I can only take your word for it. But it remains the case that your statement was not obviously true unless qualified, which you have now done. Good job. — Thorongil

You don't have to take my word for it, actually. You can bring up my comment with the quoted statistical data and linked sources by simply entering "gunshot" on the search feature. It's the very first comment in the search results.

No you haven't. You've tried passing the baton back to me to prove that there aren't other means as effective as guns in every scenario. Sorry, Sappy, that will not do. You made the claim. It's up to you to defend it. — Thorongil

Yes I have, and no I didn't. I challenge you to show me where I have made that claim, as you have worded it. Once you realise that I have made no such claim, please do the right thing and concede that it's a straw man of your own design.

Goodnight.

My argument is valid and sound, unless and until you have show one of the premises is false, which you haven't done.

If you really don't understand that the onus of proof is on the one making the claim - which in the case of both the premises is you - then a constructive discussion is not possible.

as you have worded it — Sapientia

Ah, so this is the point at which we enter into a semantics battle. I'm not interested in that. If 1) you are concerned with preventing crime and 2) there are means besides guns that are as effective as guns in all cases in preventing crime, then you need to show me what those means are and how, statistically, they are just as effective.

If we go to the claim you've repeated ad nauseam, one finds that you've provided yourself an escape from having to show this by means of a certain word, but at the cost of still failing to prove your thesis:

There's practically no situation where a gun, rather than some other form of self-defence, would be necessary. — Sapientia

The use of the word "practically" here suggests that you do admit that there are situations in which only a gun can prevent a crime. I suspect there are more such situations than you would be willing to admit, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they're very rare. The question thus becomes: why should that mean abolishing the right to own firearms? Why assume that most defensive gun uses whereby the assailant is shot or killed are not the kinds of situations that require a gun? Most gun owners, believe it or not, believe that using and firing a gun should only be the last resort undertaken under the gravest of circumstances. So you still haven't successfully challenged my argument.

I do understand, and I have defended them.

The question thus becomes: why should that mean abolishing the right to own firearms? — Thorongil

Because the corollary to allowing guns to spread in the manner they have in the USA is the epidemic of gun rampages that plagues you, and might I add, only you.

You have to let this sink in. The corollary to you claiming that the current state-of-affairs in the States is acceptable because it is founded in an inalienable right is that you find it acceptable that kids get shot every other week because that is also founded in that same inalienable right.

I get that sometimes people don't feel safe in certain streets. That happens to me too sometimes. That's what a karambit, a dog, a mace or a black belt is for. It's not a reason to start carrying a gun to the grocery store.

Your defence is not a proof, it's pure rhetoric. Here it is:

If I lose my life or property defending them by one means of self-defense but protect them by another means, then I require the latter to maintain my natural right to life and property.

There is no logical argument there to be engaged. The statement doesn't even make sense. How can you both lose your life and protect it? Is this some sort of hypothetical counterfactual? The 'then' is an unsubstantiated claim, and the rhetoric leaves me cold.

I fell on this looking up the legality of conceiled knives under Canadian law. I think the reasoning might help see how a judge could consider both the social impacts of weapon carrying and the right of a person to defend themselves. So I'll post it.

"The usual internet explanation of Canadian knife laws leaves out the fact that in 2011, the judicial understanding of the offense carrying a concealed weapon changed in a very important way.

There are three basic ways that the existence of a weapon is established for the offense, and the one most likely to catch a good-natured but unaware person involves the following consideration: are you carrying [a knife] designed to be used to cause death or injury or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating anyone. It is the application of this part of the offense that changed.

The case can be found here. Anyone contemplating carrying a knife in public in the way described above should read it.

For those who want a quick summary: In determining whether something fits into the above-noted definition of a weapon, the Court must now only undertake an objective analysis by asking itself:

Is the object's design such that it could be readily usable to cause death or injury to any person or to threaten or intimidate any person?

In all of the circumstances, would the carrying of the concealed object cause the reasonable person to fear for his own safety or for the public safety, if he were aware of the presence of the object?

In the case I linked to, the knife was described as follows:

The steel knife is approximately twelve inches in length; its blade is approximately seven inches long. On the blade are the words "U.S.A. SABER." The lower part of the blade is sharply honed. Part of the top part of the knife is serrated and other part has five ridges. This is clearly a combat knife and not a simple hunting knife.

The accused was convicted.

Consider what a karambit is, what it looks like, how it's marketed, and what conclusions a fifty or sixty year old Judge would come to when considering the above two questions.

In considering the above, the court made the following comment which may be helpful:

It is recognized that the second half of this bipartite test [question 2] is contextual and that, in deciding this question, the court is called upon to conduct a holistic analysis. That may be difficult, but it seems to me that it is what is required in order to give effect to Parliament's intention. In conducting this analysis, the court must be ever mindful of Parliament's purpose in enacting this section, that is, firstly, minimizing the furtive carrying of objects that pose a real threat to public safety, and secondly, that would cause justifiable alarm in members of the public contributing to general paranoia.

Such an analysis will take place against the backdrop of the object being both carried and concealed, as both of these factors are elements of the offence. It will require the court to look at the characteristics of the object itself. It seems to me that the reasonable person would consider the carrying of a jackknife in a pocket (the typical way of transporting a jackknife) to be innocuous. Similarly, a butter knife would be viewed as non-threatening. A large skinning knife would be more worrisome. In my view, the definition would capture virtually all prohibited weapons. Other factors will also be relevant, including the locale where the object is being carried. The reasonable person would surely be more concerned where the object is imported into a public venue such as a bar than if the object is carried by a person engaged in a solitary activity.*" "

Lifted from https://www.reddit.com/r/knives/comments/3kskpk/karambit_knife_illegal_or_legal_in_canada/

Because the corollary to allowing guns to spread in the manner they have in the USA is the epidemic of gun rampages that plagues you, and might I add, only you. — Akanthinos

Those are rare, and it hasn't prevented mass killings in countries that have stricter gun control, unless you believe death by a gun is somehow worse than death by other means.

. The corollary to you claiming that the current state-of-affairs in the States is acceptable — Akanthinos

I never said this. I think there are many policies that can be implemented and/or changed to help reduce gun violence. I've mentioned several of them in this thread already, if you've been paying attention. But apparently not, since you have the gall to compose such strawmen of my views.

that you find it acceptable that kids get shot every other week because that is also founded in that same inalienable right. — Akanthinos

A complete non-sequitur, in addition to a rather uncharitable strawman. First, I don't find it acceptable that people get shot. Second, as I have already pointed out, the gun violence is not perpetrated by those who are lawfully making use of their right to bear firearms, so in no way does it follow that the mere right to legally purchase them means greater gun homicides. In the same way, to support the right to purchase and consume alcohol doesn't mean that one supports the alcohol related homicide rate or that said right leads to greater homicides. The data is inconclusive on whether prohibition greatly affected the number of alcohol related deaths one way or another. Regardless, there are more deaths due to alcohol than guns every year, so one might expect you to be a staunch prohibitionist, in addition to an anti-gun lobbyist, but I doubt that you are thus consistent, since neither you nor Sapientia have been able to prove that less guns equals less gun violence. To the contrary, gun violence has steadily decreased as more firearms have gone into circulation.

That's what a karambit, a dog, a mace or a black belt is for. It's not a reason to start carrying a gun to the grocery store. — Akanthinos

These are once again poor examples. Some situations can only be resolved with a gun, not a knife. A dog cannot be taken everywhere. Not everyone has the time to become an expert martial artist.

How can you both lose your life and protect it? Is this some sort of hypothetical counterfactual? The 'then' is an unsubstantiated claim, and the rhetoric leaves me cold. — andrewk

This tells me you don't understand my point. As for your feeling cold, I don't care. Perhaps you should put on a coat before debating me. The idea is that:

I desire to protect my life and property.
I possess the natural right to protect my life and property.
My life and property can be successfully protected or not depending on the means I employ to do so.
Successful protection of my life and property depends upon adequate and effective means.
Therefore, I have the right to adequate and effective means by which to protect my life and property.

In part, the excessive regard we in America have for guns has fear as its basis; fear, and the attitude of belligerence thought necessary to make that fear less obvious to others. This is reflected in the late, great Warren Zevon's song, Rottweiler Blues which includes the following lyrics:

"Got a Glock in the bedside table
Machine Gun leaning by the bedroom door
Kevlar vest in the closet
Well I wear it when I go to the store

Shadows on the window
Rustling in the hedge
Faces at the peephole
Footsteps on the ledge

If you come calling
He'll be mauling with intent to maim
Don't knock on my door
If you don't know my Rottweiler's name."

Ah, so this is the point at which we enter into a semantics battle. I'm not interested in that. — Thorongil

It was entirely avoidable, but you just had to make stuff up, instead of actually quoting what I said, didn't you? You just had to stubbornly persist instead of rectifying your error.

In future, please do not put words into my mouth, then refuse to acknowledge that that's what you're doing. There was no subtle difference between what I actually claimed and what you falsely accused me of claiming: the difference is clear, and the difference matters.

If 1) you are concerned with preventing crime and 2) there are means besides guns that are as effective as guns in all cases in preventing crime, then you need to show me what those means are and how, statistically, they are just as effective. — Thorongil

I have already clarified my position multiple times in response to your similarly worded comments. So why are you going back over this? My position hasn't changed since the last time. I am still concerned with preventing crime, within reason, and I am still not required to satisfy your criterion. The argument above is a non sequitur. Imposing that burden on me is unreasonable, and the sooner that you realise that, the better. Repeating yourself ad nauseam will not achieve anything productive.

What I am required to defend is my own criterion, which is that there are means of self-defence other than guns which are effective enough (though not necessarily as effective as guns) as a means of self-defence.

That's the last time that I'm explaining that to you.

The use of the word "practically" here suggests that you do admit that there are situations in which only a gun can prevent a crime. I suspect there are more such situations than you would be willing to admit, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they're very rare. The question thus becomes: why should that mean abolishing the right to own firearms? Why assume that most defensive gun uses whereby the assailant is shot or killed are not the kinds of situations that require a gun? Most gun owners, believe it or not, believe that using and firing a gun should only be the last resort undertaken under the gravest of circumstances. So you still haven't successfully challenged my argument. — Thorongil

Yes, I gave myself some leeway, just in case there are exceptions, but technically, I doubt there are any at all. If you think that you can come up with one, then please share it, and then we can assess whether or not it really counts. I can only think of situations where, practically speaking, a gun might be the most convenient thing at hand, but that's not the same thing.

Why assume that most defensive gun uses whereby the assailant is shot or killed are not the kinds of situations that require a gun? Well, isn't the answer obvious, considering the alternatives? Don't tell me that you're going to pretend that these alternatives do not exist. You must be interpreting "require" in a peculiar way. One doesn't require a gun if a different method of self-defence can be utilised. Most people, at the very least, have arms and legs which can be used in self-defence.

What you say about most gun owners is beside the point. It's more important to consider those who have had their lives destroyed, or are at risk, as a result of gun ownership. So you still haven't got your priorities straight.

To simply ban guns would be to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. — Thorongil

It would be like punishing little kids for playing with sharp knives. Some might well be more responsible than others. Some might not end up hurting themselves or others. But still, little kids shouldn't be allowed to play with sharp knives.

Then you fail to understand the first premise. Positive or legal rights can be added and subtracted, this is true. But natural rights don't ever go away, even if one passes laws that remove their positive legal status. — Thorongil

It's not a failure of understanding. I don't believe that nonsense. There's no such thing as a natural right.

You can't be serious. Just for starters, what is it do you think cops bring with them most of the time when responding to reports of violent crime? — Thorongil

I can be, and I am. You're the one who is being absurd. You don't seem to understand what necessity is. The cops over here would bring with them handcuffs, radios, and other things, but a gun would not, in most cases, be one of them. Even the fact that cops across the pond tend to bring a gun with them does not mean that that's necessary. It just means that that's considered good practice over there.

Second, as I have already pointed out, the gun violence is not perpetrated by those who are lawfully making use of their right to bear firearms, so in no way does it follow that the mere right to legally purchase them means greater gun homicides. — Thorongil

Then you are blind and cannot be made to see. The proliferation of weapons in the States is the only variable that explains why you suffer so many more gun rampages than any other country in the world.

And no,

Those are rare, and it hasn't prevented mass killings in countries that have stricter gun control, unless you believe death by a gun is somehow worse than death by other means. — Thorongil

These are not rare by any fucking definition of the word. They happen every other fucking week. And if you check, the States are miles ahead of any other country in terms of mass shootings per capita.

I desire to protect my life and property.
I possess the natural right to protect my life and property.
My life and property can be successfully protected or not depending on the means I employ to do so.
Successful protection of my life and property depends upon adequate and effective means.
Therefore, I have the right to adequate and effective means by which to protect my life and property. — Thorongil

You've changed your argument. OK, let's consider the new one.

On review, I find that if the last statement means you have the right to some adequate and effective means, it's not necessarily problematic. But it doesn't do anything to justify owning a gun, since, for a start, other adequate means are available, like (as Jefferies points out) security doors and window bars.

It also justifies everybody being provided with a personal, ex-SAS bodyguard, as that is an enormously more effective life protection against these apparently ubiquitous murderers that you fear so much than owning a gun. So I guess we need to all start paying lots more tax so that the government can provide that natural human right to everybody that can't afford to pay for it themselves.

Stop arguing and act.

I think the endowment effect is a large part of why people are reluctant to give up their guns.

Oh look, another rare incident.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-norcal-elementary-school-shooting-20171114-story.html

No one listens in this thread. This will be my last post. I leave it to neutral observers to judge whether I have been fair, clear, and consistent, as I have no further interest in the Sisyphean task of repeating the same points over and over and over again, to be met with people ignoring half of them, incredulity, and strawmen of my positions. No more after this. It's not productive.

What I am required to defend is my own criterion, which is that there are means of self-defence other than guns which are effective enough (though not necessarily as effective as guns) as a means of self-defence. — Sapientia

You have repeated this for the umpteenth time, yet still manage to fail in demonstrating it. Fine. You don't want to, and I can't force you. The only example thus far extracted from you of means "effective enough" in stopping precisely all the same crimes guns can and do stop are "arms and feet." If that's what you believe, that's what you believe.

It's more important to consider those who have had their lives destroyed, or are at risk, as a result of gun ownership. So you still haven't got your priorities straight. — Sapientia

By gun ownership, I assume you mean lawful gun owners, in which case I would refer you back to the statistic I gave earlier, which you ignored: most gun violence is perpetrated by individuals who own guns illegally. The people who lawfully own guns are not the ones responsible for gun violence.

It would be like punishing little kids for playing with sharp knives. Some might well be more responsible than others. Some might not end up hurting themselves or others. But still, little kids shouldn't be allowed to play with sharp knives. — Sapientia

This is a complete disanalogy, for it would mean cops, whom you do allow to carry firearms, are somehow super adults, enabling them to carry such weapons which the rest of us immature pseudo-adults couldn't possibly handle responsibly. This is not born out by the facts, however (see above).

There's no such thing as a natural right. — Sapientia

You say this now, but it would have been much more helpful to have said it earlier and provided an argument in favor of it.

Even the fact that cops across the pond tend to bring a gun with them does not mean that that's necessary. It just means that that's considered good practice over there. — Sapientia

This gets you closer to being consistent, but you still allow the police to carry firearms for certain situations. You haven't shown why private citizens can't do the same.

You've changed your argument. — andrewk

It's a new argument demonstrating premise two, which is the conclusion of it, as you'll notice.

But it doesn't do anything to justify owning a gun — andrewk

Correct, that's because that's a different premise in the original argument! You asked for me to demonstrate premise two, and I did. Again, no one listens in this thread.

It also justifies everybody being provided with a personal, ex-SAS bodyguard — andrewk

More extreme examples. I've already shown that if you really thought them relevant, you would be in favor of banning the right to own cars and household materials that go into making bombs. Literally anything that could be used as a murder weapon would have to banned if one accepts the premises on which you think banning guns are justified. Ergo, I can safely dismiss these and other examples as insincere appeals to extremes.

The proliferation of weapons in the States is the only variable that explains why you suffer so many more gun rampages than any other country in the world. — Akanthinos

It is a statistical fact that gun violence has decreased at the same time as the number of guns in circulation has increased. You can make like an ostrich all you like and ignore this fact, but it doesn't cease to be a fact, which makes your accusation of "blindness" on my part all the more ironic.

These are not rare by any fucking definition of the word. They happen every other fucking week. And if you check, the States are miles ahead of any other country in terms of mass shootings per capita. — Akanthinos

Yes, we all know that adding curse words to your sentences enhances the truth of them. I see you've gotten pretty angry when presented with facts that don't conform to the gun narrative you're drunk on, but that's not my problem. Anyway, you're wrong: https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ A few more f-bombs ought to refute that, though, I reckon.

This will be my last post. I leave it to neutral observers to judge whether I have been fair, clear, and consistent, — Thorongil

There is one principle of politics that apply to every debates and arguments : Whoever leaves the negociation table first is always wrong.

Anyways, what you claim directly conflicts what Wayfarer has posted in the previous thread on the subject. I'll repost it here.

" The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns. ...Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. ...Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people. ... Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States."

"If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries."

"A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. ...countries with high suicide rates tended to have low rates of mass shootings — the opposite of what you would expect if mental health problems correlated with mass shootings."

" America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership."

"...American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process."

I've already shown that if you really thought them [extreme examples] relevant, you would be in favor of banning the right to own cars and household materials that go into making bombs. [emphasis added by andrewk] — Thorongil

You didn't show that, you claimed it. There's a big difference.

But I think you're right that no resolution is going to be obtained between you and those that don't believe your argument. If it was going to happen, I think one side or the other would have acknowledged the other's point.

Perhaps a more productive strategy would be to submit your argument to a philosophy journal as a paper for publication. If they agree with you that it is an unassailable argument I expect they will be eager to publish it, since it will finally settle a controversial aspect of one of the most hotly debated topics - albeit only in one country,

I think you're right that no resolution is going to be obtained between you and those that don't believe your argument. If it was going to happen, I think one side or the other would have acknowledged the other's point. — andrewk

>:O Wowzers!

You've just qualified the acknowledgement of Thorongil's argument as being contingent upon your own believing it to be true. Lordy, no wonder a proper debate isn't going to happen between you guys when you can't even agree to walk through the door together.

Way to miss the mark, Andrew!

Perhaps a more productive strategy would be to submit your argument to a philosophy journal as a paper for publication. If they agree with you that it is an unassailable argument I expect they will be eager to publish it, since it will finally settle a controversial aspect of one of the most hotly debated topics - albeit only in one country, — andrewk

Yeah, it's certainly true that every argument must be published in some journal so that it can be read by nobody, (Y)

I think the endowment effect is a large part of why people are reluctant to give up their guns. — ProbablyTrue

Well, when someone denies natural rights, thus denying the inherent right to one's own life, I think people are justified in being bothered by that kind of post modernist malarkey.

By gun ownership, I assume you mean lawful gun owners, in which case I would refer you back to the statistic I gave earlier, which you ignored: most gun violence is perpetrated by individuals who own guns illegally. The people who lawfully own guns are not the ones responsible for gun violence. — Thorongil

You linked to an article here that is worth repeating:

"All guns start out as legal guns," Fabio said in an interview. But a "huge number of them" move into illegal hands.

...

More than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen, according to Fabio's research.

...

A number of factors could lead to legal firearms entering the black market. Owners could misplace them, or they could be stolen — either through carelessness on the owner's part (leaving a gun in an unlocked car, for instance) or determination on the part of thieves.

It's also likely that many guns on the black market got there via straw purchases — where a person purchases a gun from a dealer without disclosing that they're buying it for someone else.

It's much harder for someone to possess a gun illegally if it's much harder for someone to possess a gun. You can't steal from someone who doesn't have a gun. You can't have someone buy a gun for you if they can't buy a gun.

That article also shows that 18% of gun crimes are committed by lawful owners (with 3% unknown), which isn't insignificant (in terms of raw numbers), and so it is false to claim that "the people who lawfully own guns are not the ones responsible for gun violence".

Also, interesting to note how you've changed your opinion in the last 2 years.

Gun policy: Ban the private use of arms, or else abolish the second amendment, or else enforce stricter laws — Thorongil

We have evidence that strictly limiting or outright forbidding the private use of arms results in drastically lower rates of mass shootings and homicides. Look at the UK, Japan, and Australia, for example.

...

So for me, I have no principled reasons why we ought to uphold the second amendment ... If I did, I would maintain such principles directly in opposition to the facts at hand. — Thorongil

What happened?

You have repeated this for the umpteenth time, yet still manage to fail in demonstrating it. Fine. You don't want to, and I can't force you. The only example thus far extracted from you of means "effective enough" in stopping precisely all the same crimes guns can and do stop are "arms and feet." If that's what you believe, that's what you believe. — Thorongil

But, instead of requesting a demonstration, you decided to repeatedly challenge what I said with your non sequitur and your demands that I support a claim that I never made. Thus, in response, I restated my position and explained why your challenge is wrongheaded.

You could have simply requested a demonstration, but you didn't. You persisted.

To back up my claim, I need only point to all of the cases, or potential cases, in which self-defence has been carried out successfully by any means which did not involve a gun. That consists in a huge number of cases, and a huge variety of methods. If you want a list, then tough, you're not getting one, because I believe that you are quite capable of coming up with one yourself. I've set you on your way by mentioning one or two already. As for the rest, you can stand on your own two feet, I presume.

By gun ownership, I assume you mean lawful gun owners, in which case I would refer you back to the statistic I gave earlier, which you ignored: most gun violence is perpetrated by individuals who own guns illegally. The people who lawfully own guns are not the ones responsible for gun violence. — Thorongil

I didn't ignore it, actually. As indicated in my earlier reply, "most" isn't good enough.

This is a complete disanalogy, for it would mean cops, whom you do allow to carry firearms, are somehow super adults, enabling them to carry such weapons which the rest of us immature pseudo-adults couldn't possibly handle responsibly. This is not born out by the facts, however (see above). — Thorongil

No, it's not. And no, I would not allow cops to carry guns, I would allow only a special armed response unit to carry guns, and only under the right conditions.

Cops can be just as bad, as evidenced by all of the police shootings, which, as is hardly surprising, occur most frequently in the U.S.

You say this now, but it would have been much more helpful to have said it earlier and provided an argument in favor of it. — Thorongil

I've said it elsewhere, likely in reply to you. And you're the one who made claims under the assumption that there are natural rights, so the burden lies predominantly with you.

This gets you closer to being consistent, but you still allow the police to carry firearms for certain situations. You haven't shown why private citizens can't do the same. — Thorongil

Obviously, because private citizens, on average, are not like the police in important respects.

Looks like he changed his mind. Sad!

Well, yes. I'm curious as to what changed his mind. Was it some gradual shift, or was there some specific event/piece of information that finally convinced him otherwise? The latter would be most interesting.

I agree that a gun is a legitimate means of self defense and in the US is an established right, — ProbablyTrue

Could you please make clear what you mean by "established right"? By "established" do you mean "unalienable"? There are very few absolute rights that Americans have - arguably three and no more..

In my opinion misuse/abuse of language is a big part of problems with legal issues around gun control. Clarity usually facilitates processes of problem solving, in some cases even eliminates the problem!

Well, when someone denies natural rights, thus denying the inherent right to one's own life, I think people are justified in being bothered by that kind of post modernist malarkey. — Buxtebuddha

It's not malarkey, and it's not postmodernist malarkey. You need to brush up on your history of philosophy. Hume rejected the doctrine of natural rights, and Hume was not a postmodernist. Postmodernism didn't develop until around two hundred years after his death.

But postmodernism adheres to a rejection of natural rights. It's a hallmark of postmodernist thought, regardless of its rejection beforehand.

Anyway, the semantics of my point wasn't my point.