Straight Dope Message Board

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

It is not "a second Prohibition in terms of effectiveness" in Britain or Australia -- why would it be so here? Are our LEOs so inferior to theirs? To say it has anything to do with "American gun culture" is to say Prohibition can be effective but only in countries where people don't drink.

Yes. What was the rate of firearm ownership before the bans in the UK and Australia? These were countries that effectively didn't drink very much to begin with. The bans had mild actual effects on gun ownership in those countries. in fact this is the primary excuse presented by gun control folks for why the Australian gun ban did not result in a discernible reduction of gun murders in Australia, there just weren't that many guns there to begin with.

If you want to get rid of guns, you would need to reduce gun ownership to the ted nugents of the world but there are probably more gun owners than registered Republicans or registered Democrats. 4901

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Face it-Nobody outside of your small circle has heard of your made-up word, no one outside of your small circle is ever going to use your made-up word, and those few of us that don't use it but are subjected to it recognize it for what it actually is-a clumsy insult.

Well only if you think being called irrational is an insult. Its not meant as an insult, its meant to describe people who are irrational as being irrational. the fact that you are insulted by it does not change the fact that you are being irrational 4902

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

But if he keeps using it, he wins!

Something.

In his mind.

Well, Czarcasm seems to be saying that if it gets adopted into popular use, that makes it OK. How will that ever happen if we let him quash our first amendment rights to point out irrationality whenever we see it? 4903

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

He's not very good at debating?

Elvis makes an argument for banning all guns. His response to why we should ban guns from law abiding citizens is that we can't trust anyone, not even law abiding citizens with guns because anyone can get pissed off and decide to kill someone and it is much easier to do if you have a gun. This is so unrepresentative of the vast majority of gun murders that it is laughable. The vast majority of gun murders are things that we could not prevent if we eliminated the second amendment tomorrow and confiscated the guns of everyone that would admit to having one.

His response to that is that it would be worth it because "if we can prevent even one death..."

He refuses to accept the fact that guns can also deter crimes like murder. If we made all guns illegal then only cops and robbers would have guns. I don't know how he can be so sure that this wouldn't make the situation worse in a country where almost every criminal has a gun.

There is evidence that concealed carry permit holders are even more law abiding that the police. So tell me again how people who carry are one bad day away from being mass murderers. 4904

[ElvisL1ves]

Nothing that's been said to you has sunk in, even one little bit, has it? Your delusional psychosis makes you invent things you claim others have said, invent their thoughts even, pretend you haven't been told what you've been told ...

Now put that thing down before somebody gets hurt. 4905

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

All excellent questions, and all entirely speculative answers. It's a pity the NRA does everything possible to prevent any substantive research from being done. Why do you think that is, do you suppose?

We still do of research but they don't want government dollars to fund biased research. I'm sure the NRA would support federal funding of gun research if the NRA got to conduct all the research. Or if the research could be done at places like George mason university or Florida state.

They aren't the sisters of charity or folks interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake. They are there to protect second amendment rights.

Now back to my questions. Don't you think it is deceptive to present the information the way it was presented by these researchers who were NOT at the mercy of the NRA when conducting their research or presenting the conclusions the way they did? 4906

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Obviously from country to country, the suicide rate will be variable depending on a number of different factors, such as the degree to which suicide is socially accepted by the society, economic conditions etc., and no one is suggesting that restricting guns will cut down the suicide rate by a 10 fold difference, so its not surprising that across countries there is not a clear correlation between number of guns owned and suicide rate. The best study would be to compare a single society with and without guns, as done here. Lack of a gun doesn't prevent suicide attempts the main thing it seems to do is prevent successful suicide.

So why is it that we can point to the fact that we have significantly higher murder rates than the rest of the world and say "AHA SEE THERE!!! Its because America has so many guns" But when we don't see this disparity we have to look deeper and find another reason for why guns are causing more suicides?

The fact of the matter is that our suicide rates are dead fucking average despite having the highest rate of gun ownership among industrialized nations and there is a battle of the experts going on about whether or not there is a significant and sustained reduction in overall suicides as a result of the gun ban. 4907

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Yet.

Yes, Yet. Just like you too, hopefully you have not gone on a rampage yet. With your car or any other tool where you can harm others. 4908

[ElvisL1ves]

If that does happen, the body count will be much lower than yours, won't it? Meanwhile, the car and whatever other tool will be getting used for their primary, intended purposes.

Now put that swimming pool down and back away slowly. Nobody needs to get hurt here. 4909

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

If that does happen, the body count will be much lower than yours, won't it? Meanwhile, the car and whatever other tool will be getting used for their primary, intended purposes.

Now put that swimming pool down and back away slowly. Nobody needs to get hurt here.

Put down that IED and back away... an IED or fertilizer bomb will kill a few people, and that's a type of rampage. 4910

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Put down that IED and back away... an IED or fertilizer bomb will kill a few people, and that's a type of rampage.

Can we at least have the same regulations on guns as we have on ammonium nitrate fertilizer? 4911

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Nothing that's been said to you has sunk in, even one little bit, has it? Your delusional psychosis makes you invent things you claim others have said, invent their thoughts even, pretend you haven't been told what you've been told ...

Now put that thing down before somebody gets hurt.

Simmer down. I'm afraid he's irritated you enough that some neighborhood kindergarteners will end up paying the ultimate price. According to you, everybody is one bad day away from murder, and you aren't so completely intellectually bankrupt that you don't include yourself are you? So do it for the children, ElvisL1ves, and calm down. You are scaring me and I have a right not to live in fear. 4912

[ElvisL1ves]

Well put.

Originally Posted by President Obama in Charleston

For too long, we’ve been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation.

(APPLAUSE)

Sporadically, our eyes are open when eight of our brothers and sisters are cut down in a church basement, 12 in a movie theater, 26 in an elementary school. But I hope we also see the 30 precious lives cut short by gun violence in this country every single day…

(APPLAUSE)

… the countless more whose lives are forever changed, the survivors crippled, the children traumatized and fearful every day as they walk to school, the husband who will never feel his wife’s warm touch, the entire communities whose grief overflows every time they have to watch what happened to them happening to some other place.

The vast majority of Americans, the majority of gun owners want to do something about this. We see that now.

(APPLAUSE)

And I’m convinced that by acknowledging the pain and loss of others, even as we respect the traditions, ways of life that make up this beloved country, by making the moral choice to change, we express God’s grace.

(APPLAUSE)

None of us should believe that a handful of gun safety measures will prevent every tragedy.

It will not. People of good will will continue to debate the merits of various policies as our democracy requires — the big, raucous place, America is. And there are good people on both sides of these debates.

Whatever solutions we find will necessarily be incomplete. But it would be a betrayal of everything Reverend Pinckney stood for, I believe, if we allow ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again.

4913

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Can we at least have the same regulations on guns as we have on ammonium nitrate fertilizer?

In what way is ammonium nitrate more regulated than guns? I can't be bothered to read the laws, the regulations and proposed regulations to figure out what sort of regulatory scheme is in place but it seems to regulate sale by vendors and does not seem to require a federal background check. 4914

[Damuri Ajashi]

The fact of the matter is that guns are a losing political issue for Democrats and as a Democrat, I wish they would either be very clear about what they want or just drop the issue. A "guns are scary and dangerous" platform is just not very good governance. 4915

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

In what way is ammonium nitrate more regulated than guns? I can't be bothered to read the laws, the regulations and proposed regulations to figure out what sort of regulatory scheme is in place but it seems to regulate sale by vendors and does not seem to require a federal background check.

PUBLIC LAW 110–161v Section 899a

—The Secretary shall regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium nitrate facility in accordance with this subtitle to prevent the misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism

‘‘(d) REGISTRATION OF AMMONIUM NITRATE PURCHASERS.—
‘‘(1) REGISTRATION.—The Secretary shall establish a process by which any person that—
‘‘(A) intends to be an ammonium nitrate purchaser is required to register with the Department; and
‘‘(B) registers under subparagraph (A) is issued a registration number for purposes of this subtitle.

‘‘(2) REGISTRATION INFORMATION.—Any person applying to register under paragraph (1) as an ammonium nitrate purchaser shall submit to the Secretary—
‘‘(A) the name, address, and telephone number of the
applicant; and
‘‘(B) the intended use of ammonium nitrate to be purchased
by the applicant.

‘‘(1) REGISTRATION PROCEDURES.—
‘‘(A) GENERALLY.—The Secretary shall establish procedures to efficiently receive applications for registration numbers under this subtitle, conduct the checks required under paragraph (2), and promptly issue or deny a registration number.
‘

4916

[Bullitt]

That isn't much different than for buying a gun in California. But California is more strict than other states. 4917

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

That isn't much different than for buying a gun in California. But California is more strict than other states.

Even gun shows and private sales? 4918

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Even gun shows and private sales?

There is no difference between a private party sale and an FFL sale of firearms in CA. All must go through an FFL, have a background check, and are subject to the 10 day waiting period.

There are exceptions for interfamilial transfer, some C&R items, and recently, a court case Silvester v. Harris which ruled the 10 day wait unconstititutional for certain classes of people that already possess firearms or have been authorized to possess firearms which was recently decided at the district level. It is being appealed. You participated in a thread discussing this here.

This of course only applies to the law abiding. Oddly enough criminals and prohibited persons continue to obtain firearms in CA. 4919

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Bone

This of course only applies to the law abiding. Oddly enough criminals and prohibited persons continue to obtain firearms in CA.

Ah, but if there just were no guns! ()

[sarcasm]In any case, felons aren't the real danger; it's GUN NUTS! Camo-wearing mall ninjas who masturbate to GIFs of women fellating guns, who spend hours pointing their guns at imagined enemies with a glazed expression in their eyes as they mutter "Pwew-Pwew!"[/sarcasm]

P.S.: Only read the following if ElvisL1ves responds to this post:

SPOILER:

He's going to say something like "yes, that's what gun owners really are like"

4920

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bone

There are exceptions for interfamilial transfer, some C&R items, and recently, a court case Silvester v. Harris which ruled the 10 day wait unconstititutional for certain classes of people that already possess firearms or have been authorized to possess firearms which was recently decided at the district level. It is being appealed. You participated in a thread discussing this here.

I remember the thread, but I don't recall specifically discussing California statutes. You probably recall better than I.

Does California restrict gun show sales? 4921

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I remember the thread, but I don't recall specifically discussing California statutes. You probably recall better than I.

Does California restrict gun show sales?

I swear I answered this in the post you were responding to. "There is no difference between a private party sale and an FFL sale of firearms in CA. All must go through an FFL, have a background check, and are subject to the 10 day waiting period."

No one is allowed to sell a firearm in CA without the sale passing through an FFL who conducts a background check (with exceptions that I noted prior). Certain other CA specific restrictions only apply to dealer sales and not Private Party Transfer (PPT) (1 handgun in 30 days for example) but typically when people refer to gun show sales they are talking about background checks. 4922

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bone

I swear I answered this in the post you were responding to. "There is no difference between a private party sale and an FFL sale of firearms in CA. All must go through an FFL, have a background check, and are subject to the 10 day waiting period."

No one is allowed to sell a firearm in CA without the sale passing through an FFL who conducts a background check (with exceptions that I noted prior). Certain other CA specific restrictions only apply to dealer sales and not Private Party Transfer (PPT) (1 handgun in 30 days for example) but typically when people refer to gun show sales they are talking about background checks.

Would you support this nation-wide? 4923

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Would you support this nation-wide?

CA's scheme? All other things being equal, no. What are you offering in return? 4924

[ElvisL1ves]

Why frame the question as a bargain? If it's a good idea, let's do it. Where do you get the notion that we should incorporate a bad idea to balance it out? I would say that's just weird, except that it helps illustrate the mindset at work with the fetishist contingent.

So, is it a good idea? 4925

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

[sarcasm]In any case, felons aren't the real danger; it's GUN NUTS! Camo-wearing mall ninjas who masturbate to GIFs of women fellating guns, who spend hours pointing their guns at imagined enemies with a glazed expression in their eyes as they mutter "Pwew-Pwew!"[/sarcasm]

If you think you're making a point that helps support your case, you're quite mistaken. As usual. 4926

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Why frame the question as a bargain? If it's a good idea, let's do it. Where do you get the notion that we should incorporate a bad idea to balance it out? I would say that's just weird, except that it helps illustrate the mindset at work with the fetishist contingent.

So, is it a good idea?

Unless you believe that we should be taking incremental steps towards eventually banning the private possession of firearms, no. 4927

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

The fact of the matter is that guns are a losing political issue for Democrats

Then why do the opponents have to depend on filibusters to prevent anything useful from being passed, the majority notwithstanding?

aA "guns are scary and dangerous" platform is just not very good governance.

Nor is it what Democrats, and other responsible adults, are after. As a self-proclaimed Democrat (which is quite doubtful, btw ), you should know that.

Now, why do you have to resort to silly lies like that one to make yourself feel better? 4928

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Why frame the question as a bargain? If it's a good idea, let's do it. Where do you get the notion that we should incorporate a bad idea to balance it out? I would say that's just weird, except that it helps illustrate the mindset at work with the fetishist contingent.

So, is it a good idea?

What about your mindset, psycho? You didn't stub your toe today and decide you needed to stab a hobo to death, I hope. All the neighborhood kids and pets okay? A fellow who is one bad day from murder, like you, needs to be closely monitored. I don't think it should be out of the question for you to register your location with the police and have mandatory daily check-ins. 4929

[ElvisL1ves]

Aren't you late for your appointment with the school psychologist about your anger management issues, kid? 4930

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

PUBLIC LAW 110–161v Section 899a

Still not seeing it.

If I want to buy a gun from a gunshop, I have to fill out a form every time I buy a firearm.

They check my background every time I buy a gun from a gunshop. How is this any less onerous than the procedure for buying amonium nitrate? 4931

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Even gun shows and private sales?

The laws you point to only applies to distributors of ammonium nitrate. You have not posted anything that would prohibit a farmer from selling some of his ammonium nitrate to a neighbor who needs some. 4932

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Still not seeing it.

If I want to buy a gun from a gunshop, I have to fill out a form every time I buy a firearm.

They check my background every time I buy a gun from a gunshop. How is this any less onerous than the procedure for buying amonium nitrate?

Not seeing how you're not seeing it. Seems like you need to register with a gov't agency in order to buy it. 4933

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Bone

CA's scheme? All other things being equal, no. What are you offering in return?

You know what I would offer in exchange for licensing and registration (which is where universal background checks would lead). 4934

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Then why do the opponents have to depend on filibusters to prevent anything useful from being passed, the majority notwithstanding?

The fact that gay marriage is a losing proposition for Republicans doesn't mean the Democrats should not filibuster things.

Nor is it what Democrats, and other responsible adults, are after. As a self-proclaimed Democrat (which is quite doubtful, btw ), you should know that.

What is it that you think Democrats (and other responsible adults) are not after?

I am a registered Democrat. I haven't voted for a Republican since we invaded Iraq.

We have been on the same side on almost every other thread other than guns, GMO food, and the Keystone pipeline. We're on the same side when it comes to the social safety net, income distribution, voter suppression, abuse of police power, discrimination, affirmative action, gay marriage, and about 80% agreement on abortion. You are to the left of me but I am much more in line with you than most of the pro-gun folks on this board.

Your ideological purity requires you to vilify anyone that disagrees with you and you thereby make the Democratic tent smaller but more fanatic. In that sense you are a teabagger. 4935

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by steronz

Not seeing how you're not seeing it. Seems like you need to register with a gov't agency in order to buy it.

Well, I suppose that just doesn't seem like a huge burden to me because I only have to do it once. I give my information to the government every time I want to buy a gun. 4936

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Well, I suppose that just doesn't seem like a huge burden to me because I only have to do it once. I give my information to the government every time I want to buy a gun.

Yes, but you know damn well that 99.9% of gun rights activists would lose their shit if they had to register their name and address to buy a gun, information which would remain in a database for some number of years (not sure what the retention time is in this case.) You are the exception. 4937

[August West]

Originally Posted by steronz

Yes, but you know damn well that 99.9% of gun rights activists would lose their shit if they had to register their name and address to buy a gun, information which would remain in a database for some number of years (not sure what the retention time is in this case.) You are the exception.

Huh? as DA has noted several times, you are already required to provide your name and address every time you buy a gun. 4938

[steronz]

Originally Posted by August West

Huh? as DA has noted several times, you are already required to provide your name and address every time you buy a gun.

You are not required to *register* your name and address. It gets sent to the NICS and immediately discarded upon providing a go/no-go to the gun store.

You can't have it both ways. For the sake of this comparison, they want storing someone's name/address/date of purchase to be "no big deal," or "pretty much what gun owners already have to do." But if anyone were to actually suggest that maybe we start actually doing that, gun owners get all apoplectic because it's actually, to them, a huge fucking deal. 4939

[August West]

That's a nice broad brush you've got there.

I always assumed that the name/address/date of purchase was stored, so ignorance fought. 4940

[steronz]

Originally Posted by August West

That's a nice broad brush you've got there.

I always assumed that the name/address/date of purchase was stored, so ignorance fought.

Fair enough. The gun store is required to keep a record, but that requires a subpoena to search. NICS records are expunged within 24 hours.

In the case of ammonium nitrate, the government could say, "Get me a list of everyone who's bought the stuff in a 250 mile radius in the last 90 days." There's currently no equivalent for guns. 4941

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by steronz

Yes, but you know damn well that 99.9% of gun rights activists would lose their shit if they had to register their name and address to buy a gun, information which would remain in a database for some number of years (not sure what the retention time is in this case.) You are the exception.

I don't know exactly what you mean by gun rights activists but I am pretty sure that most gun OWNERS would be OK with licensing and registration if they really thought that it would end there. I just happen to be comfortable that we will never get 60 senators to vote to do much more than licensing and registration (heck I don't know that we could get 60 senators to vote for licensing and registration). Considering that there are gun rights activists in states that have licensing and registration, I am pretty sure that "losing their shit" is not what happens to 99.9% of them.

The current record-keeping requirements require the FFL to keep their records forever. If they go out of business, they are supposed to hand over their records to the BATFE. 4942

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Aren't you late for your appointment with the school psychologist about your anger management issues, kid?

Let me sum things up for you, so that we can maybe move things forward a bit despite your egregious dishonesty and dull-normal intellect.

1. You have stated repeatedly that nobody can be trusted because everybody is one bad day from homicide.
2. You refuse to acknowledge that you are part of the "everybody" from point #1.

Why is this? Because if you claim that you aren't one bad day from homicide, then your earlier claim about everybody is, clearly, false. Sadly, this "loss" on the internet is so overwhelming to you, that can't bring yourself to admit that you were talking out of your ass from the very beginning. You prefer to continue spreading your bullshit and hoping that nobody notices the continent-sized holes in your thinking. Even the tool bags like Jack Batty that step up for you don't actually defend your point (such as it is), they defend you simply for being on their side of the argument. IOW, even your own side doesn't believe your bullshit.
You are a pitiful sadsack excuse for a human being. Your lack of honesty and intellectual integrity shames this whole board. 4943

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by steronz

You are not required to *register* your name and address. It gets sent to the NICS and immediately discarded upon providing a go/no-go to the gun store.

You can't have it both ways. For the sake of this comparison, they want storing someone's name/address/date of purchase to be "no big deal," or "pretty much what gun owners already have to do." But if anyone were to actually suggest that maybe we start actually doing that, gun owners get all apoplectic because it's actually, to them, a huge fucking deal.

When they do a NICS check, the BATFE does not keep records of who they performed checks on (although it flags when a felon of fugitive tries to buy a gun), but your gun store is in fact required to do so. That is part of the reason why licensing and registration doesn't bother me.

Frankly, I would rather have a card that would circumvent the time consuming and sometimes onerous process of filling out the 4473 and NICS check and just allow the BATFE to have my information as long as it was not shared with anyone else. 4944

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Let me sum things up for you, so that we can maybe move things forward a bit despite your egregious dishonesty and dull-normal intellect.

1. You have stated repeatedly that nobody can be trusted because everybody is one bad day from homicide.
2. You refuse to acknowledge that you are part of the "everybody" from point #1.

Why is this? Because if you claim that you aren't one bad day from homicide, then your earlier claim about everybody is, clearly, false. Sadly, this "loss" on the internet is so overwhelming to you, that can't bring yourself to admit that you were talking out of your ass from the very beginning. You prefer to continue spreading your bullshit and hoping that nobody notices the continent-sized holes in your thinking. Even the tool bags like Jack Batty that step up for you don't actually defend your point (such as it is), they defend you simply for being on their side of the argument. IOW, even your own side doesn't believe your bullshit.
You are a pitiful sadsack excuse for a human being. Your lack of honesty and intellectual integrity shames this whole board.

Its not that necessarily because he is a sad sack of shit, its might be because he "KNOWS" he is right. He has absolute moral certainty that he is on the side of the angels and almost anything can be justified if you are on the side of the angels, a bit of exaggeration, straw manning and even a little lying is chicken feed. 4945

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Even the tool bags like Jack Batty that step up for you don't actually defend your point (such as it is), they defend you simply for being on their side of the argument.

Actually, I'm not defending Elvis as much as I'm accusing you of being a creepy fucking loser. Got any more toddler-rape fantasies to float in these hallowed threads, Chester? 4946

[Projammer]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Nor is it what Democrats, and other responsible adults, are after. As a self-proclaimed Democrat (which is quite doubtful, btw ), you should know that.

That sums up the assault weapon ban of '94. Let's ban a bunch of guns with scary cosmetic features that have no impact at all on how functional the weapon is.

Passed by 'Democrats, and other responsible adults'. 4947

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

Actually, I'm not defending Elvis as much as I'm accusing you of being a creepy fucking loser. Got any more toddler-rape fantasies to float in these hallowed threads, Chester?

I ws being wrong to call you a toolbag. Neither your low IQ nor your senile dementia are your fault. I've already explained the conversation to you once, but I'll try once more. Your side, mostly ElvisL1ves, is quite happy and comfortable calling gun owners all sorts of foul things. I am behaving toward you as you do toward us. That's all. I don't fantasize about these things any more than you do. Maybe you should sit this one out. Constantly being out of step and confused will just agitate you, and wh knows where that could end? 4948

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Projammer

That sums up the assault weapon ban of '94. Let's ban a bunch of guns with scary cosmetic features that have no impact at all on how functional the weapon is.

Passed by 'Democrats, and other responsible adults'.

Your superior proposal to address the death-rate problem, by comparison, would be, well what exactly? Got one? Something reality-connected, hopefully?

It sure would be nice to see something from you people. 4949

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

I don't fantasize about these things any more than you do.

Yeah. Who was it that brought up raping toddlers (apropos of absolutely nothing except possibly your browser history) in this thread again?

Say hi to your therapist for me at your next appointment. 4950