When in doubt, ban something, even if it's a totally unrelated gun.

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Shooting airplanes on the tarmac is costly, but no more so than shooting people o the tarmac. Any good sport rifle can do the latter, and a .50 cal doesn’t actually have any range advantage in that case. Shoot a plane on the ground, and you might kill someone. You could do the exact same thing with a conventional firearm - or not firearm at all - in a thousand different ways, many of which are more spectacular (which presumably appeals to the terrorist mindset).
[/QUOTE]

Ya know, I spent three posts and probably 1,000 words trying to make these same basic points. sigh

162

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
The government drew the line a long time ago when the passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. .50 caliber is the maximum size that one can have without falling under the Destructive Devices portion of the Act. This has been the case for 73 years.
[/QUOTE]
So if your rationale is “because that is where the government drew the line,” then why object to the government deciding to redraw the line?

I’m asking you what is your rationale? If you believe that there is a line, how do you draw it where you do? It’s a pretty straightforward question. I’d expect a straightforward answer from you, but this is a topic that seems to challenge your mastery of reason.

The same response applies to Duke of Rat, who makes the same argument in response: because it is already illegal.

You guys are quite full of pseudo-bravery, able to convince yourselves that other people disagree because they are scared of a particular weapon or generally unmanly. You’re willing to suggest that others loss of life is the price to pay for your freedom to shoot whatever you want. I’m asking a fucking straightforward question of such manly straightshooters like yourselves. Is there a line (outside of what your government told you) beyond which it makes sense to restrict the general access of an individual to a weapon? Yes or no?

If yes, by what criteria do you draw it (again, you, not the government)?

163

The line: The proper military longarm or sidearm for a soldier. Snipers are specialized soldiers, and the Barret is in use as a sniping weapon.

(There, Lucy. I brought it. Happy? Clearly stated.)

164

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
So if your rationale is “because that is where the government drew the line,” then why object to the government deciding to redraw the line?

I’m asking you what is your rationale? If you believe that there is a line, how do you draw it where you do? It’s a pretty straightforward question. I’d expect a straightforward answer from you, but this is a topic that seems to challenge your mastery of reason.

The same response applies to Duke of Rat, who makes the same argument in response: because it is already illegal.

You guys are quite full of pseudo-bravery, able to convince yourselves that other people disagree because they are scared of a particular weapon or generally unmanly. You’re willing to suggest that others loss of life is the price to pay for your freedom to shoot whatever you want. I’m asking a fucking straightforward question of such manly straightshooters like yourselves. Is there a line (outside of what your government told you) beyond which it makes sense to restrict the general access of an individual to a weapon? Yes or no?

If yes, by what criteria do you draw it (again, you, not the government)?
[/QUOTE]

I was just straightshooter enough to know that this same hyperbolic argument would get trotted out, it does every time.

I never said anything about my views on whether or not a US civilian should be able to own a .50 caliber weapon.

I suppose if pressed I’d say my main objection would be trusting the government to be able to stop at this particular weapon. As it’s been pointed out, .50 caliber weapons aren’t popping up as the weapon of choice amongst criminals and terrorists. The government wants to ban them because the are intimidating, a purely arbitrary definition “Gosh it sounds dangerous”, not because of any track record of its use in crime.

I suppose if all .50 caliber weapons were banned, it wouldn’t affect criminals and terrorists one iota since they aren’t using them. Who would it affect? Ordinary citizens who, as far as I can tell, aren’t using them to break any laws. Now that points to my first observation in my first post, the old “You don’t need them anyway”.

So the government bans .50 caliber weapons. No big deal except to a handful of enthusiasts. Now, can we rest assured that will be then end of it? Run a few numbers and it would be easy to see that more people get their eyes put out with BB guns than ever did with .50 caliber weapons, we must deduce that BB guns are more dangerous and must be banned.

Oh, sorry. I wallowed in the same pit of hyperbole there for a minute. That sounded really silly, it always does.

That’s the part that irks me about the gun banning craze. I have guns that have been in my family for generations that have never killed anybody. But they might be, could be. Presumption of intent. I hear it all the time, just because somebody is Muslim or Arab or Middle Eastern doesn’t make them a terrorist. We can’t go around jumping to conclusions about them. OK, just because I own guns doesn’t mean I’m going to use them on you. But I’m not afforded the same presumption of innocence, I own guns.

Now I’m off to play with my shoulder fired Stinger and my nuclear bombs.

165

[QUOTE=lissener]
you cloak what is essentially a psychological pathology in the melodramatic piety of the fucking Constitution.
[/QUOTE]

Mr. Ashcroft’s lawyer is at work on the plaigarism cease-and-desist even as we speak…

166

You know, it’s an absolute joy to read threads like these, so free and unencumbered with cites that might yield evidence that would support all the wild assertions one might wish to make. No doubt that’s why that fact-obsessed wimp Eolbo is being so widely ignored.

Nontheless the facts seem to be that the .50-calibre rifle is indeed uniquely suited to blowing up oil refineries and chemical plants, is, in contradiction to our self-appointed SDMB security analysts, not that shabby at shooting aircraft at takeoff and landing, is neither exotic and rare nor unobtainable, and – quel suprise! – really is a weapon chosen by terrorists, from the IRA to this obscure group called Al-something. It seems at least a legitimate subject for legislative debate, therefore, whether this thing belongs in the category of arms (which even pro-gun folks admit exists, even as they furiously resist any effort to define it) not protected by the second amendment.

That amendment, adopted by an embryonic government that did not want and could not afford to maintain a professional army , saw its historical and rational basis rot away a long time ago. But both the amendment and whatever rights it confers remain with us, and we have to deal with that.

Unfortunately, the modest suggestion that the right to keep and bear arms does not demand unlimited access to any projectile weapon (past, present, and future) in any quantity desired, is a non-starter among gun owners, or at least their loudest spokesmen. Instead we get inane arguments based on the supposition that Smith’s fourth machine gun is analogous to Jones’ getting to read an uncensored newspaper. Most of us eventually have to accept that there are defined limits to even our Constitutionally-enumerated rights, and that the exigencies of public and individual safety (and, of course, property rights) are the biggest factor defining them. Gun advocates are almost unique in their approach to the sad but necessary bargaining that leads to these definitions. Of course there are limitations on this right, they say, but we won’t have any trying to define what the rules are. Oh and two more things: (1) whatever the limitations are, they certainly do not and won’t ever include the one we’re discussing right now; and (2) since we won’t let any broad rules exist, we’re going to shout down every case-by-case attempt by arguing that piecemeal approaches don’t work. Now, this may be a principled position, but it sure doesn’t look like one: it looks like a contumacious and childish obstinacy.

And this isn’t helped any by the fact that second amendment rights are pretty much unique now in a very unflattering characteristic: a complete absence of public benefit from the exercise of those rights. Consider: Joe’s exercise of freedom of speech benefits us all, whether or not we like what Joe said or even whether we decided to say something different or to say nothing at all. Free exchange of facts and news and opinions and information and ideas benefits everybody in a democracy by improving our knowledge and ability to choose and influencing the country as a whole positively. On the other hand, Joe’s exercise of his second amendment rights benefits…Joe. Joe gets something to do on Saturday mornings, Joe gets to enjoy the great taste of raccoon, Joe (perhaps) gets to be a little less fearful and feel a little better about himself at night. There’s nothing at all that Joe’s right to bear arms does for anybody but Joe. Which is the starting point from which gun proponents’ insistence on special status as beneficiaries of an amendment without any defined exceptions starts to look not merely selfish but solipsistic.

Oh, and as far as the argument that privately owned guns are a bulwark against tyranny. In a word, blah. First off, anyone claiming this is implicitly forfeiting his constitutional claims to a right to bear arms. The text of the second amendment makes clear that the forseen purpose of an armed citizenry is to defend the state, not attack or resist it. Basically, your founding fathers wanted you to have guns so you could shoot Native Americans and quell any slave uprisings. Second, it seems that gun owners aren’t keen to defend any concept of human liberty that doesn’t entail shooting something. At least, they have no problem with abuses at Guantanemo Bay, curtailing abortion rights, weakening the separation of church and state, wiretapping, etc., etc.

I’m still willing to defend any reasonable interpretation of the second amendment (though it appears there ain’t much reciprocity to be had). But as I said, eventually absolutism will shut you out of the debate. All it will take is for enough neutrals and/or gun-shy civil-rights liberals to realize they know one person with a gun and no sense of civic responsibility for everything to change.

167

Belatedly fixed link for gun owners’ level of regard for other civil rights, and another for availability and effectiveness of the .50 as a terror weapon:

168

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
…(There, Lucy. I brought it. Happy? Clearly stated.)
[/QUOTE]

I happily admit that your expertise wrt military hardware far exceeds mine own. As does the average Campfire Girl, for that matter.

169

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
You know, it’s an absolute joy to read threads like these, so free and unencumbered with cites that might yield evidence that would support all the wild assertions one might wish to make. No doubt that’s why that fact-obsessed wimp Eolbo is being so widely ignored.

[/QUOTE]

From one of your cites

So Al-something bought 25 of them in the 80’s. Haven’t heard any reports of the widespread use of them.

I would expect them to be much more obtainable right now in Iraq, at least the standard military issue. Banning them here wouldn’t really impact the availability to Al-something.

The rest of your post appears to be more of the demand unlimited access to any projectile weapon (past, present, and future) in any quantity desired hyperbole and nothing at all that Joe’s right to bear arms does for anybody but Joe “you don’t need them anyway” that was the whole point of my first post. Then you get to the root of it all with the “taste of raccoon”. Way to take the high road, talking down to people always helps you make your point.

170

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
I was just straightshooter enough to know that this same hyperbolic argument would get trotted out, it does every time.
[/quote]
But apparently not straight-shooting enough to answer a direct question directly. I’ll just ask it again to be clear.

Is there, in your opinion and your opinion only, a line beyound which it makes sense to restrict the access of the general public to particular weapons?

How do you, and you alone, justify where you place that line?

171

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Belatedly fixed link for gun owners’ level of regard for other civil rights, and another for availability and effectiveness of the .50 as a terror weapon:
[/QUOTE]

Blah blah blah. Cut to the chase here. Can you show some cites that actually address the real question? Not theoretical ‘threats’ but solid, real ones? How are terrorists actually USING these weapons? Any cites on the extent to which they are a threat to ACTUAL public safety? How many citizens are killed a year with one? How has this statistic gone up (or down) in the last 5 years? Last 10?

A LOT of things COULD be ‘terror weapon’(s). A plane for instance COULD be a ‘terror weapon’…and a much more effective one than any gun. Yet we are not trying to ban them. A ship COULD be a ‘terror weapon’…yet we aren’t trying to ban those either. You’ve done nothing more than shown that this weapon COULD be used as a weapon against the public (um…duh! Its a fucking gun). If you really want to make your case, show how it IS being used as a weapon against public safety, how it IS a threat, how terrorists ARE using it against us (though what this would have to do with the ban is a bit vague to me…unless you really think terrorists are going to buy weapons opening in New Jersey :dubious: ).

All the rest of your post is basically handwaving about possible threats that, thus far, no one has actually shown to be real.

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Is there, in your opinion and your opinion only, a line beyound which it makes sense to restrict the access of the general public to particular weapons?
[/QUOTE]

I’ll take a quick shot at this if its ok. I don’t think there is a hard and fast line for any particular weapon being denied to the public…certainly not personal firearms. I think with the more deadly weapons (I assume you mean stuff like rocket launchers, C4, tanks, etc) it comes down to a matter of public safety. If a weapon is a real threat to public safety then I think a good case can and should be made to RESTRICT access (and register purchases), not ban. In addition, certain weapons should be categorized as military only, with even more stringent restrictions to access them by civilians. By and large, the truely dangerous weapons out there are going to be restricted by the very price tags they have. No one without wealth is going to be able to buy a tank or a rocket launcher, for instance. And if they ARE going to buy one, then that weapon systems can be registered…we’ll know EXACTLY who has it, exactly where they got it from, etc.

Better that than having those same wealthy folks buy stuff on the black market…IMHO. Better to restrict access and then register things than to ban them completely. Because here’s the rub (IMHO)…by banning something you force it underground. Folks are STILL going to be able to get it, but now you have no idea that they have it, where it came from or any of the other details about it.

JMHO…FWIW.

-XT

172

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
But apparently not straight-shooting enough to answer a direct question directly. I’ll just ask it again to be clear.

Is there, in your opinion and your opinion only, a line beyound which it makes sense to restrict the access of the general public to particular weapons?

How do you, and you alone, justify where you place that line?
[/QUOTE]

Opinion:
Make the .50 caliber fall under the Class III (Title II) restrictions of the NFA. Not banned, but restricted to the point that criminals don’t persue them.

Justification:
That line has worked well for fully automatic weapons, their use in crime is virtually non-existance since the NFA was enacted. Ought to work well on .50 caliber weapons that have virtually (actually?) no history of criminal use already.

173

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
From one of your cites…
[/QUOTE]

From one of my cites it’s apparent that many terrorist organizations (including Al-Q) know about and are interested in acquiring .50-caliber weapons, from my other cites it’s – oops! It seems you’re not interested in the other cites. Well, okay, Duke. Baby steps, baby steps. But the rest of your post recites the playbook only passably well. Sure, if you can delay the restriction of an unacceptable weapon for even a little while, you can eventually argue against its ban on the grounds that it’s already widely available. That doesn’t make either argument right, or their use in tandem anything less than contemptible. As far as the “high road” is concerned, marshal all your facts and pick from your most highly-polished reasoning and rhetoric and soar off into the stratosphere – don’t mind me. If I can’t follow, I’ll embarrass myself in front of a whole message board, and perhaps you’ll have convinced me to change my stance on the whole second amendment thing.

Best of luck. Really.

xtisme, you continue to impress us with a clockwork predictablility: don’t ban weapons because terrorists are unpredictable, don’t ban this-or-that weapon because terrorists haven’t used it already, etc., etc. Thank you for demonstrating the kind of foresight that turned a report saying that Al-Quaeda planned to use domestic aircraft as weapons inside the U.S. into absolutely no additional precautions mandated for or even suggested to our airports. By the way, you’re awfully free with your challenges for cites for someone who has provided no evidence even for the most outlandish claims s/he is making.

By dismissing the “theoretical,” are you asserting that no action be taken against any threat but those that have already happened? How stupid. And I won’t embarrass you by taking you up on your ill-thought-out suggestion that the number of civilians killed in a year should be the criteria by which we decide whether rights should be curtailed (how many people die from libel, which we agree not to protect? And how many from privately-owned guns?).

Basically, you’ve got nothing to say against the evidence: these weapons are a unique danger to specific targets (chemical plants, refineries, fuel depots, airliners), terrorists do have an affinity for them, and as you eloquently demonstrate, gun advocates have no interest in drawing any firm line that will both protect their rights and safeguard national security.

174

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
But apparently not straight-shooting enough to answer a direct question directly. I’ll just ask it again to be clear.

Is there, in your opinion and your opinion only, a line beyound which it makes sense to restrict the access of the general public to particular weapons?

How do you, and you alone, justify where you place that line?
[/QUOTE]

I’ll take a stab, too, as a drive-by:

I think the line should be individual arms, but not “ordnance”. In other words, jacketed rounds, bolt-action heavy arms, and I’d even allow registration and purchase of repeating/automatic arms in the 7.62/5.56/.223cal class, since I personally believe the 2nd amendment makes the most sense as providing for citizen-militiamen and minutemen who know their way around a gun but who aren’t necessarily putting on the uniform. Of course, I’m Jeffersonian enough to think such a thing is necessary to protect the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Anything Joe Average GI would have to specially request or have individually issued (including, as far as I’m informed: grenades, explosives, special-purpose ammo such as thermite or explosive, missiles, guided munitions, etc) is therefore not fair game. Actually, at this point, fully automatic weapons aren’t, either, only 3-round burstfire weapons without full auto.

XT makes the same point I would about it being much, much easier to find the responsible party when the crime is committed with a registered firearm, and I’d go so far as to make “failing to report theft/loss of a registered firearm within 24hrs” as an offense equal to accessory-to any crime committed with that weapon prior to the report of its loss.

175

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
As far as the “high road” is concerned, marshal all your facts and pick from your most highly-polished reasoning and rhetoric and soar off into the stratosphere – don’t mind me. If I can’t follow, I’ll embarrass myself in front of a whole message board, and perhaps you’ll have convinced me to change my stance on the whole second amendment thing.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, my raccoon dinner is almost done. What were you saying?

They are all (at least in that post) from the same place, vpc.org. Didn’t know I needed to break it down for each page.

And I didn’t argue that there was no need to ban them since they were already widely available, what I said was if Al-something wanted to get their hands on some, there is presently an arguably easier place to obtain them than through commercial channels in the US. You can ban them in the US and I bet Al-something can have a bundle of them next week.

I proposed just such a thing in my previous post.

176

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Basically, you’ve got nothing to say against the evidence: these weapons are a unique danger to specific targets (chemical plants, refineries, fuel depots, airliners), terrorists do have an affinity for them, and as you eloquently demonstrate, gun advocates have no interest in drawing any firm line that will both protect their rights and safeguard national security.
[/QUOTE]

Not directed at me, but I think many of the gun-advocates on here would agree with what I’m about to express here and did express in my last post, namely that all rounds for heavy bolt-action rifles should be illegal for civilian use other than the full-jacketed steel rounds most useful for target shooting and the jacketed-hollowpoint rounds one occasionally uses for big game hunting. No incindiaries, no armor-piercing/sabot, no tracers, no HEAT rounds. Hell, I’d even extend that to all rifles of all caliber, excepting only the addition of fragmenting rounds for handguns in close quarters, where it’s beneficial to have a round type that’ll stop an intruder but not penetrate the wall behind him. (leaving aside the self-defense uses of firearms and morality/legitimacy of, preventing unintended stray bullets is a good thing, right?).

177

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Basically, you’ve got nothing to say against the evidence:
[/QUOTE]

Since you’ve failed to produce any, I don’t see how I can say anything against it. Want to try again or just keep waving your hands around and hoping people won’t notice?

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
these weapons are a unique danger to specific targets (chemical plants, refineries, fuel depots, airliners), terrorists do have an affinity for them, and as you eloquently demonstrate, gun advocates have no interest in drawing any firm line that will both protect their rights and safeguard national security.
[/QUOTE]

And yet you’ve failed to SHOW that they have been used against any of those targets, or that they are in fact a threat to public safety. LOTS of things COULD be used by terrorists against all those targets. The terrorists could be getting ready to release rabid ferrits in the subway’s of New York, or they could be stuffing rubber duckies with explosives…myriad things. If you want to ban something however you need to show more than ‘could be’. Why this is so hard for you and others to grasp is beyond me…

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
By dismissing the “theoretical,” are you asserting that no action be taken against any threat but those that have already happened? How stupid. And I won’t embarrass you by taking you up on your ill-thought-out suggestion that the number of civilians killed in a year should be the criteria by which we decide whether rights should be curtailed (how many people die from libel, which we agree not to protect? And how many from privately-owned guns?).
[/QUOTE]

A LOT of things are ‘theoretical’ threats. Cars. Trucks. Boats. Planes. Rubber duckies. Rabid ferrits. If the threat is ‘theoretical’ then by all means…monitor it. When it becomes a REAL threat, then come back and talk about banning or restricting something. Again, since you seem to dense to get this the first time…you don’t ban things just because you THINK they may pose a threat. You ban them when they DO pose a threat. If these weapons are all that threatening, then WHY THE FUCK AREN’T THE TERRORISTS USING THEM YOU FUCKING MORON? Clear?

And you embarrass yourself there bro by your weak ass hand waving. I think its pretty clear that you CAN’T show a real threat, so you resort to this bullshit instead.

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
xtisme, you continue to impress us with a clockwork predictablility:
[/QUOTE]

Who is ‘us’ kimosabe? All you continue to do is bore ME with your handwaving. 'Sumatter? You can’t find an actual threat so you resort to this kind of BS attack, ehe?

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
don’t ban weapons because terrorists are unpredictable, don’t ban this-or-that weapon because terrorists haven’t used it already, etc., etc.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: You really are stupid, aren’t you? Yeah…don’t ban something that you can’t fucking show is an actual threat, you idiot. Either that or where is it going to stop? A terrorist COULD use just about ANYTHING as a weapon to inspire terror. And most of those other things are far more dangerous than this rifle…which should be obvious to even someone as stupid as you BECAUSE THEY ARE USING THEM IN THE REAL WORLD!

Your handwaving argument amounts to ‘Well, no terrorist is using it NOW…but they COULD use it next year so we best get the jump on them! Um…no, there is no actual statistic showing this rifle is a public threat TODAY…but, you know, maybe next year (could be the year after…or even the year after that, you know how these things go wink wink, nudge nudge) it will all change suddenly and it COULD be! So lets ban it on the off chance that terrorists suddenly discover the thing, or that The People™, who don’t know better and need (our) protection, find out about this weapon and suddenly go nuts!’

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Thank you for demonstrating the kind of foresight that turned a report saying that Al-Quaeda planned to use domestic aircraft as weapons inside the U.S. into absolutely no additional precautions mandated for or even suggested to our airports. By the way, you’re awfully free with your challenges for cites for someone who has provided no evidence even for the most outlandish claims s/he is making.
[/QUOTE]

Hey…moron. No one has ASKED me for a cite. Including you. I, however, have asked YOU for several…and I note with some irony that you have yet to produce any of them. Of course, I pretty much knew you couldn’t when I asked, since I had already looked it up…so I expected more of your handwaving bullshit. Which, unsurprisingly, is all you seem to gots.

-XT

178

[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Not directed at me, but I think many of the gun-advocates on here would agree with what I’m about to express here and did express in my last post, namely that all rounds for heavy bolt-action rifles should be illegal for civilian use other than the full-jacketed steel rounds most useful for target shooting and the jacketed-hollowpoint rounds one occasionally uses for big game hunting. No incindiaries, no armor-piercing/sabot, no tracers, no HEAT rounds. Hell, I’d even extend that to all rifles of all caliber, excepting only the addition of fragmenting rounds for handguns in close quarters, where it’s beneficial to have a round type that’ll stop an intruder but not penetrate the wall behind him. (leaving aside the self-defense uses of firearms and morality/legitimacy of, preventing unintended stray bullets is a good thing, right?).
[/QUOTE]

Well, I don’t know about the others, but I would certainly agree they should be highly restricted…and that an indepth registration process should be used if they ARE sold. By and large there is no need for most of the public to have such specialized rounds.

-XT

179

[QUOTE=Lizard]
Well, there’s damaging the plane and then there’s shooting it down. They are hardly the same thing. I’m not about to volunteer to sit in a plane while it’s being peppered with .50 -caliber bullets to prove my point, but let’s take a car as a partial example. Think about how many different places you could shoot a car that wouldn’t keep it from moving. You would basically have to hit the engine block or fuel system. Airplanes are much bigger than cars, and these systems are both more spread out and have redundant backups.
[/quote]
I expect you’re right - just because the body of an airplane has been peppered with holes, doesn’t mean you’ve done anything to interfere with either its mechanics or its aerodynamics.

Well, no, but that doesn’t mean we should sit around and do nothing, either. So what IS the formula, then?

ISTM that the proper direction is to evaluate a wide range of potential threats, look at their likelihoods, potential consequences, and mitigation strategies. Where mitigation has negligible costs both in terms of freedoms, money, and inconvenience, you just do them. Where costs of one sort or another are more significant, you need to justify them in terms of the probabilities and potential consequences.

I think this is interesting discussion in its own right, but it’s straying pretty far from the questions surrounding the potential ban of a particular gun.

180

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, I don’t know about the others, but I would certainly agree they should be highly restricted…and that an indepth registration process should be used if they ARE sold. By and large there is no need for most of the public to have such specialized rounds.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

I only tagged that on there because King of Soup’s cites talked about SLAP rounds and Raufoss rounds, and frankly I think the idea of free civilian availability of those types or similar is asinine. And I’m as big a gun-rights advocate as anyone I personally know.