Why new gun restrictions aren't the answer (read before bashing)

[Maine_Nurse]

From a local newspaper (sorry no link, the paper doesn't have a website):

Jon XXXXX
Criminal Threatening with a Dangerous Weapon- DISMISSED
Criminal Threatening- DISMISSED
Reckless Conduct- No Contest- $400 Fine

This was a plea bargain deal. The two dismissed charges were felonies which would have then prevented this person from purchasing or possessing a firearm. The plea charge is a misdemeanor.

Our existing firearms laws, yes we actually do have some here in Maine, would have dealt with this person just fine if the DA's office hadn't short-circuited the process by pleading this down to a level where NICS won't flag a purchase and laws don't prevent possession.

I do not know all the circumstances. It is actually possible that the situation warranted the lesser charge, however given this person's past record of similar charges and plea bargains, it isn't likely. These types of situations in the court news section are pretty common and, in most cases, it is simply a matter of practice to offer a lesser charge if the person is willing to plead No Contest at the arraignment and save both time and $$ for the court and prosecutor.

How many people that should be barred from firearms possession aren't simply because it is convenient? Our existing firearms regulations do generally work well, if they are given a chance to work.

[CreekDog]

1. so stronger laws in other states and countries cannot, ever, work?

i mean that's what you're saying here.

obviously that's wrong.

if you want me to support your position --could you at least do something thinking before coming up with it?

[Maine_Nurse]

2. No, what I'm saying is...

that our existing laws really do work most of the time, except we often negate them by things such as this. I don't thing anyone would disagree that a felon should not be able to purchase or possess a firearm, especially a violent felon, yet we often plead these things down to the misdemeanor level where the firearms restrictions no longer apply. Certainly it is not a cure all, but in so many cases people cry "why was this person allowed to have a gun", well here is one reason why and it has nothing to do with the firearms laws at all.

Also, you cannot say that I'm obviously wrong. We have a very high rate of firearms ownership and some of the least restrictive laws out there, yet some of the lowest firearms death and crime rates in the country. I could just as easily say that you are wrong, but the matter isn't quite that simple for either of us.

[CreekDog]

9. 12 states have lower rates of gun deaths than Maine --all of them have more restrictive gun laws

so by your logic, one state's rate, Maine's proves your point, then
of course, 12 states with lower rates and tighter laws than Maine
uses your logic to disprove your point more strongly than you proved it.

state rate rank
MAINE 8.1 9
NE 8 19
IL 8 45
MN 6.6 36
SD 6.5 16
NH 5.9 26
IA 5.3 38
NJ 5.2 49
NY 5.1 43
CT 4.3 46
MA 3.6 48
RI 3.5 42
HI 2.8 47

rate=gun death rate / 100,000
rank=least restrictive gun laws

[pipoman]

19. Do you make no distinction between

"gun deaths" and violent crime? Which are we most concerned about and able to reduce? Maine has the lowest violent crime rate in the nation followed by Vermont which also has liberal gun rights. The whole "gun deaths" = suicide, accidents, law enforcement, self defense, and unlawful uses is a huge straw man.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=117&cat=2

[CreekDog]

23. Maine doesn't have the lowest murder rate

and murders include more than gun deaths.

[pipoman]

26. They have the

lowest violent crime rates as I said. Let's see your murder rates.

[Maine_Nurse]

37. 2.0 per 100,000. 2009 data (latest compiled). nt

[lawodevolution]

4. Other countries. Like Nigeria, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia where guns are banned?

In other countries high gun possession rate by civilians is correlated with a significantly reduced rate of murder.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339915&mesg_id=339915

[CreekDog]

10. what are you arguing? that if gun laws don't work in one or several places, they can work nowhere?

so by that standard, smoking does not cause cancer, because not everyone with cancer has smoked and not everyone who smokes gets cancer.

this is your argument?

you are a serious person, or a joker?

if you aren't a joker, then the argument to end all arguments you've provided, is not becoming of a serious person.

thanks.

[shadowrider]

40. Here's my take

Frustration results from trying the same experiment over and over and achieving a less than desired result.

Its been tried, its failed, no need to keep repeating the same experiment over and over and expecting a different result.

[lawodevolution]

45. typical, I present data and statistical examination of the theme of gun possession rate

I show you that nations that have a low gun possession rate by civilians have a 5 times higher murder rate backed by a t test with 95% confidence interval (Please show me one post on this website that is backed by this level of evidence), then you decide to dismiss it and go to Faith based reasoning that gun control should be enacted, and you call me a joker?

So real data and real statistics are not becoming of a serious person?

People used to struggle against the church like this, trying to show real data and scientific backing, yet the members of the church just would not accept it, for example they didn't want to accept the earth was round. Just like gun control supporters today, the church in this time period preferred Faith based reasoning rather than evidence based.

[wtmusic]

3. If you lived in Harlem you might have a different perspective. nt

[Maine_Nurse]

5. I probably would...

which is why the thought of more national regulation is pretty inappropriate. Heck, Maine has one of the highest per-capita rates of fully automatic weapons ownership (yeah, REAL assault weapons and heavy machine guns), yet not once has one ever been used in a crime. Ever. That doesn't mean it is appropriate to start selling them at Walmart in Flushing, but it doesn't mean that would be a problem here.

On the other hand, the super-restrictive laws in many large US cities haven't helped much so I'd probably prefer the ability to fend for myself no matter where I am.

[Hoopla Phil]

49. Actually there are only two (that's TWO) cases where a legal Title II

weapon was used in a crime. AND, one of those cases involved a police officer that could have gotten the Title II weapon regardless.

[Maine_Nurse]

50. Good point!

And that stat is for the entire country. We have so many NFA's, AOW's, and even DD's here in Maine, CreekDog would absolutely stroke out. One guy brought his AA Quad .50 to the last Hiram Maxim Society machine gun shoot, what a hoot (if you could afford to fire it).

[X_Digger]

7. People in harlem want violent crimes plead down to misdemeanors?!? n/t

[CreekDog]

12. not using New York City's homicide rate are ya?

cause it's lower than many states with lots more gun ownership!

so you had to go and pick a black place, you know, for some reason. :eyes:

sounds scarier, right?

so clever. :rofl:

:sarcasm:

[GreenStormCloud]

29. He didn't use the El Paso, TX rate either.

The city has about 750,000 people, and more guns than people. In 2010 there were only two murders in El Paso.

[CreekDog]

33. and San Jose? most restrictive gun laws, farthest from easy gun states

lowest big city homicide rate in the nation.

El Paso is not in the least restrictive gun state, not even the Top 10.

but i'll grant you El Paso, that's fine.

what do you say about San Jose?

let me know when you're willing to judge more than one city (not of your own choosing) at a time. then we can actually discuss statistics and not these outliers.

[Euromutt]

42. I'll see your San Jose, and raise you an East Palo Alto and an Oakland

Same gun laws (California has state pre-emption), all in the Bay Area, so there should be no difference, right? Oh, except San Jose is in Silicon Valley, and populated with a fair higher than average number of high tech professionals, with incomes to match. You think that might have something to do with it?

[CreekDog]

56. East Palo Alto isn't in Silicon Valley?

you aren't from around here are you?

[Euromutt]

57. What, you want to claim EPA is populated by high-tech personnel?

I might live in Washington, but my wife's family largely lives in Silicon Valley, and works in high-tech. You want to tell me EPA is little different in crime rate from, say, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, Los Altos, or indeed non-east Palo Alto? You have got to be fucking kidding me. Which companies have their headquarters in EPA again? Google? AMD? Apple? Facebook?

East Palo Alto might be in the vicinity of Silicon Valley topographically, but it's nowhere near it culturally. For starters, a San Jose PD cop might actually be able to afford to live in EPA.

And I notice you conveniently ignored Oakland. What, the fact that it's 175 miles to the Nevada state line from Oakland as opposed to 200 from San Jose makes such a huge difference?

[CreekDog]

59. i'm not ignoring any city, i'm asking if you are willing to look at ALL CITIES and ALL US STATES

and not cherry pick.

i was very clear about why I quoted San Jose to you --it was not to prove anything, it was to illustrate that a game was being played with the readers here.

now do you want to talk about all cities and all states at the same or do you insist on only quoting city/state statistics that fit your philosophy?

because that's what these discussions are with you...they are about you having a philosophy and only quoting numbers (outliers often) that support that philosophy.

you quote an unsafe city with strong gun laws, you say it disproves that gun laws help.
i quote a safe city with strong laws, you say it doesn't matter.

well which is it, does one city prove something or not? one city's data is plenty when it supports your arguments, but when it doesn't 200 cities isn't enough.

and that's annoying, and it's not arguing in good faith --and you are not.

if not, then i don't see the point in discussing it with you though i will rebut your arguments from time to time so that you don't get away with it.

[CreekDog]

60. please do me a favor: please quote back to me *why* I told you San Jose's rates

because this is getting ridiculous.

i told you exactly why i was telling you San Jose's numbers yet you keep omitting what I actually said about what San Jose's numbers prove.

if you continue to do this, i will alert on it as willful lying about my post on your part.

[Euromutt]

62. As I recall you said: "most restrictive gun laws, farthest from easy gun states"

And then added "lowest big city homicide rate in the nation," thereby suggesting that this was the result of said gun laws and distance from the Nevada and Arizona state lines. I pointed out East Palo Alto and Oakland--and I could have added Richmond--as examples of cities that meet that same description you gave of San Jose ("most restrictive gun laws, farthest from easy gun states") in spite of which, they are notorious for having high levels of violent crime. Thus, it follows that San Jose's low violent crime rate cannot be the result exclusively of tight gun laws and distance to other states; in fact, those might not be factors at all, or at least not major factors.

I'm not denying San Jose has low violent crime rates. I am, however, more than a little skeptical that California's gun laws can be credited for that fact.

That seems a logical deduction to me. Where is the alleged lie on my part?

[CreekDog]

61. by the way, here's what i posted about San Jose a little while back

...to another poster, not you.

i think tit for tat naming cities doesn't prove a thing, but gun advocates love to play that game on me, so i just play it back, but i've mentioned that it's pointless.

i'd prefer us to look at all the data and not cherrypick, but i can't get gun advocates to agree to do that.

they are just afraid i'm right i guess.

[hlthe2b]

6. Why would anyone think one thing and one thing only to be the answer?

I think we should look at all possible related issues for possible solutions/interventions. Maybe that includes some criteria for those pleading down from a gun-related felony. But, that is but one of many many issues. To draw a conclusion that no gun intervention is appropriate from this one issue is rather inappropriate, IMO.

[Maine_Nurse]

8. We already have enough regulations

they just need to be applied and other issues that negate them need to be dealt with. Banning nearly anything is ridiculous and usually quite counterproductive.

[hlthe2b]

13. First of all I said "policy" and interventions...

Do you not realize that, despite the talking point you (hopefully unintentionally) echoed, not everything is about banning or new regulations. It could include some of that in targeted areas, like the high capacity magazines--or not. If you are a nurse, you surely understand what I mean when I say a comprehensive review and comprehensive strategy.... One would hardly advise a patient to address his/her advance cardiovascular disease risk by merely cutting back on sodium in the diet without likewise addressing any of the other myriad of related risk factors for obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, that might include both drug and behavioral therapy. :shrug:

[Maine_Nurse]

16. I apologize...

I don't disagree with you specifically, and the fact that you even consider assessment of the issue and a comprehensive approach puts you ahead of many on here in my book, however MORE REGULATIONS and BAN BAN BAN has been the battle squawk on here more than usual as of late.

I simply contend that the patient has plenty of meds (restrictions) on board and does not need more. Now we need to focus on the other factors that have been ignored and interfere with the performance of the existing interventions.

[CreekDog]

14. what do you know about gun bans?

you don't indicate any knowledge of them in this thread.

[Maine_Nurse]

17. Well lets see

It hasn't worked in England, it never worked in DC, and it has absolutely failed in countries with complete bans. The former Assault Weapons Ban did exactly nothing except drive up the price of the existing semi-automatic rifles. The former high capacity magazine restrictions did exactly nothing useful.

Banning anything just drives it underground and removes it from use by law-abiding citizens. How well has our ban on heroin worked?? Yet it actually is a useful pharmaceutical drug in many countries, but our legitimate patients have no access due to social fear and overreaction (we have newer high-end pain relievers now, but it would have been very useful here for a long time if it weren't banned).

[CreekDog]

18. i don't see any knowledge --i just see a bunch of assertions

no numbers.

the one reference you made said something about Maine's rate, but then you ignored 12 other states that have lower gun death rates --so i guess one state matters to you when it makes your point, but 12 others don't when it contradicts your point.

i was hoping to discuss what we know, not what we think.

[pipoman]

20. You seem to disregard the fact that Maine has the lowest violent crime rate in the US.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=117&cat=2

[CreekDog]

22. you pick one state and one statistic

and want me to listen to it.

meanwhile you ignore multiple states.

does one state count more than dozens?

[pipoman]

24. You are the one who keeps bringing up Maine

oh and of coarse Vermont is the second lowest violent crime rate...you know, the state with some of the most liberal gun laws in the nation..

My point is that "gun deaths" in general is not indicative of anything.

[CreekDog]

25. the only stat you brought up was from Maine

:shrug:

[pipoman]

27. I posted a link to all the states and DC...

and of coarse DC with an existing ban on guns in 2009 had, by far, the highest rate of violent crime in the nation. My belief and point is that gun laws have nearly nothing to do with crime rates or murder rates.

[CreekDog]

28. so one city, DC, proves your point?

how many cities does it take to disprove it?

[pipoman]

34. You are too thick to continue with

anyone reading this thread will understand perfectly the illustration I have presented.

[CreekDog]

35. i understand you are bailing out at the prospect that we will discuss lots of cities and states

at which point your argument will be proven hollow.

so yes, best for you to get out of the argument now.

but i have to let everyone else know what they missed.

:rofl:

[Maine_Nurse]

38. Well then, Maine, NH, and Vermont.

Those other two are my border states. We all have liberal firearms laws. Hell, we issue them at birth and require strollers to be equipped with holsters and speedloaders. We are also all near the bottom of the list in murders, violent crimes, and illegal firearms deaths. I really doubt that three states are "fliers". I guess you could say that perhaps we are just more responsible and have more common sense than some other places.

Can't say I really care about your neck of the woods. You folks do what you please, you have more than enough of your own problems to deal with, but stay out of our lives and laws.

[Maine_Nurse]

39. Dupe. Sorry.

[Maine_Nurse]

31. How do you make up your numbers?

Kaiser, DOJ, StateHealth.org etc generally place Maine at 43rd for firearms deaths http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2 (2007 data, the latest avaiable for this stat), although the latest 2009 data from Kaiser at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=117&cat=2 put us at at number 50 for violent crime. And the firearms death rate is actually artificially inflated by LEGAL self-defense and police killings which are included in their stats. There were a grand total of 12 firearms related murders in 2009 (http://www.maine.gov/dps/cim/crime_in_maine/2009pdf/022%20murder.pdf) and a murder rate of 2 per 100,000 (which also includes non-negligent manslaughter).

[CreekDog]

32. so you have to accuse me of lying to try to win this argument?

:rofl:

are these made up?
GUN DEATH RATE PER 100,000/LEAST RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS (RANK)/MURDER RATE
Alaska 17.6 11 4.0
Alabama 17.6 27 8.0
Arkansas 15.1 7 5.9
Arizona 15 1 7.0
California 9 50 5.8
Colorado 10.4 24 3.2
Connecticut 4.3 46 3.8
Delaware 9.2 33 6.5
Florida 12.5 41 6.4
Georgia 13.1 13 7.1
Hawaii 2.8 47 2.0
Iowa 5.3 38 2.6
Idaho 12.5 2 1.5
Illinois 8 45 8.9
Indiana 10.6 21 5.7
Kansas 10.5 14 3.6
Kentucky 14.4 5 4.9
Louisiana 19.9 23 12.7
Massachusettes 3.6 48 2.6
Maryland 12.1 44 8.8
Maine 8.1 9 2.4
Michigan 10.9 39 5.7
Minnesota 6.6 36 2.1
Missouri 12.9 12 7.8
Mississippi 18.3 4 8.9
Montana 14.5 10 3.3
North Carolina 12.3 28 6.7
North Dakota 8.9 15 0.9
Nebraska 8 19 4.0
New Hampshire 5.9 26 1.1
New Jersey 5.2 49 4.3
New Mexico 15 6 7.6
Nevada 16.2 22 6.3
New York 5.1 43 4.3
Ohio 9.6 29 4.9
Oklahoma 13.4 17 5.9
Oregon 10.4 30 2.3
Pennsylvania 10.7 40 5.8
Rhode Island 3.5 42 3.0
South Carolina 13.4 20 6.9
South Dakota 6.5 16 4.8
Tennessee 15 31 6.6
Texas 10.7 32 5.6
Utah 9.5 18 1.5
Virginia 10.7 35 4.8
Vermont 8.4 3 2.8
Washington 8.5 37 3.0
Wisconsin 8.7 34 2.6
West Virginia 14.8 25 4.2
Wyoming 14.5 8 2.3

[Maine_Nurse]

36. No, actually I don't

But the stats will vary depending on where you get them and how they are calculated. I posted my sources, including some raw data from Maine, which is what the others use to make their calculations.

[CreekDog]

51. but you did accuse me of lying

before knowing anything about my statistics.

and nevermind that you gave up on the statistical discussion the moment it was not limited to discussing Maine and DC (your poster child for gun stats).

why should anyone discuss statistics with you? you accuse them of lying "making up", then you bail out of the discussion about statistics when it doesn't go your way.

[pipoman]

52. I see a whole pile of numbers but no link to the source, no ranking,

and no conclusion based on the raw numbers. What is the source and point of all those numbers? Are they from 1912 or 2009? Raw numbers are meaningless..

[shadowrider]

53. I went round and round

with a poster a few weeks ago who put up numbers with no link. I asked for the link, he refused to provide it on the (assumption) that I'd simply cherry pick it and ruin his argument.

He/she never did give me the link, but I'm willing to bet it was either Brady or VPC.

It was a classic case of "I said it, you believe it" with no way to verify.

[pipoman]

54. Yep...

I find the post I responded to hilarious because it is prefaced by saying, "are these made up?", then posts all of those numbers with NO SOURCE, so for any thinking person they are made up, until a source is cited.

[shadowrider]

55. Must. Not. Think. Must. Believe. n/t

[oneshooter]

46. Please link to where your data comes from. n/t

[Straw Man]

11. I agree.

Keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the severely mentally ill is the single most important method of ensuring public safety. Yet this is the one that is ignored in the rush to ban this and that and the other thing as the supposed panacea to the problem of gun violence.

So I'm with you on this one. But then again, I'm one of "those people," or so I've been told on more than one occasion here.

[Zoeisright]

15. Oh suuurre they work well. Just tell the 30,000 dead Americans

every single fucking year.

[pipoman]

21. This 30k number is thrown around as if it really means anything..

The only number in relation to the 30k number which would matter is the difference between this number and the number after any new regulation or ban you can think up. Considering that over half of your 30k are suicides, some are accidents, some are premeditated crimes, some are law enforcement shootings, some are self defense....it is simply irrelevant, the 30k number that is.

[wtmusic]

30. Of course! Suicides, accidents, and easy access to handguns

have *nothing* to do with each other

:eyes:

[Euromutt]

41. The American suicide rate is unremarkable among rich, industrialized countries

Thus, the availability of firearms may affect the selected means of intentional self-harm, but there's no compelling evidence that it affects the frequency of suicides in general. Even Matthew Miller and David Hemenway (who have practically made it their careers to publish studies purportedly showing that Guns Are Bad) were forced to acknowledge as much in "Firearm Prevalence and the Risk of Suicide: A Review" (http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/Fall2001/miller.htm):

The few international studies that address the gun-suicide question suggest that firearm availability affects the method of suicide and may have an influence on the total level of suicides, especially among youth. The evidence, however, is far from convincing that gun ownership levels are related to overall suicide rates for all age groups. The U.S., for example, has the highest levels of gun ownership, but its overall suicide rate is only 16th out of 26 high-income countries. One study found a statistically significant relationship between gun ownership levels and suicide rate across 14 developed nations (e.g. where survey data on gun ownership levels were available), but the association lost its statistical significance when additional countries were included.

Emphases in bold mine.

I'll also quote something I posted back in 2009 on this topic (http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=225439&mesg_id=225870 After all, why re-invent the wheel?):

From WHO data (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf ), we can see that the US suicide rate has showed a slight but consistent decrease since 1975, even as the number of guns in private hands has soared. Germany (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/germ.pdf ), despite having significantly tighter gun laws than the US, has had a slightly higher suicide rate than the US since 1990 (whereas the Netherlands, with comparable gun laws to Germany's, has a somewhat lower suicide rate http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/neth.pdf than the US's). Poland also has pretty tight gun laws, and the suicide rate is around 150% of the US's (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/pola.pdf ); the same applies to France (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/fran.pdf ). The Japanese suicide rate, at most recent count, was twice (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/japa.pdf ) the US's, despite guns being exceedingly rare in Japan. Russia, where handguns are illegal for private citizens, and both hunting weapons and the permit required to own them are too expensive for the average citizen, has a suicide rate triple that of the US (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/russ.pdf ) (the homicide rate is also worse).

Actually, there's some interesting trends to be seen; suicide rates in western Europe and North America all spiked around the mid-1980s, whereas in Russia, suicide soared (even by Russian standards) during the mid- to late 1990s (the Yeltsin years). The Japanese suicide rate also rose sharply during the mid- to late 1990s to the highest levels since the second world war, and they remain that high. What these elevated rates all have in common is that they occurred during periods of economic malaise, and at first glance, this seems a more credible cause of suicides than availability of firearms to private citizens.

[pipoman]

44. The highest rate of suicide on the planet

is gun free Japan. Guns may be a lot of things, but they don't make people suicidal. They may be a bit more likely to be successful than some other methods, but to make the argument that 16,000 suicides could be avoided in the absence of guns is simply nonsense.

As for accidents, there are few sports/leisure activities which don't result in fatalities...most more than shooting sports. The most glaring example would be backyard swimming pools which is among the highest producer of childhood fatalities. The number cited here is 1/11,000 residential pools results in a child's death while the number for guns is 1/1 million+...no comparison, yet no call for the outlawing of residential pools...wonder why that is? This isn't to mention skiing, atvs, motorcycles, bikes, ball sports, boating, hiking, skating...etc., etc...all tragic, however statically unavoidable.

To the homicides, many are criminal on criminal fatalities...gangs or other warring groups, some are criminal on innocent with robbery, sexual assault, or other unlawful activity as a motive, some are domestic. To claim any of these causes would be eliminated in the absence of guns would, again, be nonsense.

So, realistically some of the bogus 30k number may be eliminated with no guns, far from all from any objective standpoint.

[Euromutt]

58. Correction: highest suicide rate in OECD countries

The suicide rate in much of the former Soviet Union is even higher than Japan's. Even though the law allows you to get a permit to own a smoothbore shotgun, and after several years of that, you can apply for either a long gun with a rifled bore, or a handgun designed to fire tear gas pellets. Actual handguns are right out.

[Straw Man]

47. No law works without enforcement.

That was the whole point of the OP, which you apparently missed. What's the point of new legislation if enforcement is inadequate?

I think you'd see a lot of difference if the courts got serious about sentencing for the use of guns in commission of felonies.

[Katya Mullethov]

43. Plea bargaining is a valuable tool

And since I have a drinking problem, extremely poor impulse control ,lots of insecurities , and a temper like old , frozen nitro , I am just going to ignore your point entirely as someday ....I might just fly off the handle again and have to actually pay for my fuck ups . From my perspective , it is all worth it , you know, just in case . I never see these fabled multirecidivist sons of bitches anyway . Taunt me again , and I will be forced to play the race card .

[Hoopla Phil]

48. This is a very well thought out "thought exercise". And goes to the heart

of the matter. I'd encourage you (and other's that are interested) to "google" something called Project Exile. Places that have enacted this program have tracked a decline in violent crime. Check it out.