# Guns and the defense of liberty. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002 "2013-01-12T22:47:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/341 "2013-02-14T01:11:47Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > My advice to responsible gun owners on this board is put in your will that your guns be turned over to the police, after your death, for their disposal. There is no other way you can stop your gun from eventually be used in crime or suicide. And no other way to stop them from eventually being used to prevent a serious crime, like murder or rape. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/342 "2013-02-14T04:45:33Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > A century late and a straw man too many. šŸ˜‰ > > Show me a gun grabber somewhere in the 7 pages of this thread? No code words please. An honest to god poster that outright wants to grab all your guns and make all guns (or equivalent to the jackbooted tyranny that the English live under since most of their firearms are out of private hands) illegal. Thanks for playing. Here ya goā€¦ Freakenstein post 156 seems to disagree with youā€¦he seems to think people are talking about disarming people. This is the best You could do? Cops? Really? People are talking about disarming criminals and psychos and getting overkill guns from people who donā€™t have sensible need for themā€¦ and You talk about cops. Well, You said You donā€™t trust government much, but this little? post 174, Nope, just ban the speedloadersā€¦ See, the answer to everything is just ban more and moreā€¦ post 208 You are absolutely right. No-one should have guns. BobLibDem post 149 Well, as fast as you can pull the trigger is rapid fire. If he didnā€™t have such a weapon, there would be more children alive today. If you donā€™t want to read my opinions on guns, just put me on ignore. Iā€™m not going to stop preaching against them. Jack Batty post 178 when we hear, ā€œwell, my gun will never be used for a crime,ā€ we donā€™t trust that that wonā€™t happen Crane post 199 Weapons that support the DOL should be illegal Ethilrist post 219 Actually, collecting guns from the law abiding citizens is just about the only way that any kind of large-scale gun ban can work. He then continues with strategy which starts with: it looks like that some sort of registration is going to be the first largely-accepted change that would eventually lead somewhere useful to them. They actually say they want to take my gunsā€¦or grab themā€¦unless you suggest they want to ban them, but I get to keep them anyway? Thanks for asking. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/343 "2013-02-14T06:27:01Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Well, yes. But you are mistaken if you think such transfers are easily avoided. > > Some wonā€™t sell an unneeded gun, even to a dealer, for fear it might, perhaps several sales later, wind up in the hands of a criminal or suicide. But this just delays the sale until the liquidation of the gun ownerā€™s estate. Then his or her weapons will be sold. And, eventually, resold. The tragedy of the current boom in gun sales is that, even if the owner is highly responsible, and even if takes a couple dozen transfers, many will eventually fall into the hands of criminals. Now, the gun wonā€™t last forever. After a crime, the gunā€™s usable life will often end by it being thrown into a body of water, or become states evidence and then be melted down. But this process, where guns designed for killing people eventually do, before being destroyed, will take centuries. > > My advice to responsible gun owners on this board is put in your will that your guns be turned over to the police, after your death, for their disposal. There is no other way you can stop your gun from eventually be used in crime or suicide. Universal licencing and registration mitigates that threat without leaving us at the mercy of armed criminals. Having guns in society provides a form of herd immunity to those of you that dont have guns. Dont you see ANY problems with a society where only criminals have guns? ---
**Author:** ![Freakenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b782af/32.png) [@Freakenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freakenstein)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/344 "2013-02-14T15:14:01Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > Here ya goā€¦ > Freakenstein ā€¦ Too bad that this isnā€™t in the pit, 'cause then I could give You the answer You deserve. You are deliberately making My posts to look what they are not intended to be. Especially with post number 208, I have at least two times ( post 210 & 216 ) mentioned that it was NOT a serious suggestion, but a sarcastic answer that any person should have realized in context. AND YOU KNEW THAT PERFECTLY WELL BECAUSE YOU ARE QUOTING UP TO THE POST 219! And You probably read the post 220 too! So this is the best You can do? Creative editing and taking things out of context. I am not against people having guns. I donā€™t want criminals to have guns ( if You agree, then Youā€™re a damn gun grabber Yourself, it seems ). Law abiding people having guns? No problem, have all You want as long as no innocent people get hurt. The problem is that there are law abiding people like Oscar Pistorius and Nancy Lanza. And THAT is My point and have always been. SO PEOPLE, DROP ALREADY THAT POST 208, Iā€™M SOON GOING TO REPORT IT TO THE MODERATORS! > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Dont you see ANY problems with a society where only criminals have guns? Where do those guns come from? Do they have their own factories? Pretty much all guns start as legal ones. Please, correct Me if Iā€™m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/345 "2013-02-14T21:36:02Z")
> [@Freakenstein](#): > > Where do those guns come from? Do they have their own factories? Pretty much all guns start as legal ones. Please, correct Me if Iā€™m wrong. Why does THAT matter? That ship has sailed. Disarming the populace will only result in an armed ciminal poulation among a disarmed law abiding population. All we can do at this point is figure out how to best diarm the criminal population. One suggestion could be to ban guns entirely so that while armed criminals will be able to operate within a disarmed society, we will eventually get the guns out of circulation and there wonā€™t be very many (if any guns to replace them). My suggestion is to license every gun owner and register every gun. Sure the flow of guns to criminals wonā€™t be as low as it would be if we eliminated guns among the law abiding citizens but we wouldnā€™t have to go through a few decades of armed criminals in an unarmed citizenry. As long as the flow of guns out of criminal hands is greater than the flow of guns into criminal hands, we should get where we all want to go at least wrt criminals with guns. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/346 "2013-02-14T21:47:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why does THAT matter? That ship has sailed. Disarming the populace will only result in an armed ciminal poulation among a disarmed law abiding population. Who are you arguing with? If itā€™s Freakenstein, the same post you quoted has ā€œI am not against people having guns.ā€ Further, if youā€™ve proved somewhere that gun control laws uniformly result in the population being divided exclusively into two groups, disarmed law-abiding citizens and armed criminal citizens, please direct me to that post. You must have, seeing how that ship sailed. ---
**Author:** ![Freakenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b782af/32.png) [@Freakenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freakenstein)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/347 "2013-02-14T22:48:44Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why does THAT matter? If You donā€™t want criminals to have guns, itā€™s a good thing to find out where they do get them, so You can stop it. If they canā€™t purchase them legally, they have to purchase them illegally or maybe steal them. Like Iā€™ve said over and over again, Iā€™m not against law abiding people having guns. Itā€™s those huge arsenals and storing that Iā€™m questioning - and the attitude of some gun owners. You keep telling that You store Your guns secured and no-one can get them. Iā€™m sure Nancy Lanza said the same. You keep telling that You are responsible and careful and You never shoot anything unless You know that itā€™s a threat and You are not hurting anyone innocent. Iā€™m sure Oscar Pistorius said the same. The thing that bothers Me is that some of You people seem to think You are infallible. And thatā€™s not the kind of people that I would trust a gun. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/348 "2013-02-14T22:59:16Z")
> [@Freakenstein](#): > > Like Iā€™ve said over and over again, Iā€™m not against law abiding people having guns. Itā€™s those huge arsenalsā€¦ I bet you and I have a major difference in what constitutes ā€œhugeā€. Therefore, Iā€™m not sure how your first point can line up with the second. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/349 "2013-02-15T00:57:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > My suggestion is to license every gun owner and register every gun. Itā€™s hard to know how to respond to your combination of pro-gun rhetoric with gun control proposals that are, by US standards, extreme. Maybe thatā€™s the idea. There are web sites you could post on where Americans would respond to your register-every-gun proposal with assurance it would lead to civil war. Most, but not all, are bluffing. One big advantage of controls on the types of guns and ammunition manufactured and imported is that they wouldnā€™t likely lead to physical confrontations with existing gun owners, as I think your proposals would. This isnā€™t to brush your proposals aside. If they could somehow be accomplished one peaceful step at a time, Iā€™d be all for that becoming the focus for gun control efforts. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/350 "2013-02-15T02:08:40Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Show me a gun grabber somewhere in the 7 pages of this thread See them now? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/351 "2013-02-15T02:44:16Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1fhw\_OcdPM#t=395s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1fhw_OcdPM#t=395s) > I donā€™t think Chief James quite realized what he was saying when he said: > > ā€œA gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power. Police officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon, to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to, to do their, uh, job in a safe and effective manner. And face any oppositions that we may come upon. If it was a defensive measure, why did we lose fifty-five officers nationwide last year to gun violence?ā€ -Emeryville CA Police Chief Ken James > > Translation: Our job to prove whoā€™s boss. We couldnā€™t dare dish out the shit we do to the peasants if we werenā€™t armed. As it is, too many of them are shooting back. > > This is why the people need to be armed. :dubious: This is why the people need to be armed? To shoot the police? ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/352 "2013-02-15T02:44:51Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > There is no way that 88 murdered people can be ā€œstatistically negligible.ā€ How many murdered people would it take for you to consider it to be otherwise? To put the question in perspective, 88 people murdered vs how many lives saved with firearms? Still, Kleck ( [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html) ) estimates that an assailant or the defender actually fired a handgun in nearly half the cases. If so, 322,000 incidents each year involved great danger, and the potential victims credited their guns with protecting them. Those are actually fired the gun statsā€¦More are left alone by just brandishing the weapon and more still not reportedā€¦ That is why people are adamant about keeping their guns. The number of innocentsā€™ lives saved vs the number of innocentsā€™ lives taken is overwhelming. And just to be honest here, he cites 10 times as many saved as lost, so the number he has killed is more like 32,000 and not 88. Even so, 10 times as many saved as killed is a pretty strong argument to keep the guns. THIS is the parallel we draw with automobilesā€¦If you only look at the number of dead, then it is obvious, get rid of cars. If you look at usefulness vs dead, you get a meaningful ratio to decide if the benefit outweighs the danger. With guns, it is obvious that the benefit outweighs the danger. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/353 "2013-02-15T02:46:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Dont you see ANY problems with a society where only criminals have guns? No, because that is also a society where criminals could be arrested just for **having** one, and they are not quite as easy to hide as drugs, and, for criminals, guns are anyway useless if always hidden. There are many countries where a general gun-ban has largely disarmed the criminal element quite effectively. Gun-crime is extremely rare in Britain and in Japan. Better to live in a society where a robber will beat you but canā€™t shoot you. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/354 "2013-02-15T02:53:14Z")
> [@Freakenstein](#): > > It is very true. In fact fear for Russia was very big decades after the war, itā€™s still not totally over and probably never will. Also, right after the armistice there were a group that hid guns all around the country in case of Russian occupation. Those guns were never needed and some stashes have been found even quite recently. Would those guns been any good if needed? Absolutely not. Without Germany Finland wouldā€™ve collapsed in weeks. You will have to forgive us if our National Defense Policy isnā€™t letā€™s wait around for Germany to come save us. That does see to be the way Western Europe thinks. We have more of a get with it and do it yourself attitude. And at worst, being armed will help stave off being overrun until help does arrive. Though no other country would likely come to our aid. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/355 "2013-02-15T02:59:27Z")
> [@Vandalshandle](#): > > In the 1700ā€™s, enlistment in the militia was mandatory in times of crisis, by all able bodied men. There were no standing armies. All the hell the Constitution was saying was that, even though you may be called upon to server in the militia, the state was not going to buy you a gun. The NRA and gun enthusiasts have twisted this so it is nowhere near what was meant. How the hell do you get from ā€œthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringedā€ to ā€œweā€™re not buying you a gunā€? AND what suggests to you that it would need itā€™s own amendment to the Constitution? AND that the framers, if that was their intention, could not articulate, the state will not be buying youse guys no guns? Speaking of not buying it, count me in. Iā€™m not buying it. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/356 "2013-02-15T03:10:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Government ā€“ any government, of any form ā€“ is **supposed** to have a monopoly on armed force. That is not a matter of ā€œmight makes right,ā€ it is rather the point of government, that it should have all the might. Without that, you get Somalia. And gun owners are not objecting to ā€œhaving their power diminished,ā€ they are objecting to having their guns regulated; their small arms are not a form or source of power. Armed citizens wield no more power in our society than the unarmed (nor should they). For which we may thank the government. Only on declaration of war by Congress does the President becomes the Commander in Chief of the military. - Section 2. Clause 1: ā€œThe President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;ā€ NOTE: ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE WAR and money for standing armies may not be appropriated for more than two years: U.S. Constitution Article. I. Section. 8. I.e. The U.S. Constitution clearly dictates that there will be no standing army in the U.S. other than when Congress declares war which shall not be for more than two years. So your ANY GOVERNMENT part is incorrect. The government of the United States is clearly NOT supposed to have a monopoly of force, except in time of war declared by the Congress. This stuff is available FREE on the internet, so there is no excuse. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/357 "2013-02-15T03:23:06Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > The number of innocentsā€™ lives saved vs the number of innocentsā€™ lives taken is overwhelming. And just to be honest here, he cites 10 times as many saved as lost, so the number he has killed is more like 32,000 and not 88. Even so, 10 times as many saved as killed is a pretty strong argument to keep the guns. Almost two thirds of those 32,000 gun deaths are suicides. So for your 10 times saved ratio to be true, guns would have to stop roughly 25-30 murders for each allowed. This is impossible to reconcile with the fact that less than half of Americans even own a gun. Because of that, if gun ownership was absolute protection against being murdered, the ratio could only be, not 10 to 1, but 1 to 1. But since we actually know that lots of gun owners are murdered, the ratio is far under 1 to 1. Reality is that whomever draws first has a tremendous advantage. This is another reason why the otherwise unknowable ratio has to be far under 1 to 1. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/358 "2013-02-15T03:31:16Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > Only on declaration of war by Congress does the President becomes the Commander in Chief of the military. - Section 2. Clause 1: > ā€œThe President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;ā€ > NOTE: ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE WAR and money for standing armies may not be appropriated for more than two years: U.S. Constitution Article. I. Section. 8. I.e. The U.S. Constitution clearly dictates that there will be no standing army in the U.S. other than when Congress declares war which shall not be for more than two years. That battleship has sailed a long time ago and you know it. A Congressional ā€œAuthorization for Use of Forceā€ or some such is enough, and there is a whole lot the POTUS can do on his own authority for a 60-day period under the [War Powers Resolution.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act) And the POTUS can take command of any stateā€™s National Guard without any state of war in effect ā€“ remember what Eisenhower did in Arkansas during the [Little Rock Central High integration crisis.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Integration_Crisis) You might well consider all of that unconstitutional ā€“ and until the SCOTUS agrees, your opinion is worth its weight in gold. > [@mmmbeer](#): > > So your ANY GOVERNMENT part is incorrect. The government of the United States is clearly NOT supposed to have a monopoly of force, except in time of war declared by the Congress. ā€œGovernmentā€ includes your local police. Civilians are allowed to keep and bear firearms, but not to use them as an armed force except under state command ā€“ that would be ā€œinsurrection,ā€ which the Constitution expressly does not allow, and remember how George Washington dealt with the [Whiskey Rebellion.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion) Only the police, National Guard, Army, etc., get to be an armed force. It is that way in any post-feudal state. Did you not get that that was my point? Yes, you did. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/359 "2013-02-15T03:39:46Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > HurricaneDitka, > > In my lifetime there have been examples of individuals using the armed DOL approach. During the dam building era and the construction of the Interstate Highway System there were individuals who refused to leave their property and defended it with privately owned weapons. None were successful. > > The DOL mythology is no more than a popular delusion. > > Crane First, your lifetime is not the whole of history and Second, no one has risen up to overthrow the government, so your statement means as close to nothing as is possible while still making noise. As to ā€œindividuals refusing to leave their houseā€, Iā€™m not clear what your point isā€¦ Do you suggest that is what DoL means? A couple of people who will not get out of the way so the road can be put in? Iā€™m laughing so hard, I canā€™t type any more. So, would we call yours an unpopular delusion? ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/360 "2013-02-15T03:53:30Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > That would be a big broad brush then, wouldnā€™t it? It isnā€™t a broad brush. It is exactly the right size. If you want to ban one of my guns, one can only assume, and correct me if Iā€™m wrong, you want it taken from me after it is banned. So, if you donā€™t like being painted with this brush, tell me either you donā€™t want to ban them OR you are for letting me legally keep it after itā€™s banned. Otherwise you are advocating grabbing my gun! See, it isnā€™t just mean name calling. It is an apt description. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=19)