"I didn't think for a minute to run away."
We need more people in this country like Ms. Assam:
Perhaps if people would stop being so afraid of self-defense and stood up for gun rights, we would have less of these mass shootings. These killers do it, in part, because they know they can get away with it, when they no longer can, their numbers will decrease.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Jeanne Assam appeared before the news media for the first time Monday and said she "did not think for a minute to run away" when a gunman entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and started shooting.
There was applause as Assam spoke to reporters and TV cameras saying, "God guided me and protected me."
Perhaps if people would stop being so afraid of self-defense and stood up for gun rights, we would have less of these mass shootings. These killers do it, in part, because they know they can get away with it, when they no longer can, their numbers will decrease.
posted by Helen at 5:35 AM
61 Comments:
All together now: Paxton Quigley's Armed and Female
None of the recent mass shooters seemed to care one bit about personal safety. I doubt increased threat would have deterred any of them. At best it would force a change in tactics. That said... An increase in personal responsibility for your own safety and self defense in the USA would be a good thing.
Mike Tavares,
They don't care about personal safety because they are on a suicide mission. They do care about taking out as many people as possible and look for places such as malls, churches and schools that are typically unarmed and full of unsuspecting people. Each potential killer gets a thrill out of seeing those before him kill as many people as possible before dying. If, instead, fewer died, the allure would not be as grand. It is as much a psychological phenomenon as much as a tactical one.
When the curve is increasing, each attacker has the thrill of expecting that he will cause the highest number of deaths so far. If citizens start protecting themselves, the curve flattens and then begins to decrease. At that point, each attacker's only expectation is that he will kill fewer than the ones before him.
It's likely that they will find another way to be destructive, but perhaps we can reclaim the idea of gun possession if more incidents end the way this one did.
[irony_alery]
Leatherwing, stop confusing the issue with your damnable economic logic. Do you really think people respond to incentives!?!?
[/irony_alert]
It's funny. One never reads of crazy gunmen at gun ranges. Now why would that be?
Mike- in the case of the killer at VaTech, he stopped shooting and committed suicide the momenthe heard the cops break down the doors and come into Norris Hall.
He was willing to keep shooting as long as he knew he was gong t be able to keep shooting, without having to have any rounds incoming.
This behavior by shooters has beenseen in many cases, say, like George Hennard in Kileen, TX etc.
For the past x years ( I don't have a source) Americans have been told not to resist, to let the police do it. They are not to resist a mugging, rape, hostage, shooting, etc. Just be passive, let the mugger/shooter/etc. do what they want and get out of the situation.
The net result of this is a culture where criminals know they have a great chance of doing what they please. It is sad that these types of things have to happen to highlight the downside of the passivity philosophy. No one set of directions is appropriate in all situations.
Armed clergy. Fighting bishops. Sounds medieval, but I like it.
If, instead, fewer died, the allure would not be as grand.
I'm not so sure.
It's the media coverage, the "I'm gonna be famous!" mentality that does it for them, I think.
If the media coverage -- the pictures, manifestos, number one news story, etc. -- keeps up even with fewer victims, you'll probably still get the suicidal trying.
Self-defense, plus the reluctance to make these guys famous after the fact, is what's needed. Report on the crime, maybe release a name or factual background -- but all the rest of the attention as to "why he did it??" Voyeristic, not necessary to publicize, and feeding the next one who wants to be famous in this manner.
Mary,
I think you are exactly correct, the combination of self-defense with less media coverage is key. It would not stop all of these mass killings, of course, but there would probably be fewer. The next step is to provide more help to people who are suicidal before they go ballistic, not fret about the "why" behavior afterwards.
I was pleasantly surprised that the security guard actually had a gun and was capable of using it.
Well you do have a couple of choices, you can stay out of public places & hope for the best.
When the wolf comes, you can hope there is a Sheepdog, like Jeanne there to save you. You can just roll over & let the wolf kill you, or you can have your wool sheared, & get some training & learn to fight back, but the choice is yours
If the body count goes down because of an armed citizenry, then the dedicated killer will turn to bombs like the Palestinians etc.
Less publicity will deter the attention seekers who seem to be in the majority right now.
Quasimodo, I don't think so. These people want the satisfaction of ending lives while they are still alive, killing themselves when they hear the sirens so that they do not have to suffer the consequences of their actions. A Palestinian-style suicide bombing is not nearly as satisfying for such a person.
I think Mary and Helen are right. Reduced media coverage of the shooter couple by a better-armed and trained populous that stop rampages quickly would greatly reduce the number of people who choose to go out this way.
While I support gun rights, as a Christian, I cannot agree with a church arranging for an armed security guard. Jesus said to turn the other cheek when attacked. It may sound radical, but we Christians are not supposed to fear martydom.
Scottish, Jesus did say that. But He said a lot of things, including that people should sell their coat to buy a sword! In my understanding of the situation, this woman felt led to volunteer for the position after hearing about the attacker's previous murders.
She felt called and led to act as she did. Given the outcome and her grace in and past the situation, I do not feel qualified to argue with her.
Trey
Long and short, there are a lot of people who thank God (and her!) she was there. His killing was indiscriminate - women, children - all were targets. Killing was his goal. He had to be put down. Immediately. What's to argue or second guess?
To ascribe Jesus' sayings to lethal attacks means to create a world where evil rules because good men are not allowed to resist it. Perhaps as a Christian you feel this is okay because heck, all the good people killed are in a better place now anyway.
That kind of thinking is why I'm not a Christian any more.
Dr. Helen,
Just so I better understand your position, do you think that the solution would be for people to go armed to shoppings, churches, schools, etc., so they are prepared if a crazy person starts shooting?
It doesn't sound to me like a practical plan, and, in a situation like the one in this news story, I can imagine a scenario in which John Doe would shoot the gunman to protect the others, then another person, who didn't see what was happening, would shoot John Doe thinking he was the crazy gunman, and who knows how the thing would end!
Perhaps I didn't get the solution you propose, and I'd appreciate you elaborating on the point you wanted to make. Thanks!
It turns out the gunman shot himself.
Nice try, adriana.
Scottish, in what way do you think this was a martyrdom situation? How would it have helped anyone (advanced Christ's Kingdom, etc.) to allow him to kill everyone in the place at his leisure? Do you think that after he killed some number he'd be inspired by their passive acceptance of death, repent of his sins, and go on to live a fruitful life?
Christians are supposed to fight evil. I dunno, it's hard for me to see anything but that Ms. Assam as providentially placed in that situation to do just that.
It turns out the gunman shot himself.
Don't you mean, "It turns out the gunman killed himself?"
Because as I understood it, he was shot by the woman, and then killed himself. Typical. Even if she didn't hit him (which I understand she did), he was challenged enough by her to turn his gun on himself.
Also, Christ's admonition to "turn the other cheek" is misunderstood, imho. It's easy to tell others what their faith means innaccurately, and then to protest against that inaccurate representation. So no. Christians aren't patsies. But the admonition surely has its place and time for strategic effect.
Christianity is a remarkably strong, civilizing force in the right hands, and it has stood the test of time. If it's not for you, fine. But those who misinterpret and only see the ill societal effects are like scientists who would only pursue evidence that fits their hypotheses, imho.
I also think that as our respect for civilized life in all facets of society decreases, you see more killings. We need to worship life, and accept weaponry, instead of worshipping weaponry and viewing life as disposable and accepting so much collateral loss. I think it can be done this balance, because some of the hunters/gun owners are know are the most life respecting people out there. To take an animal's life, to kill for nutrition, you really end up respecting life more. Those who would ban guns for all miss this aspect, I think, and focus more on the fantasy shoot-em-ups where life is cheap.
should be: "some of the hunters/gun owners I know..."
Guns don't kill nutcases. Individuals with guns kill nutcases.
He had to be stopped. He had a gun and a lot of targets. Until he was confronted with force, he had a free hand to kill and destroy.
God bless Ms. Assam.
percentage-wise, almost nobody sees a crazy shooter. Drunks kill hundreds of times more people. Maybe we should all carry guns in our cars; take out the weavers. More to the point, it does not stretch the imagination too far to visualize more people being killed by mistake (circular firing squads)than by crazies. I'm surprised that somebody as smart as you gives in to this kind of paranoid fear. There are lots of dangers out there. This ain't one of them.
On turning the other cheek, doesn't that just apply to *you*. In other words, if one of the adults wants to turn the other cheek, then let them. But, if that means my kid gets killed in the process, then I'm inclined to make sure everyone involved wishes they were never born.
At any rate, I think the mass murderers will just have to resort to bombs and such, but it will become that much more difficult to pull it all off. And, people that are on the borderline will reconsider and there will be a few less mass murderers not to mention the dumber, more unstable ones that are just directly killed before they can kill too much. (Killing three, wounding a few more and then having your but put down is not nearly as appealing as killing dozens.)
Also, if only 10% of the people carried, then in a mall full of people, the moment a gunman busts out his hardware a few different people will put him down. That IS practical. It doesn't take everyone being armed to the teeth at all times.
As for militant clergy, don't make me bust out my cat-o-nine-tails on yo ace!
The choice is simple: depend on others to protect you or take responsibility for your own safety. We know which option the bad guys want you to take.
I believe that I am obliged to offer my other cheek, not the cheeks of others. As a man, a son, a brother, husband, father, friend, neighbor and citizen there may come a time when I have to take responsibility for the safety of others. Part of that responsibility is being prepared, part of being prepared is being armed.
But, if that means my kid gets killed in the process, then I'm inclined to make sure everyone involved wishes they were never born.
By the same logic, what if your not turning the other cheek gets my kid killed?
Those who would escalate only for escalation's sake, instead of as a well thought-out strategic plan targeting a solution, are just as guilty.
"It's the balance, stupid" Knowing which situation call for coming in with guns a-blazing, and which will be settled more effectively without resorting to or escalating violence. Clearly, the mall shooting falls into the former category, but that doesn't mean weapons are always the most effective answer to tackle social problems. (And sadly, I don't think we can assume that last one goes without saying. Too many think all their problems are gone when they are well armed and "protected". Not gone though, minimized.
(Killing three, wounding a few more and then having your but put down is not nearly as appealing as killing dozens.)
I think this was discussed upthread. The desire to be "famous", appears to have motivated this young man. He got it with only a few killed. I think he'd probably find the notoriety just as appealing, even if the death count doesn't measure up.
Lol @ cat o'nine tails. You must be a militant beginner...
Mary,
The problem is that there are no laws prohibiting doing nothing while there are laws that prohibit us from carrying weapons that we may need if necessary. I agree that one needs to size up the situation and make a judgement about what is called for. And few people here think that a gun is the answer to tackle "social problems," just to self-defense.
And few people here think that a gun is the answer to tackle "social problems," just to self-defense.
I was speaking generally not of this thread. I think outside this thread, that attitude is becoming more common among newbie gun owners, who sometimes are making their purchases out of fear.
The problem is that there are no laws prohibiting doing nothing while there are laws that prohibit us from carrying weapons that we may need if necessary.
Ditto the above.
Are you claiming there were gun laws in the jurisdictions discussed in these threads that forbid carring concealed weapons either in the mall or in the church services? If so, I hadn't heard that.
If not, you were speaking generally then, no? Extrapolating facts from these specifics to make a point. As was I in responding to the insinuations that Christians were passive based on a cherry-picked New Testament verse. Challenging misunderstandings is a good way to stop them from happening, imo.
Mary,
The laws vary from state to state. Some states say that if it is posted --for example, at the mall--that you may not carry a weapon, it is illegal to do so,even if you have a concealed carry permit.
The Colorado mall had such a sign posted?
I hadn't heard that was an issue here.
Mary,
I think you are getting the shootings confused--with good reason, there have been a series. Anyway, the mall shooting was in Omaha,Nebraska and the Westroads mall, I believe, had a sign posted. Here is a news article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html
The Colorado shootings were not at a mall but at a church--see here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004066596_gunman12.html
If I may speculate, I suspect this incident is being used as fodder for those who would avert the federalism question of state's rights to regulate on this issue, for the current push to recognize gun ownership as an individual right that trumps laws.
My problem is: some states clearly regulate better the others. Without better psychological testing and enforcement, I suspect you'll see more actions by gunowners that would have some of the more responsible cringe. Fear is not a good reason to pick up a weapon, because if you're the fearful sort, you tend to see danger lurking everywhere and might be tempted to use them irresponsibly, not just in well-publicized cases of self defense, like this one.
I agree with Dr. H. in believing that more armed citizens would reduce the death count in these tragedies. Besides the potential deterrent effect that was mentioned, I think the psychological impact of a gunman being shot or at least shot at during the crime is important as well. Most shooters will not die from one shot, and will be faced with the immediate reality of how much a bullet entering their body hurts (significant for those who are in video game mode as well as persons that are not used to feeling extreme pain). Getting wounded would certainly distract the shooter from his/her action plan, if not totally befuddle some into surrendering or killing themselves (as the CO shooter did).
No helen.
Not confused, just mistyped the location.
This is the first I've heard of any sign being posted at the mall. Also, do you think a sign like that would have any enforcement effect -- that is, aren't gun holders w/permits free to ignore the "sign"? It's not like there were detectors posted at the mall entrances.
I wonder if your belief is correct. (I'm not so confident relying on a one-source story, particularly when that source is Fox News.) Again, I suspect these stories are being used by those with agendas to further their intersts, not so much about concern for the facts of whether people could indeed carry inside, or sadly, out of a legitimate concern for the dead people.
Getting wounded would certainly distract the shooter from his/her action plan, if not totally befuddle some into surrendering or killing themselves (as the CO shooter did).
8:09 AM, December 12, 2007
Thomas,
Call it a hunch, but I suspect when they go in, those shooters understand they're not coming out alive. Whether by their own hand, or killed by another.
What a confused bunch of arguments here. Loads are totally rational and all, but entirely missing the point: if a would-be mass murderer is brought down as soon as shooting starts, there is a great lack of murder that results. Deterrent, fame, whatever: irrelevant. Saving innocent lives is the obviously important thing.
An armed populace is a less violent environment. Find any place where they have gone from armed to unarmed or vice versa and look at the facts. There is not, to my knowledge, a single counterexample in modern history.
But, if that means my kid gets killed in the process, then I'm inclined to make sure everyone involved wishes they were never born.
By the same logic, what if your not turning the other cheek gets my kid killed?
I was referring to the idea that a church full of children should "turn the other cheek" and not hire armed muscle like a security guard. If I put my kid in your care and you don't take reasonable precautions on some sort of religious basis to protect them, then both you and possibly your religion are culpable of negligence. If, on the other hand, some guys come around acting belligerently and your defending my kid causes one of them to end up shooting my kid, then the blame still lies squarely on them because they never had to shoot my kid and everything they did from start to finish was their fault to begin with.
Failing to act passive when confronted with unjust and aggressive behavior is never negligent. Failing to respond in kind under some circumstances (such as when you are charged with the care of someone else's children) is.
If I put my kid in your care and you don't take reasonable precautions on some sort of religious basis to protect them, then both you and possibly your religion are culpable of negligence.
...
Failing to respond in kind under some circumstances (such as when you are charged with the care of someone else's children) is.
Only if your kid is in need of some special protection, and the threat is forseeable.
Most Chritians understand -- please see the Amish example for an excellent and dignified response -- that churches and school buildings are NOT generally recognized targets and any gunman killing innocents is an aberration. Those Sunday school teachers are under no obligation to provide armed guards to "respond in kind under some circumstances", anymore than the Amish congregation that suffered such losses should be required to abandon their faith and take up the gun, in the odds that another killer will strike.
Of course, if for some reason your children are targeted and need special protections the Sunday school cannot provide, you probably should work to treat the underlying illness, and not the symptoms. Or else don't enroll your children and lock them up, away from the world. But don't close down the Sunday schools for everyone's child until the religion is committed to providing adequate firepower to respond to such an incident. That's essentially what you're saying, no? That someone else has the duty to protect your child, rather than remaining passive?
Oh God! I wish I had nickel for every "kindergarten teacher" that tries to tell me how the world should be run like a giant kindergarten, as if they know anything about real disputes that occur between adults -- especially something like armed conflict and the actors involved. I'm sure a lot of serial killers act real calm and rational before they rape and murder, calmly explaining to their victims how honored they should be to be one of their victims. Must we endure just any "argument"? No matter how condescending and otherwise absurd it is? Just because they put on airs of rationality?
They are under no legal obligation to. That doesn't mean they aren't scumbags if they don't. Thinking you probably don't need a security guard is one thing, but refusing to get one on religious grounds when it looks like you might need one is another.
Adrian:
Since that Amish schoolhouse was attacked, do you think it necessary for them to start carrying guns to protect their children? Are phones in the classroom sufficient, if they choose to alter their traditions?
Who are you to call parents of dead children "scumbags" because they don't adopt your propaganda? Or compare serial killers and rapists with the Christian admonition to "turn the other cheek". Some of you are deliberately distorting and insulting those who choose differently for their own children.
And you just don't see it.
How sad...
Go back to your kindergarten, Mary.
I think if you folks re-read some of your favorite bible passages with an open mind, you'll find Jesus was addressing the individual believer!
Anyone who interprets 'Turn the Other Cheek' and yes, I include Quakers and Amish are adopting some creed as a group that was not necessarily meant to be.
Likewise, if Jesus was AGAINST capital punishment, he would have said as much.. and possibly not have submitted to it.
Likewise: "That which you do for the least of these, you do for me" was not a campaign for Rome to increase welfare entitlements.
Mary, it seems to me that your posts of late have been very interesting and generally polite.
Thanks, they are a good read.
Trey
pettyfog - That's always been my understanding. "Turn the other cheek" is a spiritual practice, not a rote behavior. You have to will yourself to turn the other cheek, forgive your enemy, etc., and you have to understand why you're doing it. Otherwise you're just going through the motions.
That's my phony-baloney theory, anyway. Here endeth the lesson.
"Saving innocent lives is the obviously important thing."
Well said PJ.
To the point and accurate.
Trey
Thanks Trey.
"Call it a hunch, but I suspect when they go in, those shooters understand they're not coming out alive. Whether by their own hand, or killed by another."
At one level that may be true. But at another, it is not. I think that part of Dr. H's original post had to do with copycat killings. In this case, the resulting story line is that this wacko murdered a couple of innocent girls, and then was taken down by a heroic woman, putting a much quicker end to his murderous rampage. So, the story line is not that he was able to murder with abandon until the police finally get around to storming the place, at which time he takes his own life. This time, he appears to be the coward, and the woman shooting him the hero, and henceforth, his name will be associated with hers.
And it is the story line that is important. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold will always be known for the number of people they killed and that currently, they stand at number three in the number of innocents they killed at a school in this country. If anyone remembers Matthew Murray's name, it will be in connection to Jeanne Assam who took him down. And, indeed, in five years, far more people are likely to remember her name than his.
This time, he appears to be the coward, and the woman shooting him the hero, and henceforth, his name will be associated with hers.
And it is the story line that is important. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold will always be known for the number of people they killed and that currently, they stand at number three in the number of innocents they killed at a school in this country.
Sorry Bruce, I don't buy it.
Even with the media coverage overkill, when I read your first sentence above, I couldn't recall either name. You hear it and forget, for most people I think. And the number of dead at Columbine? Beats me that exact figure.
Maybe because you're in Colorado, or if folks are in the business of following these kind of stories and referring back, but I'm guess by mid-January neither name will recognized, much less asking people to name names without providing it first to them asking what this person is known for.
I don't even think he'll be remembered past this year. The Columbine killings are unique in that we remember the shooter's name. All the other juvenile or school shootings? Not so much.
"Call it a hunch, but I suspect when they go in, those shooters understand they're not coming out alive. Whether by their own hand, or killed by another."
At one level that may be true. But at another, it is not.
Sorry again Bruce, but I suspect you're wrong. On some level, they want to die -- leaving suicide notes, clues there's no turning back = chaining doors closed, etc. So I stick by my original hunch: these killers know that will be their last day, and again, I suspect most have planned to off themselves when confronted. Did you think if nobody was there to stop them they'd just go away eventually when they ran out of bullets?
This time, he appears to be the coward, and the woman shooting him the hero, and henceforth, his name will be associated with hers.
Whether the cops got him, an armed bystander, or someone courageous enough to physically rush a guy with a gun, anybody who would take life in this way is a coward. Period. Including the two Colorado Columbine killers who shot themselves. Whatever their names.
Concealed carry permit laws vary by state.
I checked mine (Mississippi) to be certain. Unfortunately, the state law I live under explicitly restricts lawful carrying of a weapon into a mall if it is posted (all are in my area) and churches. There are numerous other restrictions and a loosely worded concept of "areas of public conveyance". After reading the concealed carry law for my state, the law as written is useless. I can already carry a weapon (concealed or not) legally in the areas of my state that are not prohibited by law.
Will I still carry? Yes. After handing the Newt his first revolver, the wise Captain Augustus McCrae said the greatest truth of guns, "It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."
The jury will listen to my plea. The coroner won't listen to a word from my corpse.
Anthony, I'm sorry to hear that you let a few thoughtlessly-pacifist Christians chase you away from the faith. I suggest you maybe try it again with a different/broader circle of friends.
Mary, you'd do well to actually get acquainted with Nebraska law, rather than just speculating about what might or might not be legal for a CCW holder to do there.
So...can anyone recommend a good pistol that's at home at the mall, the beach, or the shooting range?
I was thinking maybe one of these.
Mary said:
(I'm not so confident relying on a one-source story, particularly when that source is Fox News.)
Please explain, with examples, why Fox News is less reliable as a single source than the New York Times, The New Republic, or the Associated Press.
Mary said:
Most Chritians understand -- please see the Amish example for an excellent and dignified response -- that churches and school buildings are NOT generally recognized targets and any gunman killing innocents is an aberration.
Many Jews understand, -- please see the school at Maalot, the Passover seder in the hotel at Netanya, and the cafeteria at the Hebrew University in J'lem for examples -- that synagogues and school buildings are specifically targeted and any gunman killing Jewish innocents is pretty much the way the world turns.
Helen,
Even if the numbers of whackos don't decrease in response to better concealed-carry laws, the body counts will. Jeanne Assam demonstrates that.
Oh, and to other commenters -- unless you know the laws of the jurisdiction, never apply what you see as "common sense." It never pertains to firearms laws.
As for whether or not this is a "danger," of course it is. A remote one, to be sure. But a real one. However, I wouldn't get a CCW because of a mall shooting. I'd get one because I was sufficiently concerned about my safety to purchase one, take training, practice regularly, and read the Public and Penal codes of my jurisdiction to know the laws about CCW and defense of justification for lethal force.
If you're serious enough for all that, welcome aboard. Our civilization can benefit from more like you -- as it did with Ms. Assam.
If not, well, hope that in the rare event you encounter danger, someone else is around who can help. And hope your politicians didn't disarm them beforehand.
Mary said:
Since that Amish schoolhouse was attacked, do you think it necessary for them to start carrying guns to protect their children? Are phones in the classroom sufficient, if they choose to alter their traditions?
Who are you to call parents of dead children "scumbags" because they don't adopt your propaganda? Or compare serial killers and rapists with the Christian admonition to "turn the other cheek". Some of you are deliberately distorting and insulting those who choose differently for their own children.
And you just don't see it.
How sad...
If the Amish parents choose not to defend their offspring then their genes will be selected out of the genepool. They will not be rewarded for their silly superstition. Objective reality trumps faith. Scientific data on the interaction of predator and prey organisms for the past 4.5 billion years of evolution has shown that pacifism is superstitious nonsense. The human ape is NOT an exception.
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
Post a Comment
<< Home