Girl dies in teen murder-attempted suicide south of Seattle on New Years' Eve

[depakid]

A 16-year-old boy is under police guard at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle after police say he fatally shot a teenage girl Thursday night in Burien before shooting himself.

The two juveniles were found suffering from gunshot wounds at an apartment complex at 12445 Ambaum Boulevard Southwest in Burien around 9:30 p.m. The teenage girl later died at Harborview Medical Center. Police were initially looking for a shooting suspect, but later determined the 16-year-old boy shot the girl and then shot himself in the chest.

The boy is in serious condition with non-life-threatening injuries, said sheriff's spokesman Jim Laing. Neighbors say the two teenagers were dating and were often overheard fighting loudly, according to a KING-TV report.

More: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010665390_webshooting01m.html

Further coverage: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/413765_shoot01.html?source=mypi

[GreenStormCloud]

1. We are not going to change our Constitution for you. N/T

[MichaelHarris]

3. what if

this was a gun that might have been bought back stopping an impulsive act? For the life of me I can't understand why you're against that. Even one gun not used in a crime can save a life and you make two identical posts about it. I'm at a complete loss at whatever logic you choose when saying that the buyback is fruitless. You and I can never know that, we can't tell the future.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Guns are not the Ring of Sauron.

They don't radiate a magic mind control field. They are merely tools. Criminals use guns for tools to advance their purpose. If his gun is taken away, he will just get another one.

Also, do you really think that a wanted felon is going to walk into a place with a couple of dozen cops there?

I am not against gun buy-backs. I firmly believe that the people who turned them in were doing the right thing for them to have done. I plan on dumping some old low-value guns on the next buy-back myself. In addition to getting some grocery gift cards, it provides a safe avenue for disposal of old guns.

But they have no effect on crime. Yes, some of the guns turned in were the type favored by criminals. Single shot shotguns converted (Easily and illegally, in minutes, with a hacksaw) to a handgun are greatly used by robbers.

Your mistake is that you confuse the gun (Inanimate object) with the actor. Remove the object and the actor just gets another one. Would ruining your keyboard stop you from posting on the internet? Only for a short while, until you replaced it. It would have no long term effect at all.

[depakid]

4. LOL- no, you'll hide behind absolutist interpretations to justify your fears

and obsessions, all the while shooting your families, girlfriends, coworkers, - yourselves or anyone else who "deserves it."

Sometimes- on the spur of the moment, without much in the way of a second thought.

Though other times- as with Washington State- with malice aforethought, towards cops.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Hide? Not at all. I proudly support our Constitution, and ALL of it's rights. N/T

[oneshooter]

38. Meanwhile in utopian OZ

Two people have been arrested over a wild brawl in Gnowangerup that saw feuding families attack one another with sticks and machetes.

One person was taken to Gnowangerup District Hospital for treatment and a number of other people suffered minor injuries when up to 20 people, some brandishing weapons including machetes, became involved in an ugly brawl

The violent confrontation comes just over a week after Sen. Const. David Rudd suffered serious facial injuries when he was struck by a rock during a riot in the Kimberley town of Wyndham on Christmas Day.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp/6637915/two-arrested-after-machete-fight-in-gnowangerup/


It seems that no firearms doesn't seem to stop the violence.


Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

39. Again in utopian OZ

Two men use knives to rob Qld stores

A store attendant was stabbed twice during a robbery on New Year's Day - all for the sake of a bottle of alcohol.

The attendant was bending to get a paper bag when the assailant struck out with a knife and stabbed the man once in the cheek and neck, leaving him with lacerations and also cuts to his hand.

The attack was the first of two brazen daylight robberies on Friday.

Seems that knives are causing unprovoked attacks. Of course self defence with a firearm is again the law!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas



.

[JonQ]

2. Just think

if they hadn't had a gun available likely they would have just gone to church instead.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

5. Rec

Because I feel that the RKBA crowd doesn't understand the fact that their precious guns are so unsafe when in the wrong hands (even legally obtained or not).

Guns should become like cars, a privilege to have them not a right. They should be heavily regulated and harder to obtain.

[proteus_lives]

7. All that car regulation sure keeps people from drunk driving, doesn't it?

:sarcasm:

Guns are regulated.

And us in the RKBA crowd only want you stop trying to take away people's rights because of the actions of others and your fear.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

8. I'm not scared

I'm just wondering what you're so scared of that you want to have a gun?

Thank goodness I no longer have that fear when I go out unarmed. I trust others around me not to have something like that on their person.

[proteus_lives]

9. I'm not scared either.

I just treasure my Rights. I've been a gun owner and user since I was ten years old. It's part of my life.

Why do you want to punish people for the crimes of others?

I vote and exercise my rights to free speech and religion.

You want to take those away too?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

10. I do not mind hunting rifles and guns for sport

But I don't understand the need to carry guns concealed in public.

Do you want to take away my right to public safety? If I get shot by a stray bullet by a CCW person, would your first thought be, "Oh well, she shouldn't have been there in the first place."

I vote too. I think there are way too many guns in the US and feel that there's no understanding of how bad this is for society. Finland has the same problem and they are now questioning the availability of firearms. Do you know how insulted I feel when shootings such as Virginia Tech occur and people such as Bush say, "Oh, I support the right to keep and bear arms."

Do you think that's the answer to everything? A guy shoots his wife dead and kills himself. "I support the right to keep and bear arms!!!" A teenager shoots his girlfriend dead and kills himself, "I support the right to keep and bear arms! Don't change the constitution!" A guy goes to a mall and has a shoot-up. "I support the right to keep and bear arms! It's MY RIGHT to have a gun!" A robber going into the home of someone and shooting them dead? "I support the right to keep and bear arms! I would have shot that robber right then and there!!"

No questioning of how lax US gun laws are? No questioning of how easily obtainable these weapons are?

Sad.

[proteus_lives]

11. So you have no argument?

"But I don't understand the need to carry guns concealed in public."

So you don't understand self-defense or personal choice?

"Do you want to take away my right to public safety? If I get shot by a stray bullet by a CCW person"

What if a drunk driver or a person with no license/stolen car jumps a curb and kills you? Should everyone lose their driver's license? Your argument can be used for a almost endless list of tools and activities. Please give me a reason why I should lose my rights because of another's actions.

"Do you know how insulted I feel when shootings such as Virginia Tech occur and people such as Bush say, "Oh, I support the right to keep and bear arms."

Do you know how insulted I get when grabbers lump me (a years-long safe and legal gun owner) being lumped in with the criminal/crazy and irresponsible? I'm also insulted that you continue to blame tools and are either too scared or lazy to address the roots of violence.

"A robber going into the home of someone and shooting them dead?"

What about all the times a robber is shoot by homeowners? By your own logic, you don't support a person's right to defend themselves or their property.

There are somewhere over 80 million gun-owners in America. You want to punish them all and strip them of their rights. Why? So you can feel safe? Do you really think safety is preferable to freedom?

Guns are regulated. I should know, I've bought them before.

I'm a RKBA democrat. I would never support you losing any of your rights. I don't want to force you to carry or own a firearm. I don't want to take anything from you or control you. Why can't you give me the consideration?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

13. Lol

The first thing the RKBA people say to me is "do you really have an argument?" when they cannot address my points.

1. "So you don't understand self-defense or personal choice?" -I understand the right to self-defense and I can practice self-defense without guns!

2. "What if a drunk driver or a person with no license/stolen car jumps a curb and kills you? Should everyone lose their driver's license? Your argument can be used for a almost endless list of tools and activities. Please give me a reason why I should lose my rights because of another's actions."

There are laws restricting ownership of a car. If you break the law with a car, speeding, drunk driving, etc, you should lose your drivers licence. If YOU, as a gun owner, shoot the air, accidentally shoot a human being with your gun, then YOU are being irresponsible and you should lose your right to own a gun. There should be laws restricting the ownership of a gun.

3. "By your own logic, you don't support a person's right to defend themselves or their property."

So you think it's worth taking someone's life over a few bits and bobs? So you think it's worth losing your life over a few bits and bobs?

4. I have the right to public safety. I should be FREE to go out and enjoy myself, not have an idiot with a CCW bear his gun on me during an argument (and yes that's happened to me).

Leave your guns at home if you want to keep them, don't endanger the safety of others.

[Euromutt]

16. "There should be laws restricting the ownership of a gun." What makes you think there aren't?

I refer you specifically to the Gun Control Act of 1968 at the federal level, and (germane to the OP) Chapter 9.41 of the Revised Code of Washington (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41). If you have been convicted of a felony, or a domestic violence misdemeanor, adjudicated "mentally defective" (i.e. been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment as being "a danger to oneself and/or others"), under the age of 18 (if unsupervised by an adult), released on bail or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal or sentencing, or subject to a restraining order concerning a member of one's household or immediate family, it is illegal for you to possess a firearm, and it is illegal for anyone to sell you one if they know or reasonably suspect that you are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

If YOU, as a gun owner, shoot the air, accidentally shoot a human being with your gun, then YOU are being irresponsible and you should lose your right to own a gun.

I entirely agree (as would most gun owners, certainly those on this board), but you seem to be assuming such a mechanism is not already in place. If a person commits the actions described above in Washington state, that person will (hopefully) be charged with (at a minimum) 3rd degree assault (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.031 see subsection (1)(d)), or if the person hit by the falling bullet is killed, we're looking at 1st degree manslaughter (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.060). Both are felony charges, and if convicted, the defendant will ipso facto be stripped of the right to own, possess or have in his or her control a firearm, under both federal and state law.

So you think it's worth taking someone's life over a few bits and bobs?

Ah, the old "stuff isn't worth taking a life" argument. While superficially compelling, it fails upon closer reflection.

The act of robbery by definition consists of the aggressor depriving the victim of material goods in the victim's possession or control by using, or threatening to use, violence on the victim in the event of non-compliance. Thus, the robber has already decided for himself that the acquisition of your material goods is worth inflicting bodily harm on you, possibly resulting in permanent injury or death; or at the very least, he wants you to believe that this is the case (otherwise, why would you comply with his demands?). Moreover, given that this person has already indicated that he is willing to inflict unlawful grievous bodily harm on you (in clear violation of social mores), you really have no reason to assume that he will keep his end of the "bargain" and not inflict said harm on you even if you do comply. Thus, what triggers the right to use lethal force in self-defense (and "lethal force" does not only comprise firearms) is not the threat of loss of property, but the threat of grievous bodily harm.

Let's put the above in more concrete, albeit hypothetical, terms: you've just got some money out of the ATM at the local branch of your bank, and you're headed back to your car when a guy comes out of the shadows, approaches you, produces a knife, and tells you "give me your wallet or I'll cut you." In the event that you are in possession of lawfully carried concealed firearm, your justification for drawing it and putting as many hollowpoints into the guy as it takes to make him fall down and not try to get up again is not the "give me your wallet" part; it's the "I'll cut you" part.

I have the right to public safety.

Yes, you do. However--and unfortunately for you--"public safety" is not the same thing as "personal safety in public." The SCOTUS has ruled on at least three separate occasions that government has the obligation to provide "public safety," it does not have the obligation to provide protection to the individual citizen. You have the right, in the event that you are assaulted, robbed, raped or unlawfully killed, that your local law enforcement agency will make the best effort it can muster to investigate the incident and hopefully, the person responsible will be charged, prosecuted and convicted. But government is not responsible for ensuring that nothing bad happens to you. And indeed, it would be physically impossible to do so. Maintaining your personal safety in public is almost entirely up to you.

And at this juncture, your "what are you do afraid of?" argument comes round to bite you in the ass. The wave of "shall issue" legislation for concealed weapons permits has been driven to a large extent by the acknowledgment that government (national, state or local) physically cannot (and legally is not obliged to) provide protection to each individual citizen, and that therefore, it cannot legitimately deprive those citizens of the means to protect themselves.

Now, I trust your "what are you afraid of?" argument relies on the corollary "in the (unlikely) event that something bad happens to you, you can call the police and everything will be fine." So how come that doesn't apply to you? Okay, you got threatened by some asshole with a concealed firearm who (claimed he) had a permit to carry the gun he waved in your face (did you see the permit? did you make note of the identifying information and report it to the police? if not, why not?) But why is your experience more special? Why is it sufficient for a victim of a common assault or robbery to rely on the cops to pick up the pieces afterward, but you have to be protected by law from the possibility that someone might legally have a firearm in the same zip code as you? Why isn't it good enough for you to have to call 911 after the fact, just like you apparently expect everybody else to do?

[rd_kent]

24. Funky, since they have banned guns in your country, how do you feel about having to produce ID

to buy a set of steak knives? Seems like knife violence had gotten so bad that the government is now regulating cutlery, right?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

27. I don't mind

It seems to have gotten better though IMHO. I haven't heard of any knifings for a while.

[rd_kent]

35. It is interesting that you dont mind. Government intrusion into personal privacy is so common

that you dont even notice it anymore.
Maybe thats the real difference in that we DO mind it. For all of the freedoms you have given up in the name of security, how much more secure has it really made you? And was it worth the loss of so much freedom?

[proteus_lives]

41. Brits love their nanny-state.

Must come from Mary Poppins.

Your non-logic is a little more understandable when I think about your being British.

How can you understand the right to bear arms when your government is one step away from outlawing fists and harsh language.

I'm sure you'll enjoy it when they start making everyone wear helmets when crossing the street.

[oneshooter]

42. In the Peacefull land of Green

Teenager hospitalised after random knife attack


A teenager has been stabbed in what is believed to have been a random attack.

The teenager was walking along Pegasus Walk in Downpatrick, Co Down, around 3.15am yesterday when he was set upon by three men.


Down District Council chairman William Dick said the attack was a “sad” and “regrettable” echo of the past.

“It has been quite a while since there have been any serious incidents in Downpatrick,” the DUP man said.


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/teenager-hospitalised-after-random-knife-attack-14619226.html

Need to read more papers!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[proteus_lives]

40. LOL is right.

"I understand the right to self-defense and I can practice self-defense without guns!"

So you're a boxer? You don't have a problem fighting those bigger, younger, stronger then you? Or are you bullet-proof? Because criminals don't obey gun laws.

"There are laws restricting ownership of a car." There are laws restricting gun ownership. The kid in the article had the gun illegally, nor was he a CCW holder.

"If YOU, as a gun owner, shoot the air, accidentally shoot a human being with your gun, then YOU are being irresponsible and you should lose your right to own a gun. There should be laws restricting the ownership of a gun."

I would and there are. You do realize there are gun laws in place, yes? But you're not interested in laws, you're interested in pre-emptive punishment.


"So you think it's worth taking someone's life over a few bits and bobs? So you think it's worth losing your life over a few bits and bobs?"

I believe in defending yourself. If someone comes through your window or kicks in your door, you're willing to put your life in their hands?

"I have the right to public safety." I have a right to keep and bear arms. Your right to public safety is put at risk every-time you cross the threshold of your front door. What someone drops a flower-pot on your head? Of course, flower-pots must be outlawed.

"not have an idiot with a CCW bear his gun on me during an argument (and yes that's happened to me)."

An idiot with a car once hit me. Should I support the banning of cars? You have no argument.

"Leave your guns at home if you want to keep them, don't endanger the safety of others."

No. You should stop trying to impose your beliefs on others. I'm a legal gun owner and CCW holder. Your rights don't cancel out mine. I've never endangered the safety of others, why are you treating me like a criminal?

[beevul]

44. Do you know what you're talking about?

"There are laws restricting ownership of a car. If you break the law with a car, speeding, drunk driving, etc, you should lose your drivers licence."

What laws exactly, regulate ownership of a car, in America?

One does not lose the ownership, nor the ability to lawfully use an automobile on private property, even if one loses ones license to drive.

Ones license to drive, applies to public property.

[Dappleganger]

51. You can defend yourself against a gun without a gun?

This I'd like to see!

You forget, it's the BG's who are looking for trouble and making you unsafe and not the CCW's who just want to go home to their families and be left alone.

[rd_kent]

21. Funky, all of your concerns have already been proven to be false.

If I get shot by a stray bullet by a CCW person, would your first thought be, "Oh well, she shouldn't have been there in the first place."

There is a recent thread with the hard fact that you are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be shot by someone with a CCW. Your fear of this is unjustified. You are more likely to slip and fall in your bathtub.

I think there are way too many guns in the US and feel that there's no understanding of how bad this is for society.

There are more than 300,000,000 legal guns in the hands of legal owners, an all time high. Violent crime is at its lowest since 1961. No one is saying that more guns are the reason crime is down, but more guns HAVE NOT caused more crime and have NOT made anyone less safe.


I find it interesting that you use stories of people killing others with a gun and feel that Pro-RKBA people are ok with that. We are not. And then use a story of someone breaking into someones home and getting shot by the homeowner. We ARE for that. Its called self defense.


C'mon, funky. Open your eyes. Your fears are not justified and the problems you see are NOT because guns are available.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

28. *sigh*

I guess the point went wayyyyy over your head.

It's good that you are able to clutch to your "blanky". Thank goodness I've grown up to that point where I don't need to be carrying my blanky around.

[rd_kent]

33. Its ok to take a deep breath when you realize your fears are unfounded.

No point went over my head because you did not have one.

[Euromutt]

48. I can tell you to what point you have evidently not grown up to

There's nothing mature about resorting to disparaging comments when your argument is shown to not hold water.

Essentially, your point boils down to that you expect your personal anecdote to be accorded more weight than any statistical evidence, and your personal safety concerns to outweigh those of anybody else. In short, you think you're more special than anybody else. Yeah, that's really mature.

As I've observed previously, you seem to think that other people's concerns are overblown, and that insofar as they might become victims of violent crime, they can rely on the police. Any perceived threat to your safety, on the other hand, requires legislative action to prevent it from even becoming a possibility. It's not that you don't need your own metaphorical security blanket; it's that you expect the state to provide it, and carry it for you.

[beevul]

43. I wonder...

"Do you know how insulted I feel when shootings such as Virginia Tech occur and people such as Bush say, "Oh, I support the right to keep and bear arms."

Would it make you feel insulted to be reminded that VT was a gun free zone?

[rusty_rebar]

12. "Guns should become like cars

a privilege to have them not a right. They should be heavily regulated and harder to obtain."

You have a little problem called the 2nd amendment there.

Guns are a right, not a privilege. If you do not like it you have two choices, amend the US Constitution, or move to someplace where your values are more represented.

I would warn you about the first choice though. You start taking rights away, and you have no idea what will be next. It sure would be a lot easier to catch criminals without that annoying 4th amendment, reasonable search and seizure stuff. What about that silly 5th amendment stuff, we should be able to beat confessions out of people if they are not willing to talk right? And who wants to listen to those idiot KKK and Neo Nazis? Lets just make it so people can only say things that are palatable to society. If we could only make everyone be Christian then there would not be a silly debate about Intelligent design vs Evolution, screw the science, lets just force people to believe the way that we do.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

14. Guns are not a right

If you defined firearms as a right, I could define cars as a right or having a house a right. Clothes should be a right too. And having a dog should be a right!

The point went way over your head. Thank goodness I am not so scared that I go out in the open without a gun!

[Euromutt]

17. There's no legal obstruction to owning those things, if you can afford them

There's this canard among the anti-RKBA crowd that equates a "classic" human right ("government cannot legitimately prevent me from...") with a "social" human right ("government--or somebody--is obliged to provide me with..."). In a very real sense, you have the same right to a house, or a car, or clothes, or a dog, as you have to firearms. That is, you can have them if you can afford them, but nobody is obliged to provide them to you.

Really, the only thing you need to acquire a house, car, clothes or dog is sufficient funds. Acquiring a firearm is a bit more tricky, in spite of the fact that the number of people who are injured by guns is far less than the number who are injured by dogs, and an estimated 50% of domestic dogs aren't vaccinated for rabies, in spite of this being a legal requirement in all 50 states. And unlike a dog, a gun can't escape into the neighborhood of its own accord and savage small kids. Dogs do, several hundred thousand times a year in the US alone. The danger to small children presented by firearms pales compared to the threat presented by dogs. But try to impose regulations as stringent as the ones on gun ownership on canines, and there'd be an outcry.

The "dog lobby" packs way more weight than the "gun lobby," but I'll be blunt: a large part of why I carry a firearm is because my kid has been menaced by neighborhood dogs. See, I'm thinking of the children by being prepared to cap dogs belonging to irresponsible owners.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

29. So why is it that owning guns are defined as a right

Whilst owning a car and a house, and so on, a privilege?

I don't get it.

[JonQ]

37. The constitution, check in on it some day

It's not even that long.

[Euromutt]

49. Have you never heard of "property rights"?

You have the right to own private property, and have that right be protected. Hence the provisions in the Bill of Rights prohibiting the government from quartering troops in your house without your permission (3rd Amendment), searching and seizing your person, possessions and/or house without a warrant (4th Amendment), and depriving you of property without due process (5th Amendment), none of which would make sense if you didn't have the right to own a house, and have it be your castle. And, of course there's the 9th Amendment, that states that just because something isn't listed explicitly in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it's not a right.

And it's not owning a car that's a privilege; it's operating said vehicle on a public highway that is.

[rd_kent]

22. Sorry, funky, but you are totally wrong. The ability to own a gun IS a right.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

30. Sorry

It's a privilege.

Do you think tourists and overseas visitors have the right to bear arms when they visit the US? After all, under your definition, they do!

[rd_kent]

34. Its a right guaranteed by the Constitution for US citizens.

Apply for citizenship and you too, can have one.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. The Constitution defines firearms as a right.

Might I suggest that you read it sometime?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

31. Nowhere in the consitution

does it say "firearms"

Next question.

[rrneck]

36. It doesn't say "internet" either.

Next snark.

[rusty_rebar]

45. Guns are not a right?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried.

[rd_kent]

46. It still means the same thing.

[Dappleganger]

52. King George would approve of your statement.

That's how he tried to keep the rebels from overcoming the tyrants.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. SCOTUS has interpreted the 2A as an individual right.

The others have not been defined as a right. Neither you nor I get to define "rights". That is done by the Constitution itself. Might I suggest that you read it sometime?

In the next few months the 2A is likely to be incorporated under the 14th.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

32. A republican leaning SCOTUS

Next question.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. It is still the law. N/T

[DrCory]

50. Bush v. Boumediene, Rasul v. Bush, Hamden v. Rumsfeld...

Guess you reject those too, eh?

[rd_kent]

18. Cars are easier to get than guns.

So, your premise is false.

guns are so unsafe when in the wrong hands (even legally obtained or not).

SO, who gets to decide then who has the right hands?

[GreenStormCloud]

20. Guns, in most states, are very much like cars. You need to learn the law better.

You can buy a vehicle and drive it all you want to, without registration or insurance, as long as the vehicle stays on private property and does not travel on public roads. Nor does the driver need a driver's license. Many farms and ranches have a vehicle for exactly that purpose.

You can buy a gun and as long as it stays on private property it does not need to be registered nor does the owner need a license.

If you take the car on the roads, the driver needs to have a driver's license.

For me to carry my guns on me away from the house, I need a Concealed Handgun License, which I do have.

Does not apply to VT & AL.

[proteus_lives]

6. Let's ban teenage relationships.

That will make us all safe.

Ha.

To bad the little coward felt the need to take someone with him. I hope he recovers to spend the rest of his life in prison.

[Euromutt]

15. Why oh why do we allow unsupervised minors to possess firearms?

Oh, that's right, we don't. It's illegal for a 16 year-old to be in possession of a firearm in the circumstances described. And frankly, when you've got a pair of teenagers living by themselves and apparently arguing loudly a lot of the time, it strikes me that there's enough wrong with the situation from the get-go to make blaming the gun rather ludicrous.