Virginia Tech Shootings

[Ockie]

Right. Per 100k in those areas.

Yes, but Draax made an attempt to say that it's not fair comparing one city where Guns are Banned vs another City where guns are easily obtainable... but yet has no issue using a similar comparison for his very own statistics.

He made it sound as one area is drastically different from another area even when the comparisons used 100k populations but then backed other statistics up for a skewed result comparing guns vs guns where one nation has a strict ban on guns. It should always be apples to apples... since you cant compare gun related vs non gun related, you need to look at the overall view and then incorporate guns into that statistic to come to a conclusion.

 

[Nuc_E]

Or fertilizer and fuel oil. Or jet airliners.

Sorry, was referring to this.

The United States was founded with the utilization of guns as tools of a revolution, therefor they are a fundamental freedom of the US society. This is a matter of a crazy person, not preventative retrospect laws. Mass murder can be committed with a kitchen knife.

 

[Ockie]

The United States was founded with the utilization of guns as tools of a revolution, therefor they are a fundamental freedom of the US society. This is a matter of a crazy person, not preventative retrospect laws. Mass murder can be committed with a kitchen knife.

Yep. I don't know why people has a hard time blaming this guy for the deaths incurred?

IMO the belief that guns have nothing at all to do with murder rates is simply wrong. I agree that the cultural issue is more of a concern then the firearm ownership issue, but the US culture already has the firearms. So which route will yield immediate results, and which route is an easier way to effect change?

If you want to relax gun laws, so be it, but perhaps that should be done after the cultural problems are acknowledged and addressed, and not until.

Easier way to affect change? Would be to change culture. As you can see in Iraq/Afghanistan, using an ENTIRE army for a country the size of Texas is not an easy task.... and those are only the ones who has them.

Now try to do such change here where there are two guns for every person and a guaranteed right by the founding fathers... it's not gonna happen.

No gun owner or non owner wants a crazy to have a gun, thats a fact. Culturally we do have a huge problem and people needs to learn that running around killing is not cool... neither is calling bomb threats.... it's almost like this is a game for some.

 

[Unabomber]

The laws the way they stand in VA allow ANY nutbag to carry handguns.

Once again, you are incorrect. You must have a permit to carry concealed, and to do this, you must meet several requirements, of which includes comprehensive background checks.

http://www.packing.org/state/virginia/

I know the real reason why the gun lobby is so passionate about this issue. Apart from sheer selfishness, it's because they make them feel powerful, in control. It's a virility aid.

Incorrect. The National Rifle Association was founded to help improve marksmanship, promote safety, and evolved to become one of the largest civil rights organizations around.

The National Rifle Association has donated millions of dollars, and countless man-hours to teach firearms safety to all ages, ranging from the Eddie Eagle project (teaching children to not touch firearms, and to notify adults), all the way to helping keep convicted criminals behind bars.

The NRA has also helped allies in war efforts, and even helped collect firearms to donate to the British in WWII.

OK, so if you must - let's allow gun ownership to everyone, but limit the amount of mental illness one is allowed to have while walking around. Fine by me. But that would commit pretty much the whole far right to mental asylums. (Not a bad idea, actually.)

You aren't familiar with the laws are you?

You should read this:

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

On that form, it shows a lot of classes of people prohibited.

Or let's allow all the nations around Iran to have nuclear weapons, just in case Iran should take out a nuke. It's the same fucked up logic.

It seems that the only one using flawed logic is you.

 

[GJSNeptune]

The National Rifle Association has donated millions of dollars, and countless man-hours to teach firearms safety to all ages, ranging from the Eddie Eagle project (teaching children to not touch firearms, and to notify adults), all the way to helping keep convicted criminals behind bars.

And also to lobbyists.

 

[Ockie]

I have a pile of statistics to show you guys... I'm getting warned by my filter... ooops


Anyways, coming up when I get home, statistics showing crime rates between nations and violent crime are in some cases twice as high than the USA vs countries who has guns banned

 

[Ockie]

And also to lobbyists.

You don't think both sides of the camp pays lobbyists?

Anti gun people do the same thing...and right now they are playing their tune loud and clear after this whole ordeal.

 

[GJSNeptune]

You don't think both sides of the camp pays lobbyists?

Anti gun people do the same thing...and right now they are playing their tune loud and clear after this whole ordeal.

No, I do. I know. I hate lobbying. I hate and distrust politics because of it.

 

[Dan_D]

Gun control laws aren't the answer. All that does is prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns. Many weapons used in crimes are obtained illegally.

Another issue is that this guy was a nut job and no one did anything pro-active to get this guy out of the school. Finally, I think that one larger issue is the lack of security on college campuses. High Schools are generally well secured, why not colleges? Granted they couldn't have prevented this asshole from killing a couple of people, but the massacre could have been prevented.

That's the thing about situations like this. Hind sight tells us that security at the school was lax and it was. Unfortunately it takes something like this to change that. Moving forward, schools need to ensure that things like this don't happen or at least the risks of such situations are minimized as much as possible.

 

[Draax]

Another issue is that this guy was a nut job and no one did anything pro-active to get this guy out of the school.

I take issue with this, as kicking the shooter out of school is a reactive measure, and would do nothing to solve the underlying issue, perhaps even expedite his breakdown.

This is one example of the cultural problems I am talking about, which needs to be addressed. There is a disturbing stigma against people with mental issues or illnesses, and often they are simply kicked to the curb, instead of being helped. If nothing is done to help these people, incidents like this will only continue to happen.

Perhaps if the shooter had been helped rather then ostracized the outcome would have been different.

 

[GJSNeptune]

Perhaps if the shooter had been helped rather then ostracized the outcome would have been different.

But efforts were made to help him. A mentally troubled person still has to accept the help.

 

[cerebrex]

Virginia passed a law recently that prohibuted colleges to release information about students to their parents. Also, they are unable to pull children out of school due to their mental illness.

You know.... that's ridiculous. I can't speak for the University, but if there was ever a smoking gun for why 32 people died, this is it. The University knew he was mentally ill, he had many evaluations, they had writings and knowledge of his materal showing this, he had been repremanded by the University for staulking other girls..... and guess what? They couldn't do a damn thing about it.

It's possible that the parents have absolutely no idea he was mentally unstable... originally I had a lot of frustration and anger towards the parents... not helping this kid... and furthermore, letting their child which they knew was mentally unstable and a danger to himself, and others remain in school. But now it appears that they might not have even known!?

The amount of political correctness and "warm and cozy understand" that has been woven into our government, and lives is absolutely and completely ridiculous, this stuff has got to come to an end.

 

[Draax]

But efforts were made to help him. A mentally troubled person still has to accept the help.

Obviously the efforts were not enough.

 

[GJSNeptune]

Obviously the efforts were not enough.

Meaning they didn't force him. This is America, after all. He's an adult and it was determined that he didn't need inpatient care. You can only be so aggressive.

In retrospect, yes, there were some aspects to his history where the ball was dropped, and had more been done, this may have been prevented.

 

[Draax]

Meaning they didn't force him. This is America, after all. He's an adult and it was determined that he didn't need inpatient care. You can only be so aggressive.

In retrospect, yes, there were some aspects to his history where the ball was dropped, and had more been done, this may have been prevented.

Thats the thing this isn't viewed in hindsight, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were the exact same way, and nothing was done to prevent others from taking the same route they did. How many more times does it need to happen?

 

[Unabomber]

We live in a free society, which is why things like this will happen.

Our society basically shifts all of the burden of proof away from the possible bad guy, in order to preserve civil liberties. On one hand, some people will complain saying "we didn't do enough to help this guy" while at the same time, if measures were implemented, they would be complaining that we were violating his civil rights.

GJSNeptune is correct. You simply can't have it both ways all the time. You either accept the possibility that you will lose some of your liberties and let someone in power decide for you, or you accept that each person has to be accountable for his own behavior, when it comes down to it.

If you choose the former, then there will be millions of people potentially affected, where individual liberties will be lost. If you choose the latter, then an oddball individual once in a while is going to get up and do something bad. There are pros and cons for each method.

 

[GJSNeptune]

Thats the thing this isn't viewed in hindsight, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were the exact same way, and nothing was done to prevent others from taking the same route they did. How many more times does it need to happen?

You're about to burst through a big screen into a bargain showing of Minority Report.

The authorities and administration had several chances to heed the warnings issued by teachers, students, and judges, and possibly medical personnel. Instead it seems they brushed them off. These loner types are more common in college than people think. The biggest difficulty is they rarely communicate, and it's minimal when they do. Even with his suspicious behavior, very few people, if any, exepected him to be capable of this.

Depression and suicidal tendencies are normal throughout the world. Wanting to kill oneself plagues many people and there isn't much you can do to avoid it. Medicine, sure, therapy, sure, but they aren't cures. He wanted to take his own life but only before he takes many others. That's a personality flaw.

 

[GJSNeptune]

He wanted to take his own life but only after he takes many others. That's a personality flaw.

Er, wrong preposition.

 

[Draax]

Depression and suicidal tendencies are normal throughout the world. Wanting to kill oneself plagues many people and there isn't much you can do to avoid it. Medicine, sure, therapy, sure, but they aren't cures. He wanted to take his own life but only before he takes many others. That's a personality flaw.

Depression and suicidal tendencies are not normal, and suggesting they are is making light of a very serious condition. If we are going to continue to give up on people, like Cho, with mental problems, then this sort of think will continue.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Depression and suicidal tendencies are not normal, and suggesting they are is making light of a very serious condition. If we are going to continue to give up on people, like Cho, with mental problems, then this sort of think will continue.

He meant that those conditions occur all over the world, and there will always be loonies out there. Even the turd's parents had no idea he was insane.

It was terrible that this happened, but I think it helps to keep in kind that you are four times more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than a school shooter.

It's not logical to start banning guns, drastically increase security, ban video games, or anything like that over this incident. We don't even know if those measures will reduce or increase violent crime anyway. The simple fact is that I would rather die in a school shooting than have my right to gun ownership taken away. I'm willing to accept the risks associated with the right to bear arms.

 

[Draax]

The simple fact is that I would rather die in a school shooting than have my right to gun ownership taken away. I'm willing to accept the risks associated with the right to bear arms.

I dont think the students killed at VT would agree with you.

 

[GJSNeptune]

Depression and suicidal tendencies are not normal, and suggesting they are is making light of a very serious condition. If we are going to continue to give up on people, like Cho, with mental problems, then this sort of think will continue.

It's normal to have people who suffer from depression. Neither of us know what the exact efforts were to help Cho, but it looks like Cho gave up on accepting the help. Unless a patient is sedated and brought into a hospital, they have to be willing to be helped.

Of course this sort of thing will continue. That's precisely what I'm saying. There's no complete safeguarding from this. That would be a push towards a utopia, wouldn't it? It all starts in the mind. We'd have to wash the entire world of these vile thoughts and feelings. How would that work? Guns and weapons are simply the tools.

And what do you propose for this help to consist of? Hire someone to escort him to an outpatient facility every week or so for some kind of therapy or treatment? Give him prescriptions and hope he takes and fills them? Let's say he agrees to help. Do you really think his hatred for his peers would dissipate? He was two weeks from graduating. I don't think any intervention was going to do much, save for locking him up.

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I've been there. Everyone feels down sometimes, and many of us have had completely low moments. Fortunately, 99.9% of us are sensible enough to overcome them rather harmlessly.

 

[GJSNeptune]

The simple fact is that I would rather die in a school shooting than have my right to gun ownership taken away.

You'd rather die than lose your right to own a gun? That's incredible.

 

[Draax]

You'd rather die than lose your right to own a gun? That's incredible.

That was my first thought as well ... and yet another cultural problem that really needs to be addressed.

 

[GJSNeptune]

DeathFromBelow, if I'm ever involved in a shooting, I hope you're there to dive in front of me, assuming you aren't the one shooting because legislators are making harsher gun laws.

 

[Grimlaking]

A government that does not fear the people is a government that the people mus fear. What would you rather have?

If we take away the ability of the people to retaliate even in an extreme manner should it prove needed to a corrupt government what rights will the people then have stripped away? The right to free speech... a broadening of the illegal to yell fire in a crowded location without a fire present?

The right to marry who you want if the both of you consent?

What other rights?

And yes for SOME people part of my example above has been taken away. But if you take away the right to bare arms... more and more laws of this nature will be put into place by a totalitarian government. Nobody wants that.

What happened in Virginia is horrible. I feel for the families involved. But if you are bent on committing a violent crime do you really think no easy access to a firearm will stop it? Or would it make it even more of a news blurb?

that kid was sick. It was recognised by many and multiple times.

Gene cleansing may be the best thing for him. Just without the collateral damage next time please.

 

[Draax]

A government that does not fear the people is a government that the people mus fear. What would you rather have?

If we take away the ability of the people to retaliate even in an extreme manner should it prove needed to a corrupt government what rights will the people then have stripped away? The right to free speech... a broadening of the illegal to yell fire in a crowded location without a fire present?

The right to marry who you want if the both of you consent?

What other rights?

And yes for SOME people part of my example above has been taken away. But if you take away the right to bare arms... more and more laws of this nature will be put into place by a totalitarian government. Nobody wants that.

What happened in Virginia is horrible. I feel for the families involved. But if you are bent on committing a violent crime do you really think no easy access to a firearm will stop it? Or would it make it even more of a news blurb?

that kid was sick. It was recognised by many and multiple times.

Gene cleansing may be the best thing for him. Just without the collateral damage next time please.

Now this I don’t get. If things ever degenerated to the point where there was a conflict between the people and the government, the people’s right to bare arms wouldn't mean jack. It would all depend on who the military sided with. Private Citizens would have little chance in defeating the United States Military.

 

[Teknikallysekure]

Depression and suicidal tendencies are not normal, and suggesting they are is making light of a very serious condition. If we are going to continue to give up on people, like Cho, with mental problems, then this sort of think will continue.

Mwahahaha, I gotta call that. I don't know where the hell you live but man where I live I can't go 10 feet without running into Emo kids with suicide scars hahaha.

Depression has been a fashion trend since the 80s man, Calvin Klein Heroin sheik *queue Hollywood undead "I must be Emo".

Nobody GAVE UP on Cho, Cho gave up on himself. You simply can't force people to do whatever the fuck you want man.

What if I decided YOUR MENTAL condition was dangerous and tossed your ass in a mental asylum and gave you shock therapy to clear out some of your memories?

It's happened several times to well know protestors, and many court battles have been fought to PRESERVE our rights not disallow them.

I'm sad 32 people died, but 32 people die all the time, our rights on the otherhand are MORE IMPORTANT. If you can't see that, well then you're simply being selfish and paranoid.

 

[Teknikallysekure]

I dont think the students killed at VT would agree with you.

I don't think you have a right to speak for the dead, that's a pretty presumptious and ruthlessly disrespectful comment.

Seriously, using the unknown voice of the dead to push your personal agenda/issue?

 

[FlatLine84]

That was my first thought as well ... and yet another cultural problem that really needs to be addressed.

It's only a cultural problem if the culture doesn't warrant gun ownership. I can understand the need for better gun legislation regarding who owns firearms, what firearms, etc... I however don't appreciate the concept of forcing one's culture on another, no matter what it is.

Now my justification for the need for gun ownership, really just pertains to where I live. I would not venture into the woods, or go running, or skiing alone, unless I carried some form of weapon. In my case it's usually a knife or a firearm. The reason being is for protection, not from other people, but from wildlife. There have been a couple incidents of mountain lions and bears hurting people, but also rabid animals. So as defense to myself, family, and livestock I have, use and carry firearms.

Now, that's where I come from. Some place like a city, or heavily populated area, things have to change. The same scenarios don't apply. Just as easy as it can been said that "if more individuals carried, or could have carried on campus, that person may not have killed as many students." It can also be said that "If you no one was allowed to purchase firearms, or own them in that area, then he wouldn't have shot those students". It's also said that "Well most of the guns used in crime are obtained illegally". Which is true, but they are stolen from police, people who buy them legally, and the black market. By taken them out law abiding citizens you limit one avenue of people obtaining firearms illegally. The other two exist.

With our country, and how things flow i.e. drugs, it would still remain easy for criminals to purchase firearms illegally. Even if you eliminated guns purchased legally tomorrow, it would take decades for the amounts on the black market to be gotten rid of. The most realistic answer to this issue IMO, is to evaluate current firearms laws and restrictions and come up with a way to not mess with our constitution, and be able to keep firearms out of the hands of those who will use them for horrible crimes such as this.

I'm all for education on the proper usage of firearms, respect and so forth. IMO as well, I feel it is way to easy to obtain a concealed weapons permit in my state. It took my approx a month and I was short $80, and attended a class where my answers were given to EVERYONE in the class for our final test. You had to show knowledge on the use of your firearm on the range, but not proficiency in accuracy or stress related situations. That seems really wrong to me.

There, I'm off my soap box.

 

[Burning_Monk]

Now this I don’t get. If things ever degenerated to the point where there was a conflict between the people and the government, the people’s right to bare arms wouldn't mean jack. It would all depend on who the military sided with. Private Citizens would have little chance in defeating the United States Military.

I think the people in Iraq are doing a fairly good job, which is how the situation would most likely turn into in your scenario (guerrilla style attacks against a superior target). Which even small arms would be effective in. You are right about the military taking sides, and the common people having little chance in a traditional war. But if anything has shown us in the last few years, it's that common people don't play war like the big boys.

 

[Draax]

Mwahahaha, I gotta call that. I don't know where the hell you live but man where I live I can't go 10 feet without running into Emo kids with suicide scars hahaha.

Depression has been a fashion trend since the 80s man, Calvin Klein Heroin sheik *queue Hollywood undead "I must be Emo".

Nobody GAVE UP on Cho, Cho gave up on himself. You simply can't force people to do whatever the fuck you want man.

What if I decided YOUR MENTAL condition was dangerous and tossed your ass in a mental asylum and gave you shock therapy to clear out some of your memories?

It's happened several times to well know protestors, and many court battles have been fought to PRESERVE our rights not disallow them.

I'm sad 32 people died, but 32 people die all the time, our rights on the otherhand are MORE IMPORTANT. If you can't see that, well then you're simply being selfish and paranoid.

Cho only gave up on himself, after everyone else gave up on him. You speak as if doctors don’t already evaluate others mental condition and act accordingly. There are already laws which state that someone with a mental illness is not responsible for acts they commit, which is why people go to mental hospitals instead of jail. This isn’t something new.

Calling someone selfish and paranoid, simply because they believe human life is more important than the right to bare firearms is perhaps the most asinine thing I have heard on these boards.

 

[Teknikallysekure]

Now this I don’t get. If things ever degenerated to the point where there was a conflict between the people and the government, the people’s right to bare arms wouldn't mean jack. It would all depend on who the military sided with. Private Citizens would have little chance in defeating the United States Military.

The military in such a state of disarray would fracture to the point of non functionality in such an event. Orders only go so far before you recognize killing civilians fighting for freedoms you vowed to protect doesn't agree with you.

Regardless, it's a check and balance system not one that necessarily needs to be exercised. We simply have to remain such a pain in the ass to enslave and kill that the benefit of doing it is outweighed by the cost.

See activities in Afghanistan if you will, if the military is so effective why are Iraq and Afghanistan still completely fucked up? Unwilling armed civilians pose much more significant an obstacle than you're admitting. History says so.

That was my first thought as well ... and yet another cultural problem that really needs to be addressed.

If you believe that someone willing to die for their rights is a cultural problem, you obviously are a coward, or you have a moral compass in need of enlightenment. Many of the greatest heroes throughout humanities endless strife and struggles, were singled out for their glory and greatness simply because of their willingness to commit such an act.

You however, needn't aspire to be a hero, other heroes will continue to sacrifice themselves on your behalf because this is how humanity functions. We all have our place.

 

[Draax]

I don't think you have a right to speak for the dead, that's a pretty presumptious and ruthlessly disrespectful comment.

Seriously, using the unknown voice of the dead to push your personal agenda/issue?

The words "I dont think" are a pretty clear indication that I was not speaking for the dead.

 

[Draax]

If you believe that someone willing to die for their rights is a cultural problem, you obviously are a coward, or you have a moral compass in need of enlightenment. Many of the greatest heroes throughout humanities endless strife and struggles, were singled out for their glory and greatness simply because of their willingness to commit such an act.

You however, needn't aspire to be a hero, other heroes will continue to sacrifice themselves on your behalf because this is how humanity functions. We all have our place.

The poster very clearly said he would rather die in a school shooting, then have his right to bare arms taken away. That is a problem, im feel sad that you cant see that.

 

[GJSNeptune]

I don't think you have a right to speak for the dead, that's a pretty presumptious and ruthlessly disrespectful comment.

Seriously, using the unknown voice of the dead to push your personal agenda/issue?

He said he didn't think they'd agree, not "the dead told me that they don't agree." I don't think they'd agree either. And there's no agenda or issue being pushed. I certainly wouldn't rather die in a shooting than have my right to own a gun. Would you rather die? If there were a survey, I think it's safe to say most people would rather have their right to own a gun taken away. Death is a pretty serious consequence. Owning a gun or not owning a gun, at least you're still living.

 

[GJSNeptune]

If you believe that someone willing to die for their rights is a cultural problem, you obviously are a coward, or you have a moral compass in need of enlightenment.

Do you think through what you say? If he died in a school shooting, he isn't dying for his right to own a gun. He would just be randomly shot and killed, not on his knees in front of a courtroom with the option of living without a gun or dying so others can bear arms.

Many of the greatest heroes throughout humanities endless strife and struggles, were singled out for their glory and greatness simply because of their willingness to commit such an act.

You however, needn't aspire to be a hero, other heroes will continue to sacrifice themselves on your behalf because this is how humanity functions. We all have our place.

This is all irrelevant since you don't know what anyone's talking about.

 

[Teknikallysekure]

Cho only gave up on himself, after everyone else gave up on him. You speak as if doctors don’t already evaluate others mental condition and act accordingly. There are already laws which state that someone with a mental illness is not responsible for acts they commit, which is why people go to mental hospitals instead of jail. This isn’t something new.

Calling someone selfish and paranoid, simply because they believe human life is more important than the right to bare firearms is perhaps the most asinine thing I have heard on these boards.

Sure they evaluate people's mental conditions, but they simply have no right to detain and take away someone's freedom until they've proven themselves to be a threat to society when free.

That's the way it works, I know a psychologist that's the county clerk, as well as a friend with a schizophrenic family member who is obviously fucked in the head and going to do something, but has never done anything bad enough to be put in any kind of home.

Cho hardly qualified, until he went and killed a bunch of people. Life is dangerous, from time to time someone is going to go apeshit and kill a bunch of people. Such is the way of things. Life isn't a permanent affair, thus results so much of our unhappiness. Banning firearms doesn't change a thing other than the rights of people who don't abuse them simply so YOU can feel safe.

If you fail to see my logic, I'm afraid can't spell it out any clearer.

What this has to do with post crime sentencing based on the mental states of the offender I have no clue, he killed himself noone is being sentenced here.

 

[Draax]

Sure they evaluate people's mental conditions, but they simply have no right to detain and take away someone's freedom until they've proven themselves to be a threat to society when free.

That's the way it works, I know a psychologist that's the county clerk, as well as a friend with a schizophrenic family member who is obviously fucked in the head and going to do something, but has never done anything bad enough to be put in any kind of home.

Cho hardly qualified, until he went and killed a bunch of people. Life is dangerous, from time to time someone is going to go apeshit and kill a bunch of people. Such is the way of things. Life isn't a permanent affair, thus results so much of our unhappiness. Banning firearms doesn't change a thing other than the rights of people who don't abuse them simply so YOU can feel safe.

If you fail to see my logic, I'm afraid can't spell it out any clearer.


What this has to do with post crime sentencing based on the mental states of the offender I have no clue, he killed himself noone is being sentenced here.

Actually cho did qualify. A judge, in 2005, ruled that Cho was a danger to himself and others.

 

[Teknikallysekure]

The poster very clearly said he would rather die in a school shooting, then have his right to bare arms taken away. That is a problem, im feel sad that you cant see that.

He said he didn't think they'd agree, not "the dead told me that they don't agree." I don't think they'd agree either. And there's no agenda or issue being pushed. I certainly wouldn't rather die in a shooting than have my right to own a gun. Would you rather die? If there were a survey, I think it's safe to say most people would rather have their right to own a gun taken away. Death is a pretty serious consequence. Owning a gun or not owning a gun, at least you're still living.

:|

Are you guys going to try and fight logical assertions with semantics, seriously lame.

I'm rather certain he meant he would DIE with the intention of not losing his right. What rights would you or wouldn't you die for?

Some people honestly believe that unless you live as a free man, life isn't worth living.

Is it really so sad, or such a stretch for me to aspire to that, or so disturbing to you that such a mindset exists?