power to bring about the death of another human being, no matter how great their morals are as a person, the possible negative externalities are too serious to be ignored. This is why "honest, law-abiding" car drivers must pay liability insurance as well. Even though they may be benevolent with their car and give others rides, they have the power to make a mistake and end another's life just as easily. Thus, I agree with Robert Frank from the prestigious Cornell University, that liability insurance would be, at its heart, "a positive step." Nonetheless, that is not to say that this is the only solution. Other incentive options have been and are still being discussed, such as taxes on ammunition. Moral incentives do not hold enough weight to stop the problem of these negative externalities, for often when it is not psychopaths (to whom moral incentives hold no weight) it is a slip of one with "good" morals who happened to have the power to take a life. This brings up another point, however, for the criminal justice system can be argued to be a strong incentive against "slips" in morals where a life is taken. But then, why is it so many lives continue to be taken? How many incentives will be needed, and in what areas? The only answer that is clear is that a solution to this problem is not near, and it is not easy, and if we are going to take a step in any direction, we better hope it is truly a "positive" one.
Reply
Alexander Pierce
2/3/2013 02:09:21 pm
In Caitlin Kenney’s article “Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?” Kenney discusses the direct and indirect effects guns have in the United States. Guns have a known direct impact economically, selling of guns, and indirect impacts or externalities on the American economy. The effects guns have on other people should be taken in account when being purchased and maintained, according to Kenney. Kenney believes if an extra tax or gun insurance was added, it would account for the malignant effects of guns and would cause a drop in gun purchases, killing two birds with one stone. From an economist standpoint, the incentive would be to save money and stop unnecessary losses, due to gun violence. In addition, if fewer guns were purchased and less gun-related deaths occurred, then there would be a larger workforce supplementing currency back into the economy. I believe that Kenney’s belief is a possible solution for the current problem of gun control in the United States. Her solution causes less violence and more capital gains and accountability, which would help the struggling American economy, helping two problems at once. Other less radical solutions could be to ban certain guns that are causing most of the violence such as handguns or military rifles, to require more screenings in order to purchase guns, and to reduce the amount of guns in circulation. These ideas would not gain as much revenue for the economy as gun insurances or gun taxes would, but would be more easily accepted by the people to get passed.
Reply
Karla Partida
2/4/2013 10:57:15 am
In the article “Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance” by Caitlin Kenney discusses the idea of gun insurance to stop bad usage of the gun. It is expected to work just like car insurance but what are the possibilities it will actually stop some of the people from using it in a negative way. Yes the insurance collectors could be bringing in some money but whose to say everyone is actually going to insure the gun and if they do, and if they do something negative with it you think they will actually report it to the insurance odds are they wont especially those none insured ones, a crime could be committed so that's a negative externality and the positive externality to this is that those who do get the insurance and keep it safe will benefit with lower cost. But i think the right to bare arms should be gone and only let on to those who actually use it in the right ways like officials and hunters but not to the general public if that makes sense. the incentive being used is financial, insures want to gain money from this but owners wont want to lose money from paying for something that insures wont know they have. i think the moral incentive should be brought it in so people start learning what is wrong and what is right, that being the people that miss use guns or any sort of weapon.
Reply
Skylar Nelson (sick last week)
2/4/2013 11:43:04 am
Caitlin Kenney's article, "Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance" focuses on how we can reduce gun violence in our country. Just as car owners pay car insurance, economists propose a similar concept for gun owners. An example of how guns create externalities is, for instance, if someone who lives with you steals your gun and uses it for violence. Even though this result is unintended and unforeseen by you, the gun owner, it still could happen. This is why the economists idea of governmental insurance regulation is a reasonable solution. This financial incentive seems like a perfect idea on the surface, Russ Roberts, a researcher at the Hoover Institution and the host of Econtalk says, "liability insurance makes gun ownership more expensive for honest, law-abiding people". Plus, even if the law abiding citizen is diligent in the safety of his firearm, what would stop a criminal from following these rules? Moral incentives would apply to sane people but hold no weight for the Adam Lanza's of our world. The topic of gun control is a issue that needs addressing in our society today. While the solutions discussed in Kenny's article are plausible, I believe the solution is far more complicated than liability insurance. The violence created by guns is tragic and a solution needs to be created as soon as possible before we witness another Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Reply
Evan Eberhardt (From Orange group, doing the blog on last weeks article)
2/6/2013 01:52:46 am
The issue being addressed by the NPR is a possible solution to gun violence: gun liability insurance. The idea is similar to car liability insurance in that it is supposed to account for the negative externalities to purchasing a gun, which is the harm it could cause to others. Insurance, as proposed by these economists, is supposed to compensate those negatively affected by guns. They are using financial incentives to discourage people from buying guns in the first place, or at least take more care with them, which would, in theory, drive gun violence down at least in cases such as that of Adam Lanza. What they are not accounting for, however, is the fact that some people own guns illegally, and therefore don’t pay any insurance. They cause gun violence themselves, and the externality to the economic decision to charge gun insurance would then be other people uninvolved in the situation having to pay for those who were affected, which in our society is a negative financial incentive in of itself, because no one wants to pay for what they are not responsible for. In this way, the solution the economists are proposing folds in on itself in terms of support. It works in some isolated instances, but not enough, as criminal shootings occur more often than loons getting access to their mothers’ cache, something that could still occur no matter how much people are incentivized to take care with their firearms. In the case of gun violence, there are already enough moral and societal incentives discouraging gun violence (aside from gun control laws, which are, or course, unconstitutional), so it would seem that only financial incentives remain; these economists seem to be on the right track, but their solution doesn’t accomplish its goal. An incentive solution that could be effective in solving the problem could be applying the gun insurance tax to gun producers as well, but that has perceivably negative economic effects as well, harming the gun industry.
Reply
Tara Beltrami
2/6/2013 12:00:31 pm
In the article " Should Gun Owners Have to Buy Liability Insurance? " Russ Robert put forth the idea that insurance might cover damages caused by guns people own. It might dissuade people from buying guns because of the expense. However, buying insurance penalizes honest people while dishonest people find ways to buy guns outside the system, so as not today insurance or license or registration fees by gunshot cannot be compensated by money such as insurance. Mentally incompetent people or dishonest people careless about insurance. For the most part, they are the ones that kill or causes damages to people.
Reply
Christian Corcuera
2/7/2013 11:52:00 am
In the article “Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance” written by Caitlin Kenny's we see how we could reduce violence,but a specific violence,the gun violence.Caitilin explains that if an extra tax or gun insurance was added, it would account for the malignant effects of guns and would cause decrease in gun purchases. The price of the gun and user utility are related in the purchase decision.So less guns would be bought and the gun violence would decrease significantly.The solution made by the economists are to create a insurance program,like the one that every driver should have for his car.
Reply
Tana Aldridge
2/7/2013 12:29:30 pm
In the article "Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?" by Caitlin Kenney, my analysis on the solution is that they are trying to put liability insurance on gun owners so it is harder for the law-abiding citizens to buy and register a gun for self-defense. People who do not follow the laws can go and buy a gun off the street and not register the gun. I think they should not put liability insurance on gun owners because if a citizen owns a gun in his or her household for self-defense and it gets stolen, and it's used in a crime the owner of the gun it liable for the damages the theft had caused. Therefore I believe that the person who caused the damage should pay the price not the owner of the gun.
Reply
Georgia McClain
2/7/2013 02:30:41 pm
In the article, "Should Gun Owners Have to Buy Liability Insurance?" raises several ideas and valid points. What certain economist are proposing is a liability tax similar to car insurance. One of the flaws some economist see in this particular policy is that criminals and criminal, so "why would they fallow this one regulation?" However, gun violence in the country has increased as well as the number of casualties and what many of the optimistic economist are hoping to see if this policy is put in place is a significant decrease in gun violence as well as surveillance on potential "reckless" gun owners. I see why many people are optimistic on the idea that such a radical change will be ineffective, however I see it as a opportunity to progress and hopefully see ourselves one step closer to a lower crime rate throughout the country.Either way, there needs to some radical change to insure our well being and safety of the citizens of this nation we call so great. This shouldn't be based on money, but on the lives that could be spared. If your safe with your fire arm, there shouldn't be any reason for protest.
Reply
Audrey Dappen
2/8/2013 05:34:23 am
The NPR article, "Should Gun Owners Have to Buy Liability Insurance?" adresses the issue of gun control. Due to recent shootings in schools and public areas, gun control has become a major political issue right now. The newest idea presented has been that people who own guns would be required to buy gun insurance in the same way that anyone owning a car is supposed to be insured. The benefits of doing this would be that the questions asked by insurence agencies would see if the gun is owned by a risky owner or around risky people, the problem is that some people dont have car insurence so what would be the garaunty that people with guns would actually get the insurence provided. The incentives to get insurence being used are moral because it would be the law and the incentive to be responsible with your guns is financial because people who are more responsible will have lower insurance rates. Social incentives would be hard to incorporate becasue of a point brought up in the article, its easy to see someone driving a car but not so easy to tell if someone is carrying a gun.
Reply
Kevin Bankson
2/8/2013 06:57:21 am
In the article "should gun owners have to buy liability insurance?" Caitlin Kenney adresses the contreversial topic of gun violence. It is expected to work just like car insurance but what are the possibilities it will actually stop some of the people from using it in a negative way. I really think that gun owners should have to have insurance on guns. It will cut down on people that will buy guns and most of the bad people that have gun wouldnt want or could afford to have insurance on guns. They cause gun violence themselves, and the externality to the economic decision to charge gun insurance would then be other people uninvolved in the situation having to pay for those who were affected, which in our society is a negative financial incentive in of itself, because no one wants to pay for what they are not responsible for. i agree with alexander when he says In addition, if fewer guns were purchased and less gun-related deaths occurred, then there would be a larger workforce supplementing currency back into the economy.
Reply
Katie Artigas
2/8/2013 07:55:29 am
In the article "Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?" the issue of gun violence and the negative externalities as a result are addressed. Economists propose to add a "gun liability insurance" to the purchasing of guns as a possible solution to the recent events of gun violence. It would work much like car insurance such that it would take account the damage that you do to others, and they believe that it would stop people from using guns in any negative ways possible. As Robert Russ points out, " Many people already buy and own guns illegally without license or registration. Adding the cost of insurance would further discourage honest gun ownership", I have to agree with him. He makes a valid point that many people acquire guns through illegal means and by adding an insurance policy to gun purchases it would discourage honest gun owners from buying guns. I believe that instead of adding restrictions to gun owning in hopes of preventing gun violence, we should try to prevent gun violence in a different way, by teaching society the rules of owning a gun and how to respect a weapon. Many incidents in the past involving gun violence have usually involved very angry or mentally unstable people. I think that if people are aware on how to properly use and respect any weapon that there wouldn't be as many gun violent crimes as there were in the past.
Reply
Dana Cronin
2/8/2013 08:21:00 am
The problem being addressed in this podcast is the idea that, essentially, too many unreliable and potentially psychopathic citizens can easily get their hands on guns. This could not only put their lives on the line, but also the lives of countless citizens. Take Sandy Hook Elementary School, Gabriel Giffords, and the countless other precious lives that were lost to a lack of gun control laws in America. Guns create negative externalities because someone can lose their life or lose a loved one as a result of a gun that they did not purchase or have anything to do with the gun or gunman at all. However, they still must suffer the painful consequences. The proposal by economists is to require gun purchasers to also purchase gun insurance. Just like car insurance, gun insurance would require that you fill out a questionnaire that would determine what kind of gun owner you are. Seemingly responsible gun owners would be eligible for discounts, but irresponsible and potentially dangerous gun owners would be charged more (or hopefully denied insurance altogether). Thus, they are using economic incentives in order to discourage and prevent unsafe citizens from obtaining guns. They are abandoning moral incentives because obviously they have not been effective since gun violence has been on the rise lately. They're finally trying to initiate substantial and concrete incentives rather than relying on abstract incentives such as moral and social. These are not reliable especially when dealing with gunmen who are psychologically insane and do not think rationally about guns and their potential impact on countless lives. Thus, I believe that economic incentives is the most effective way to enforce gun safety. However, I also see a flaw in this method of incentives. As stated in the NPR piece, many drivers don't own car insurance, and this would undoubtedly be an issue if gun insurance was ever introduced into the gun market. It is also more difficult to enforce the law that every gun owner should also own insurance because it's harder to tell who owns a gun as opposed to a car. However, we must act soon before it is too late for another gun victim and their family. I think this is a good place to start.
Reply
Mitchell Aiken (Orange)
2/8/2013 08:28:00 am
Every time a shooting happens the big question about gun control pops up, and why wouldn't it? The terrible effects of events like these absolutely destroy families, the negative externalities from guns are very negative. But putting all the blame on the law-abiding citizens isn't the right path. Tim brings up a very good point in saying that gun owners should have liability insurance just like car owners, and I'm sure that would help, but only to a certain extent. One thing I believe would make a big difference is instituting mandatory gun safety classes before buying one and every so often afterwards, on top of keeping up on a license. Many people simply don't know how to keep or store guns safely, and as a result "accidents" or worse shootings occur.
Reply
Maro RIvera
2/8/2013 10:18:11 am
the problem being addressed is whether there should be a liability tax on gun owners stating that they are liable for whatever damage the gun may cause. the main reason i believe this came up is because of the recent shootings going on in the U.S. but honestly putting and new cost onto guns is just going to make it tougher on the majority of people who use guns for hunting or skeet shooting. If a criminal is truly intent on doing harm by using a gun then i'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind paying the fee. The economists also believe that it would only hurt the majority of people that buy guns for their hobbies and will only encourage people to get guns illegally. In my opinion it would just be better to leave things the way they are even though these shootings seem to be more common its is only a very small minority of people that are involved in these shootings. Why should they punish the majority for something the minority did?
Reply
Andrea Gomes
2/9/2013 04:29:32 am
In her article Caitlin Keeney addresses solutions aimed at preventing the negative externalities of owning a gun. Often when people buy guns they fail to factor in the potential externalities involved, such as murder. Lately, there have been frequent shootings all over the media in which dozens of people have been killed and most of these murderers aren't even using their own guns. Economists suggest that gun owners pay an annual license fee as well as liability insurance. These expenses would be a reminder of the potential dangers of owning a gun and they would give gun owners the incentive to hide their guns and take further precautions in order to ensure their safety and the safety of others. I agree that a liability insurance be put into place. If we require people to have insurance for other things like cars, why not place an insurance policy on guns. I believe that it would help prevent gun violence because most people would be discouraged from paying so much to own a gun. I strongly disagree with Maro. Yes, hunters would make up the majority of those affected by the liability insurance, but they aren't exempt from the externalities of gun ownership. Their guns are just as likely to be used for bad as Nancy Lanza's was. However, I agree with Russ Roberts that most people likely of committing crime are those who own guns illegally. That is why I believe that there should be greater restrictions on where guns are sold and who they are sold to. The fewer the people who are armed, the fewer the people who are killed.
Reply
Jessica Bernal
2/9/2013 03:08:39 pm
In the article, “Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?” by Caitlin Kenney, a possible solution to gun abuse is proposed. The idea is that gun owners should be charged with liability insurance, similar to cars. Economists are proposing that those who purchase guns should be asked a series of questions and be charged a specific amount based on their answers. I agree that owners should have to pay for any damage their gun might cause. This would prevent gun position by those that could be considered dangerous. Guns create negative externalities because it puts the lives of citizens in danger, even those who didn’t purchase one. Anyone can suffer for the actions of the owner of the gun. In this particular case they are using economic incentive by penalizing with a higher insurance rate those who would be considered risky with a gun. Moral incentive did not function for guns so an action must be taken and soon before another tragedy occurs. I understand people need in an incentive in order to do what is right but I would think people would be more cautions with guns. I don’t believe the economists proposal will help, I just envision more people trying to hide the fact that they posses guns, leading to then having to deal with another issue. An effective plan should be made and quick before more people are made victims of gun violence.
Reply
Jessy Davidson
2/9/2013 03:12:15 pm
In the article presented by NPR, Caitlin Kenney elaborates upon the much disputed topic that is gun control. Due to recent events, and an overall surge of gun violence, there is much publicity about it. Kenney presents the argument of several economists to discover how they see the issue. The problem lies within not the gun itself, but the person owning the gun. People who possess guns in order to enact criminal offenses are most often not legally registered gun owners. By throwing an insurance policy into the mix, the government would only be further discouraging otherwise honest people to not purchase their weapons legally. It would hardly do anything to solve the current issue. I strongly disagree with Andrea in that I do not believe that gun owner's should be required to buy gun insurance, because that's just another bill to top them off--albeit an unnecessary one.
Reply
Kelsi Santillano
2/13/2013 06:13:22 am
In Caitlin Kenney’s article “Should Gun Owners Have to Buy Liability Insurance?”, issues of gun control and how to reduce gun violence are discussed. In this article, Kenney gets opinions from three economists in order to see different views and ideas of how to regulate firearms. Justin Wolfers, a professor at the University of Michigan, begins his opinion by making the statement that “the real problem with gun ownership is that they involve externalities”. I think that what Wolfers said is absolutely correct.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2014
Categories |