Guns: are they necesary for home defense or a public menace?
- Thread starter c0ldst33ltrs4u
- Start date
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
Ok, we all know the politicians have to make huge compromises, I mean if you were to ban all weapons, then you would have to deal with the companies who manufacture them, they are not going to stand by idly as you kill their market. Also by totaly baning them you would create a huge opportunity for the black market to expand, at least the bad guys will always be able to get guns and ammo. The point I was trying to make is that for home defense one can make do with a revolver or a shotgun, I mean we are talking mostly about deterring the intruder, not shooting up your house. And if it comes down to a shootout I'm going to quote Sean Connery, from The League, if you can't do it with one bullet, don't do it at all! A revolver will give you a range of what 25-50 meters, that is probably all you need. For hunting pests and critters one could do with a rifle, yes but it can as well be one that is capable of single shots only, one that emphasizes accuracy, not quantity.
As for the criminals, I am having serious trouble picturing a drug dealer with a AKM or a M16. I can picture them with a S&W, but just the thought that they could get their hands on a "assault rifle" makes me want to go out and buy a reliable kevlar vest. And while any "assault rifle" would be very hard to conceal it wold be perfect for a drive-by or settling a gang dispute.
You say that the politicians are hypocrites, where is the novelty in that? Do you know how you can see when a politician is lying? He is lying whenever his lips are moving... In my corner of the world they tried to pass a law wich stated that any politician that is involved, in some way, in ruling the country should have a gun permit and a gun, to fend off the overjoyed voters, no doubt.
Drawing a conclusion: guns are merely instruments, it is up to the wielder to decide wether to use it respecting the laws or in order to break them.
As for the criminals, I am having serious trouble picturing a drug dealer with a AKM or a M16. I can picture them with a S&W, but just the thought that they could get their hands on a "assault rifle" makes me want to go out and buy a reliable kevlar vest. And while any "assault rifle" would be very hard to conceal it wold be perfect for a drive-by or settling a gang dispute.
You say that the politicians are hypocrites, where is the novelty in that? Do you know how you can see when a politician is lying? He is lying whenever his lips are moving... In my corner of the world they tried to pass a law wich stated that any politician that is involved, in some way, in ruling the country should have a gun permit and a gun, to fend off the overjoyed voters, no doubt.
Drawing a conclusion: guns are merely instruments, it is up to the wielder to decide wether to use it respecting the laws or in order to break them.
c0ldst33ltrs4u said:
My point exactly. You might not think more than a revolver is necessary for home defense, but maybe others can use a different weapon more effectively. If we trust that Finestein and Clinton are wrong about the 'assault weapons' ban, then why not give them that choice?
Well, Gwydion, again, that would come down to personal preference. The reason I oppose concealed arms has been said, but I do have to admit that this isn't a terribly important point. IF someone can be trusted with a gun, that same person could also be trusted with the gun on the streets.
But automatic weapons are different, they are overkill when it comes to protection, and noone really should have any use for an automatic ability. Yes, some of these guns are great accuracy weapons, but can you really see any use in a society which is bent on peacefulness for a weapon that can fire a load of rounds quite quickly, as opposed to a single-shot accurate rifle.
But automatic weapons are different, they are overkill when it comes to protection, and noone really should have any use for an automatic ability. Yes, some of these guns are great accuracy weapons, but can you really see any use in a society which is bent on peacefulness for a weapon that can fire a load of rounds quite quickly, as opposed to a single-shot accurate rifle.
Well then, you'll be happy to know that I have no problem with those. 
PsychoSniper
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I still wish that FN could make and sell a semi auto version of the P-90
welsh
Junkmaster
OK, this will be a long one-
In the past I have included some references to the state of the art in these debates, so I will do that here. Much of this discussion can be found in Gregg Lee Cater, ed, Guns in American Society: AN Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law (2002).
I think it important that we be very careful with who we attribute as sources for this discussion. Gun control is a hot debate here with very powerful vested interests on both sides, and both have been known to lie or twist facts to their benefit.
Re: Concealed weapons Laws-
Much of the debate hinges on whether one believe that they increase the safety of the carrier or deter criminals or whether one believes that they lead to an increased crime rate because more people own and carry guns. Researchers have found evidence for both arguments and so the debate is still unsettled.
Leading studies on this include Lott (“The Concealed Hangun Debate” Journal of Legal Studies 27 221-243 (1998)) and Lott and Mustard (“Crime, Deterrence and the Right-to-Carry Concelaed Handguns” Journal of legal Studies 26 1-68 –(1997) ). Lott has been called to task on his numbers because of some dispute in his methods. See for instance Black and Nagin 1998 (“Do ‘Right to Carry’ Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies 27, at 209-219) and than Deshbakhash and Rubin 1998 “Lives Saved or Lives Lost? The Effects of Concealed Handgun Laws on Crime.” American Economic Review 88, at page 468-474) I checked the Deshbakhas and Rubin and you can get it off JSTOR.org if your school has host to that. Some interesting reading.
This debate parallels that on the benefits of the defensive use of guns. The person to initiate this was Kleck in 1997 (Targeting Guns,Firearms and their Control (1997) based on earlier research- Kleck and Gertz 1995 “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86 (150-187). In contrast to this debate are those who arguye that the benefits of defensive use of guns is often outweighed by the costs to society of gun ownership. For this argument- see Cook and Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs (2000) and Ludwig, 2000 in “Gun Self-Defense and Deterrence,” In Crime and Justice 27 page 363-381.
Re Defense Gun Use-
the controversy is usually one as to “what are the real figures” which becomes an argument over the type of study done, how the interviews were screened out, and what were the questions asked. Much of this tends on the sophistication of the study, with methodologies being constantly updated with safeguards to weed out respondents who might have invented a DGU story.
Kleck’s National Self-Defense Survey suggested 2.5 million cases. This contrasted with the numbers found in the government’s own National Crime Victimization Survey which found that the number tends to range between 55,000 to 108,000. In 1994 the Center for Desease Control did a study from which estimated that of the 1,896,842 thousand cases in which a householder retreaved a weapon but did not see an intruder, another 504,000 cases in which the armed householder did see the intruder, and 497,000 cases in which the burglar was scared away. Kleck’s figures have also been contested by Hemenway “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An examination of Extreme Overestimates,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 87. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center figures that the Kleck figures are too high and the NCSV figures are too low- but what? Smith figures the numbers to range somewhere between 256,000 to 1,210,000.
Re: Assault Weapons-
Many of the weapons chosen for the ban were chosen because of a variety of reasons- light weight, use of plastic and stampings, large clips of bullets but also if it has the ability to be fitted for a bayonet, a grenade launcher and whether the weapon had a threaded barrel for adding a silence or flash suppressor. Also motivating the legislation was a spat of mass murders involving assault weapons as well as a trend in increased sales of assault weapons in the 1980s and 90s, use by militia groups and right wing survivalists as well as rather sensation crimes.
Furthermore studies prior to the ban had found that while assault weapons accounted for only about 2-3 percent of all weapons owned in America they did comprise about 6-8 of crimes and was increasing. This was a concern with police forces which used the rise in assault weapons to justify upgrading their own weapons – replacing M-16s with HK submachine guns in SWAT teams and revolvers with 9 mm automatics.
Clinton’s passing of these bills actually followed George Bush (1) who had passed an executive order in March of 1989 placing a temporary ban on the importn of certain assault rifles. The temporary ban became permanent and was later expanded, much to the ire of the NRA. Clinton latter expanded the ban by executive order to include assault style handguns like the Uzi. This was further expanded in 1988. The law was a difficult battle in Congress, but eventually was passed 235-195. With Republican seizure of Congress it was anticipated that the ban would be repealed. It was promised (much like the old – “I will not be a tax and spend politician”/”I will not get us involved in foreign wars”” bit from George Bush- remember those promises?) Well. It almost got repealed in 1996, but again it was a sad day for the NRA. NO vote was passed in the Senate and the b ill died. Happily for gun enthusiasts, manufacturers have been able to make minor or cosmetic modifications to formerly banned weapons to evade the restrictions.
In the past I have included some references to the state of the art in these debates, so I will do that here. Much of this discussion can be found in Gregg Lee Cater, ed, Guns in American Society: AN Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law (2002).
I think it important that we be very careful with who we attribute as sources for this discussion. Gun control is a hot debate here with very powerful vested interests on both sides, and both have been known to lie or twist facts to their benefit.
Re: Concealed weapons Laws-
Much of the debate hinges on whether one believe that they increase the safety of the carrier or deter criminals or whether one believes that they lead to an increased crime rate because more people own and carry guns. Researchers have found evidence for both arguments and so the debate is still unsettled.
Leading studies on this include Lott (“The Concealed Hangun Debate” Journal of Legal Studies 27 221-243 (1998)) and Lott and Mustard (“Crime, Deterrence and the Right-to-Carry Concelaed Handguns” Journal of legal Studies 26 1-68 –(1997) ). Lott has been called to task on his numbers because of some dispute in his methods. See for instance Black and Nagin 1998 (“Do ‘Right to Carry’ Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies 27, at 209-219) and than Deshbakhash and Rubin 1998 “Lives Saved or Lives Lost? The Effects of Concealed Handgun Laws on Crime.” American Economic Review 88, at page 468-474) I checked the Deshbakhas and Rubin and you can get it off JSTOR.org if your school has host to that. Some interesting reading.
This debate parallels that on the benefits of the defensive use of guns. The person to initiate this was Kleck in 1997 (Targeting Guns,Firearms and their Control (1997) based on earlier research- Kleck and Gertz 1995 “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86 (150-187). In contrast to this debate are those who arguye that the benefits of defensive use of guns is often outweighed by the costs to society of gun ownership. For this argument- see Cook and Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs (2000) and Ludwig, 2000 in “Gun Self-Defense and Deterrence,” In Crime and Justice 27 page 363-381.
Re Defense Gun Use-
the controversy is usually one as to “what are the real figures” which becomes an argument over the type of study done, how the interviews were screened out, and what were the questions asked. Much of this tends on the sophistication of the study, with methodologies being constantly updated with safeguards to weed out respondents who might have invented a DGU story.
Kleck’s National Self-Defense Survey suggested 2.5 million cases. This contrasted with the numbers found in the government’s own National Crime Victimization Survey which found that the number tends to range between 55,000 to 108,000. In 1994 the Center for Desease Control did a study from which estimated that of the 1,896,842 thousand cases in which a householder retreaved a weapon but did not see an intruder, another 504,000 cases in which the armed householder did see the intruder, and 497,000 cases in which the burglar was scared away. Kleck’s figures have also been contested by Hemenway “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An examination of Extreme Overestimates,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 87. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center figures that the Kleck figures are too high and the NCSV figures are too low- but what? Smith figures the numbers to range somewhere between 256,000 to 1,210,000.
Re: Assault Weapons-
Many of the weapons chosen for the ban were chosen because of a variety of reasons- light weight, use of plastic and stampings, large clips of bullets but also if it has the ability to be fitted for a bayonet, a grenade launcher and whether the weapon had a threaded barrel for adding a silence or flash suppressor. Also motivating the legislation was a spat of mass murders involving assault weapons as well as a trend in increased sales of assault weapons in the 1980s and 90s, use by militia groups and right wing survivalists as well as rather sensation crimes.
Furthermore studies prior to the ban had found that while assault weapons accounted for only about 2-3 percent of all weapons owned in America they did comprise about 6-8 of crimes and was increasing. This was a concern with police forces which used the rise in assault weapons to justify upgrading their own weapons – replacing M-16s with HK submachine guns in SWAT teams and revolvers with 9 mm automatics.
Clinton’s passing of these bills actually followed George Bush (1) who had passed an executive order in March of 1989 placing a temporary ban on the importn of certain assault rifles. The temporary ban became permanent and was later expanded, much to the ire of the NRA. Clinton latter expanded the ban by executive order to include assault style handguns like the Uzi. This was further expanded in 1988. The law was a difficult battle in Congress, but eventually was passed 235-195. With Republican seizure of Congress it was anticipated that the ban would be repealed. It was promised (much like the old – “I will not be a tax and spend politician”/”I will not get us involved in foreign wars”” bit from George Bush- remember those promises?) Well. It almost got repealed in 1996, but again it was a sad day for the NRA. NO vote was passed in the Senate and the b ill died. Happily for gun enthusiasts, manufacturers have been able to make minor or cosmetic modifications to formerly banned weapons to evade the restrictions.
Link please. I've even seen interviews were Chuck Schumer grudgingly admitted they were only used in 1 percent of crimes, so I don't buy this.
Common in hunting weapons.
Common components used to lighten guns, and not especially dangerous.
Yeah, our government decided 11 rounds in a magazine is more evil than 10. I'm glad we have them watching out for us.
What's worth noting here, and what Welsh doesn't, is that silencers and grenade launchers had both been restricted for many years. The one part of the entire bill that might actually have some teeth is basically redundant. It's just a worthless law designed to make it look like politicians were doing something about crime.
welsh
Junkmaster
Gwydion said:
Just read it this morning in-
Gregg Lee Cater, ed, Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law (2002).
as noted above. Yes, about 1-2% of the population owns than but an increasing number of crimes is featuring them 6-8% of crimes in the 1990s.
We forget in the 1990s that the 80s were a difficult time for crime. Crime rates were startling high and didn't fall until around 1992. That was an alarming increase over the years and many folks were thinking that this issue had been resolved since the famous gangster bearing a Thompson submachinegun had been made extinct. However in the 1990s one also saw and increase in MAC-10s and Tec-9 weapons, highly inaccurate weapons that were being used for crime. Four states (California, Connecticut, New YOrk and New Jersey and several cities enacted assault weapon bans because of the frequency in which these weapons were being put on the street.
Hell I remember people buying the semi-automatic version of some weapons and the conversion kits. Old bastard that I am, I was about Gwydion's age during this period and recall one trip on the subway in New York where I was sharing a seat with a gangbanger who was thumbing his way through a assault weapon catalogue. These weapons were widely available and add that to the rather substantial urban unrest in many cities of the time.
Interesting the spread of crime was often a subject of popular culture. If you look at Blue Thunder (considerations of using gunships to control urban violence) or even Escape from New York- Skyrocketing violence turns New York into a prison- why move them when they are already there?
The main event spuring the movement was a January of 1989 schoolyard massacre in Stockton California in which 5 children were killed and 29 were wounded when a fellow decided to shoot off a Chinese made AK-47 assault rifle. Ak-47's leave big holes in children playing in school yards. Within weeks many states and localities wer ebanning the weapons. Two years later, there was the Hennard shootings in Killeen Texas where the fellow killed 22 people including himself and woulnded 23 others.
Ok, so if you want to find sources for this-
Tom Diaz, 1999, Making a Killing
Derek Avery, 1995, Firearms
Robert Spitzer, 1998, The politics of Gun control,
Willima Vizzard, 2000, Shots in the Dark,
Lord Windlesham, 1998 Politics, Punishment and Populism
Again this comes from Carter, Guns in American Society 2002, which I pulled off the reference shelf at my univeristy library.
Sorry, I don't have the link because the source looks pretty good to me. Wonderful stuff here. Check it out. Like I said, it's on reference and probably obtainable at your local library or book store.
WHoops- just checked Amazon- don't buy it! Too expensive-
But five stars.
According to a reviewer-
Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
Carter, professor of sociology at Columbia University and author of several books, including The Gun Control Movement (Twayne, 1997), has pulled together a fine group of 82 contributors for this title on the legal and social aspects of guns in America. The set represents an attempt to bring together research on all sides of an often murky and divisive issue. Designed for "researchers, teachers, students, public officials, law-enforcement personnel, journalists, and members of the general public," its purpose is to help the reader "become educated enough on any particular aspect of the gun issue to make an informed decision."
Entries cover a variety of information and present a wide spectrum of opinions. Biographical entries treat legal scholars on the Second Amendment, political leaders, and prominent social activists from all sides. Court cases that featured Second Amendment interpretations are described and feature summations of the pertinent issues. Historical articles, such as Boomtowns, cowtowns, and gun violence and Vigilantism, give a social context to the interaction between American culture and guns. Other articles focus on various gun makes, bullet types, and recent events, such as the Waco, Texas, raid and Columbine High School tragedy, that have driven discussion of gun policy.
Appendixes cover federal laws that have had an impact on the Second Amendment, state gun law, and organizations participating in pro-gun-control and pro-gun-rights activities. Brief entry-specific bibliographies and an extensive selected bibliography will facilitate further research for advanced students or interested citizens. A welcome resource on a topic that will continue to be debated for many years to come, this set is recommended for academic and public libraries.
RBB
welsh
Junkmaster
Well, happily I have the book right in front of me.
Quote- "Assault wepaons, first developed for military use, were designed as light machine guns, capabl;e of firing in semiautomatic or fully automatic models: They were subject to some federal regulation in the 1990s...Manufactured in rifle, pistol, and shotgun forms, these weapons began to come into civilian hands in large numbers with the sale of surplus M1 carbines in the 1960s, Chinese made semiautomatic rifles (modeled after the Russian AK-47) in the 1980s, semis automatic pistols like the M-10 in the 1980s and the semi automatic Tec-( in the 1990s. A semiautomatic weapon fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger wihtout manual rechambering,; a fully automatic weapons fires bullets continuously and in rapid succession while the trigger is depressed until the bullet clip or magazine is empty."
So it's a pretty broad definition but seems to identify most of the weapons at issue. The 6-8% of total gun crimes probably does not take into consideration the definition of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 but a broader definition as mentioned above.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned only 19 types of assault weapons and several dozen copycat weapons. But it also exempted out 661 sporting rifles and existing assault style weapons. Clinton did extend the ban to include 58 models of semi-automatic firearms.
However it seems that the 6-8% figure was drawn from studies in the 1990s and helped motivate the expansion of the ban.
Again, this is merely a reference book but seems and doesn't get into the particulars of this much further. But I woudl assume that the citations given would provide those sources.
If I get the chance I will look into this.
Quote- "Assault wepaons, first developed for military use, were designed as light machine guns, capabl;e of firing in semiautomatic or fully automatic models: They were subject to some federal regulation in the 1990s...Manufactured in rifle, pistol, and shotgun forms, these weapons began to come into civilian hands in large numbers with the sale of surplus M1 carbines in the 1960s, Chinese made semiautomatic rifles (modeled after the Russian AK-47) in the 1980s, semis automatic pistols like the M-10 in the 1980s and the semi automatic Tec-( in the 1990s. A semiautomatic weapon fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger wihtout manual rechambering,; a fully automatic weapons fires bullets continuously and in rapid succession while the trigger is depressed until the bullet clip or magazine is empty."
So it's a pretty broad definition but seems to identify most of the weapons at issue. The 6-8% of total gun crimes probably does not take into consideration the definition of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 but a broader definition as mentioned above.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned only 19 types of assault weapons and several dozen copycat weapons. But it also exempted out 661 sporting rifles and existing assault style weapons. Clinton did extend the ban to include 58 models of semi-automatic firearms.
However it seems that the 6-8% figure was drawn from studies in the 1990s and helped motivate the expansion of the ban.
Again, this is merely a reference book but seems and doesn't get into the particulars of this much further. But I woudl assume that the citations given would provide those sources.
If I get the chance I will look into this.
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
Ok, this thread is like dying so I'll try to throw another log into the fire: would it not be better for everyone if instead of using guns for home defense the public could be convinced to use non-lethal weapons, weapons that fire rubber bullets, or that use compressed air po propel the projectile? Maybe this way the number of victims of accidents related to unsafely stored guns could be seriously reduced...
Let's see some feedback people!
Let's see some feedback people!
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
BARF!!!
welsh
Junkmaster
Actually I am wondering if the money spent on guns in this country by private citizens would give more safety if the money were otherwise spent on improving police protection and thus deterring crime.
How's that for a log in the fire-
Non-lethal protection- oh why? Sometimes you just want to plug that bastard breaking in.
How's that for a log in the fire-
Non-lethal protection- oh why? Sometimes you just want to plug that bastard breaking in.
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
Ancient Oldie please refrain from soling the board, if you wish to toss your cookies somewhere there are always the vats.
Thats a really good question. I wonder if we could find out how much do gun sales amount to each year, and maybe compare that with some annual law-enforcement budgets.
Concealed carry - If someone does carry one around, chances are that if they get attacked or whatever they should be able too pull it out quick enough. I don't see the difference between concealed carry and just carrying it round on a holster. The police do it, so why not? And would you rob a woman who had a .44 round her waist or one without?
Assault weapons - Why not. Most of them are decent rifles and too expensive or large too be waving around anyway. I don't see how firing more bullets would make much difference either for the full-auto weapons.
I think everyone should have a gun. It's a pity in England you can't get any gun unless you have a bunch of dumb reasons. It'd probably be easier just too get better locks on your windows or an illegal gun. Gun crime is on the rise though, so mabye the government might change there mind. I doubt it though.
Alaska seems like a nice place too live.
Assault weapons - Why not. Most of them are decent rifles and too expensive or large too be waving around anyway. I don't see how firing more bullets would make much difference either for the full-auto weapons.
I think everyone should have a gun. It's a pity in England you can't get any gun unless you have a bunch of dumb reasons. It'd probably be easier just too get better locks on your windows or an illegal gun. Gun crime is on the rise though, so mabye the government might change there mind. I doubt it though.
Alaska seems like a nice place too live.
c0ldst33ltrs4u
Vault Dweller
You can carry a gun and keep out of sight and still be able to pull it out in time, provided you have al least half a brain functioning. Besides if it is concealed it gives you a slight edge, the element of surprise. And just think what would happen if a pickpocket would manage to steal your gun and go kill someone with it... who do you think would be held responsible? Even if you were to report it stolen you should be held responsible for making it easy for the thief. Anyway, if we were all to just walk around guns in plain sight we might as well hitch a ride on the time machine and go back to the wild west. I think concealed carry is almost ok, but carrying in plain sight is just ludicrous.
Because you are not the police.
So what pick-up line am I supposed to use in this case: Hy baby, that shure is a nice gun! no thanks!
Assault weapons are overkill, especially in the city, a shotgun can be much more frightening. And firing more bullets in the middle of the playground because you have had a bad day at the office and one drink too many DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Most of the time those dumb reasons have a reason for being there, remember the time a bobby would have just a club, but no one dared attack him?
Getting a gun illegally makes you a lawbreaker, not a brilliant idea. Hmm... how to stem the tide of gun related crimes? I know, let's just hand out guns to everybody, that should do the trick!
Cold said:
Many people I know who have concealed carry licenses also do carry some kind of less lethal deterrant, generally pepper spray. These people are smart enough to recognize that guns aren't an appropriate response for every situation. However, the reverse is also true with less lethal weapons.
welsh said:
That's probably the case. I think the police in a lot of areas, especially major cities, could use a lot more funding.
Well, it depends on what you mean by assault weapons. According to the 1994 ban, assault weapons include some semi-automatic shotguns and handguns. Most people don't think of either of those when the term "assault weapons" is mentioned, and most of the imagery you see in the media focuses on the rifles that look like military rifles.
I do agree that most rifles are inappropriate for defense in all but rural areas. However, the penetration in 10% ballistic gelatin (which is widely accepted as similar to human tissue) of .223 after passing through standard configurations of walls is very similar to handguns and larger buckshot sizes like 0 or 00. That's because the .223 round is a light round travelling very fast. Its main wounding component is velocity, which it tends to lose very when passing through obstacles. With handgun rounds and buckshot, velocity isn't nearly as important because the focus is on size and weight for these projectiles to do damage. So even in urban areas, depending on your situation, .223 may be a viable round choice for defense. Many SWAT teams are actually moving to .223 platforms now rather than using shotguns or submachineguns.
I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with anything, though.