• Obama praises Australia's, UK's gun laws following mass shooting
    400 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48836669]I also think the media should take a step back and realize they're just as at fault as the triggerman, they sensationalize him and turn him into an infamous household name and without them he would been nothing.[/QUOTE] Totally agree. At least where I live, I've noticed the media has been much better about that recently. The news segments I've seen about this shooting never showed one picture of the shooter or his name. [editline]5th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;48836925]lmao no you don't have to "put a boot" in anybodies chest.[/QUOTE] Uh, I'll go ahead and admit that was what happened. I was a bit haughty with my first few posts in the thread. I apologize for that, but this issue really grinds my gears and such.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48836925]lmao no you don't have to "put a boot" in anybodies chest. A lot of us that argue in favour of control have had to put up with passive/ non-passive aggressive shitposts from pro-gun advocates basically since these arguments have been going.[/QUOTE]Gee, and here I was thinking of all the times we've had to put up with the same exact shit and self-righteous cunts who just assume we're violent troglodytes. [QUOTE=hexpunK;48836925]With such common rebuttals as "fucking euros...." and "you just don't get it ughh!!!" to usually fairly well explained posts.[/QUOTE]Honestly, I specifically had you in mind when BFG9000 and I were talking. I was wondering when you'd chime in with your very valuable opinion so us colonials could benefit. (if we understood it, of course) [QUOTE=hexpunK;48836925]The pro-gun side in these arguments tends to be the first to devolve to petty aggressive shitposts, usually never actually fucking addresses anything posted or when someone comes along who does so is drowned out by libertarian nutcases who think the US should be the old west again.[/QUOTE]See, this is the shit I'm talking about specifically. I know goddamn well you wouldn't have wasted any time calling me specifically a "Libertarian nutcase" if you wouldn't get banned for it and I'd wager you'd call me worse. Either way, when is the last fucking time you've been to rural America if ever? Every single fucking time you try to use our culture against us when merely [U][i]one[/i][/U] of your British cities is more violent than my whole fucking state put together. I've already addressed what needs changing just like all the other times this has come up, and every single time I hear not a peep from you because deep down you know I make sense. You have refused, consistently, in countless threads to accept that the vast majority of the United States is armed to the teeth but has absolutely nothing to show in regards to violent crime, and meanwhile some of the most legislative-heavy states and cities are rife with violence, world-famous for their violence actually. So if you're so fucking practical and you want a goddamn discussion about this to weigh the merits of change, why don't we discuss shipping out the populations of ten of our most violent cities, rife with murder, rape, assault, drugs, and a lot of nasty characters somewhere else? Hmm? Would that solve the problem? Oh no we can't do that, because [I]it's wrong[/I] just like stripping away the rights of everyone who does not break the law is wrong. I can't speak for other people but I don't barge into discussions about your fucking country and go "WELL IF ONLY YOU HAD THESE HERE GUNS............" because I know how shitty that is because uninformed fucking Europeans always chime in when the media gets the fired up. At the end of the day the difference between you and ThePanther is this: [QUOTE=ThePanther;48837011]Uh, I'll go ahead and admit that was what happened. I was a bit haughty with my first few posts in the thread. I apologize for that, but this issue really grinds my gears and such.[/QUOTE]Regardless of your opinions and how much I may agree or disagree with them, at least I can respect you for being honest. Maybe I do need to apologize for my attitude, I have been a little short these past couple of days. I'm sorry if I crossed a line.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48836925]lmao no you don't have to "put a boot" in anybodies chest. A lot of us that argue in favour of control have had to put up with passive/ non-passive aggressive shitposts from pro-gun advocates basically since these arguments have been going. With such common rebuttals as "fucking euros...." and "you just don't get it ughh!!!" to usually fairly well explained posts. Rather than actually even consider firearms as a contributing factor to this shit, pro-gun people seem to just expect "fixing mental healthcare" to solve all the problems but never actually expand on how they intend to catch crazies before they do something dumb or what actually needs fixing. Oh and lets not forget the old gold "I have nothing to say but I'll say something anyway of" "STOP TRYING TO CHANGE US!" despite the fact that nobody here is actually capable of, or actively trying to change your laws, rather we are just discussing the merits of any changes. The pro-gun side in these arguments tends to be the first to devolve to petty aggressive shitposts, usually never actually fucking addresses anything posted or when someone comes along who does so is drowned out by libertarian nutcases who think the US should be the old west again.[/QUOTE] No, you just think the pro gun side 'always devolves first'. This is just your bias talking. Common opening lines from the anti gun side include 'Why is the second amendment still relevant? The Constitution is crap' 'I'm just going to sit here enjoying my biscuits and tea out in the open because unlike you I don't live in a country where I can get shot at any moment' and 'Haha Americans fetishize guns so much they might as well have sex with them'. You can see why the pro gun side would 'devolve' after we put up with this shit literally any time this issue is brought up. You can continue thinking that anti gun posters are on the "intellectual high ground" and turn a blind eye to their BS but in the end you're the same as us.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48836925]lmao no you don't have to "put a boot" in anybodies chest. A lot of us that argue in favour of control have had to put up with passive/ non-passive aggressive shitposts from pro-gun advocates basically since these arguments have been going. With such common rebuttals as "fucking euros...." and "you just don't get it ughh!!!" to usually fairly well explained posts. Rather than actually even consider firearms as a contributing factor to this shit, pro-gun people seem to just expect "fixing mental healthcare" to solve all the problems but never actually expand on how they intend to catch crazies before they do something dumb or what actually needs fixing. Oh and lets not forget the old gold "I have nothing to say but I'll say something anyway of" "STOP TRYING TO CHANGE US!" despite the fact that nobody here is actually capable of, or actively trying to change your laws, rather we are just discussing the merits of any changes. The pro-gun side in these arguments tends to be the first to devolve to petty aggressive shitposts, usually never actually fucking addresses anything posted or when someone comes along who does so is drowned out by libertarian nutcases who think the US should be the old west again.[/QUOTE] Lets see, common starting arguments from anti gunners include dick jokes, claiming we have fetishes, AND even video editing pro gun people shooting themselves. Lets see, staging bullshit lies, appealing to emotion, starting an argument full of trigger words while have NO clue how guns even operate, etc. Anti gunners are some the dumbest, outspokenly aggressive morons out there. Have you gotten death threats because of a gun you own, because I have. I can go on for hours, but what's the point. Ignorance runs wild with you anti gun types.
[QUOTE][b]Mr Obama praised Australia’s gun control laws.[/b] “We know that other countries in response to one mass shooting have managed to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours, Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours."[/QUOTE] Thanks, Obama :). [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Pilot1215;48837664]Lets see, common starting arguments from anti gunners include dick jokes, claiming we have fetishes, AND even video editing pro gun people shooting themselves. Lets see, staging bullshit lies, appealing to emotion, starting an argument full of trigger words while have NO clue how guns even operate, etc. Anti gunners are some the dumbest, outspokenly aggressive morons out there. Have you gotten death threats because of a gun you own, because I have. I can go on for hours, but what's the point. Ignorance runs wild with you anti gun types.[/QUOTE] It's nice to generalize all people who have an opinion about a topic different from your own, isn't it? Did your erection grow a bit bigger from that verbal slapdown you gave to that strawman you constructed? Oh yes, tell us more about how everyone who disagrees with you on a contentious political issue is all the same, singular person who makes fun of you on the internet after you drop your spaghetti and go on a massive diatribe about "anti-gunners". I suppose your next rant will be about the "damn commie, socialist liberal fascists" who are "ruining this country, I tell ya wut!". This isn't an argument, you're just embarrassing yourself like a fox news anchor as soon as they leave the studio. If you cannot listen to people who have different opinions than you without going full ham on them, maybe you shouldn't get involved with these threads in the first place. A argument at the very least requires listening to the opposing sides arguments, if your not willing to do that then why even come here? [QUOTE=BFG9000;48837417]No, you just think the pro gun side 'always devolves first'. This is just your bias talking. Common opening lines from the anti gun side include 'Why is the second amendment still relevant? The Constitution is crap' 'I'm just going to sit here enjoying my biscuits and tea out in the open because unlike you I don't live in a country where I can get shot at any moment' and 'Haha Americans fetishize guns so much they might as well have sex with them'. You can see why the pro gun side would 'devolve' after we put up with this shit literally any time this issue is brought up. You can continue thinking that anti gun posters are on the "intellectual high ground" and turn a blind eye to their BS but in the end you're the same as us.[/QUOTE] Listen to this guy, he knows how to argue without making sweeping generalizations. This is a contentious issue for a reason, there isn't a clear and obvious answer. If you think there's a clear and obvious answer, you're wrong and don't know enough about the topic. Don't shame people for holding a different opinion than your own, try learning why they hold that opinion. You don't gain anything from [i]'winning'[/i] an internet argument, but you can enlighten yourself if you understand why somebody thinks a certain way without out-and-out flaming them for disagreeing with you. Or to put it another way: This is [b]A[/b] person: [img]http://i.imgur.com/kS7jK88.jpg[/img] And this a stereotype: [img]http://i.imgur.com/kVofscM.jpg[/img] And this is a stereotype: [img]http://i.imgur.com/jc8TGXp.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48835035]Suuuuuuuuure They have some pretty lax gun laws in Switzerland but I don't see any headlines of swiss schools being shot up by disgruntled youths[/QUOTE] To add onto this, I noticed that states with the lax gun laws (Maine and Vermont) have the lowest amount of firearm homicides whereas the states with stricter gun laws (California) have a huge amount of firearm homicides. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state[/url] These statistics are worth looking at too, the first link displays the trend of firearm homicide decreasing. The second link counts the total number of mass shootings. [url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls[/url] [url]http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MassShootings_CongResServ.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Zyler;48837689]Thanks, Obama :). [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] It's nice to generalize all people who have an opinion about a topic different from your own, isn't it? Did your erection grow a bit bigger from that verbal slapdown you gave to that strawman you constructed? Oh yes, tell us more about how everyone who disagrees with you on a contentious political issue is all the same, singular person who makes fun of you on the internet after you drop your spaghetti and go on a massive diatribe about "anti-gunners". I suppose your next rant will be about the "damn commie, socialist liberal fascists" who are "ruining this country, I tell ya wut!". [/QUOTE] I'm not shaming everyone, except the ignorant aggressive morons who make dick jokes and send death threats. They happen to be a very vocal crowd.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48835392]Haha, the fact that it comes from harvard instantly discredits it[/QUOTE] Well clearly you're such a goddamn genius you're qualified to make this call. With all your animosity and brilliance, you've got to be currently enrolled at Yale, right? That or else you're just pissy because it's an intelligent analysis from one of the nation's (and moreover, one of the world's) most academically-reputable schools that rebukes your side's broken record self-defense argument. Shit, Harvard's School of Public Health also has accurate statistical and diagnostical information relating to guns and suicide which are common knowledge at this point, never mind its self-defense information presented here which is also pretty much common knowledge too. So sorry, but it's going to take more than "nuh-uh" to say that the facts they're accurately presenting are invalid. If you actually were someone with a reputable background, then maybe it would make sense to be more persuaded by your opinion than what I'm sure most people are (save for the ones who are already on your side). But you're not anyone, and you haven't got a reputable background. So what the fuck are you arguing about exactly? [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;48837754]To add onto this, I noticed that states with the lax gun laws (Maine and Vermont) have the lowest amount of firearm homicides whereas the states with stricter gun laws (California) have a huge amount of firearm homicides. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state[/url] These statistics are worth looking at too, the first link displays the trend of firearm homicide decreasing. The second link counts the total number of mass shootings. [url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls[/url] [url]http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MassShootings_CongResServ.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Maine and Vermont have significantly smaller rural-based populations compared to California, which is the most populous state in the Union with 38+ million people and has such ridiculous urban clusters as Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, etc. Vermont has like 600,000+ people in it and Maine has 1.3+ million. No shit in terms of numbers there will be fewer overall firearm homicides committed in them than in California, or Louisiana or Arkansas for that matter. In terms of rates however, per 100,000 people, California doesn't have anywhere near the highest rate of people murdered with firearms; Louisiana, South Carolina, Maryland, my fantastic home of Missouri, Michigan, Georgia, Arkansas, and Mississippi (and so on) do. Generally, with the exception of Maryland, these states have pretty lax gun laws. I mean, they're outright southern or border states (except for Michigan); would you expect something different? In addition, they also generally have higher rates of gun ownership than California does. Arkansas for instance has not quite 3 million people living in it, almost 58% of the state's population is armed, and they're in the top 10 for murder firearm rate (ranked 7th highest). Louisiana: 4.6+ million people, 44.5% of its population is armed, ranks 1st in the Union for murder firearm rate. Etc. So the correlation still stands: more guns/higher rates of gun ownership = more gun-related violence. [editline]6 October 2015[/editline] If it seems like I'm annoyed, it's because I am. It's 2015, and the gun debate has been running hard here in recent years since the Virginia Tech Massacre. There's no reason to not be informed on this stuff now and for people to not be on the same page with the facts. Holy fuck, no wonder no progress is being made. If it isn't just general ignorance that's trying to be fought off, it's willful ignorance.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48837787]I'm not shaming everyone, except the ignorant aggressive morons who make dick jokes and send death threats. They happen to be a very vocal crowd.[/QUOTE] Well the problem is that in your writing you're conflating those people with anyone who disagrees with you on a contentious issue. It's important to be specific about who you're talking about otherwise it sounds like a weak personal attack. "Oh I'm not talking about anti-gun people. I'm talking about THOSE anti-gun people. But that's just how anti-gun people behave and why their argument is wrong, oh I'm not being [url=http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/]disingenuous[/url] or anything, I was just talking about THOSE anti-gun people."
The BBC just posted this: [IMG]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/134DB/production/_85876097_homicides_guns_624_v3.png[/IMG] Considering the UK (679 /mile) is many many times more densely populated than the US (85 / mile) you would expect the rate to be higher in the UK.
[QUOTE=Morgen;48840038]Considering the UK (679 /mile) is many many times more densely populated than the US (85 / mile) you would expect the rate to be higher in the UK.[/QUOTE] Stronger middle class, decent welfare services, public healthcare, access to mental care... Notice how even if you remove all the firearm homicides, the non-firearm homicide rate in the US is almost [i]double[/i] that of the UK. I think the chart shows pretty clearly that there's a [i]lot[/i] more to the issue than availability of guns. I'd love to see that chart with New Zealand featured as well.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48840198]Stronger middle class, decent welfare services, public healthcare, access to mental care... Notice how even if you remove all the firearm homicides, the non-firearm homicide rate in the US is almost [i]double[/i] that of the UK. I think the chart shows pretty clearly that there's a [i]lot[/i] more to the issue than availability of guns. I'd love to see that chart with New Zealand featured as well.[/QUOTE] One thing to keep in mind as well is that the US has 5 times the population of the UK. I'd say the homicide rate in the us (without the gun homicide) is more what you'd expect. However, with the gun homicide section, it is clearly disproportionate. Actually, the homicide rates in Australia and Canada are really high considering their populations are 22.7 million (Australia) and 34.7 million (Canada) in 2012. The UK has 63.7 million, and the US has 314 million people in 2012. I guess the UK is truly the least homicidal country here by a long-shot.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;48841212]One thing to keep in mind as well is that the US has 5 times the population of the UK. I'd say the homicide rate in the us (without the gun homicide) is more what you'd expect. However, with the gun homicide section, it is clearly disproportionate. Actually, the homicide rates in Australia and Canada are really high considering their populations are 22.7 million (Australia) and 34.7 million (Canada) in 2012. The UK has 63.7 million, and the US has 314 million people in 2012. I guess the UK is truly the least homicidal country here by a long-shot.[/QUOTE] The chart clearly states that it represents the homicide rate per 100,000 people. The actual population is irrelevant. Our non-firearm homicide rate is twice as high as the UK's, meaning for any given population size we have twice as many non-firearm homicides.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;48841212][B]One thing to keep in mind as well is that the US has 5 times the population of the UK.[/B] I'd say the homicide rate in the us (without the gun homicide) is more what you'd expect. However, with the gun homicide section, it is clearly disproportionate. Actually, the homicide rates in Australia and Canada are really high considering their populations are 22.7 million (Australia) and 34.7 million (Canada) in 2012. The UK has 63.7 million, and the US has 314 million people in 2012. I guess the UK is truly the least homicidal country here by a long-shot.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita[/url] [editline]e[/editline] or basically what catbarf said
So the chart is saying the US has a problem.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;48841300]So the chart is saying the US has a problem.[/QUOTE] correct, and its not just a gun problem, because our non-firearms murder rate is (nearly) twice as high as well. [editline]e[/editline] we have a gang violence, poverty, institutional racism, and mental health care problem but sure ban assault rifles I'm sure that will stop gun violence from happening
This is a bit subjective, but finding slums as hardcore as some in the U.S. is quite difficult in the U.K. and Germany, France etc Hell, are there any? I can't find 'em!
[QUOTE=Govna;48838146]Well clearly you're such a goddamn genius you're qualified to make this call. With all your animosity and brilliance, you've got to be currently enrolled at Yale, right? That or else you're just pissy because it's an intelligent analysis from one of the nation's (and moreover, one of the world's) most academically-reputable schools that rebukes your side's broken record self-defense argument. Shit, Harvard's School of Public Health also has accurate statistical and diagnostical information relating to guns and suicide which are common knowledge at this point, never mind its self-defense information presented here which is also pretty much common knowledge too. So sorry, but it's going to take more than "nuh-uh" to say that the facts they're accurately presenting are invalid. If you actually were someone with a reputable background, then maybe it would make sense to be more persuaded by your opinion than what I'm sure most people are (save for the ones who are already on your side). But you're not anyone, and you haven't got a reputable background. So what the fuck are you arguing about exactly? [/QUOTE] Look, that article has been posted before. I already know it's bullshit and if you read what jumpinjackflash said you'll know why I think that. What you're doing right now is relying on someone's credibility instead of the actual argument. By your logic all I have to do to is find a guy at a prestiged university to write a pro gun article for me and publish it under the school's domain. What would you say then?
[QUOTE=catbarf;48840198]Stronger middle class, decent welfare services, public healthcare, access to mental care... Notice how even if you remove all the firearm homicides, the non-firearm homicide rate in the US is almost [i]double[/i] that of the UK. I think the chart shows pretty clearly that there's a [i]lot[/i] more to the issue than availability of guns. I'd love to see that chart with New Zealand featured as well.[/QUOTE] Yes you are right that it's double even without guns. But guns clearly aren't helping the situation either. I think the best way to reduce that homicide rate would be both regulating guns more (don't have to outright ban them) and looking at other issues such as those you mentioned. Outside of it being a "right" to own a gun I don't see what the issue is with requiring people to get a licence to own a gun, to make sure they know how to use it, the dangers it can present and how to properly store it. Can also give them a mental assessment to make sure they aren't nuts. Would it stop gun violence all together? No, of course not. But it would significantly reduce it.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;48805970]It takes 13 people dying for him to say something yet HUNDREDS of young black males die every year in his hometown and he doesn't give a shit. He's trying to politicize a tragedy to push his stupid fucking agendas.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't the effect of having less guns to cause less mass shootings also cause (less) guns to be on the street? It's a double edged sword. Also gun smuggling from the states may be more difficult.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48835723]Pretty sure those are articles published in peer-reviewed journals.[/QUOTE] Peer review doesn't mean much these days. Lots of different disciplines, from social sciences to drug medicine have had problems with reproducibility and found methodology errors that often aren't exposed until years after the fact. (doubly true when it comes to drug companies and the massive influence they wield - Merck is infamous for pushing drugs through on brilliant findings and then independent researchers many years later finding they've essentially cooked the books - and yet nothing is done about it). Just because something is published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't actually mean its automatically true. I'm pretty sure i responded to you earlier in this thread showing studies on Australia's gun law reform of 1996, all published studies, and yet only one of them had fantastically glowing reports on the data, the others studies perceived it as negligible effect. Why the discrepancy? Well again, it doesn't mean anything that gets published is instantly true, it just means the editors are fine with publishing the study. From a former BMJ editor on the flaws of the peer-review system: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/[/url]
[QUOTE=Govna;48838146]Well clearly you're such a goddamn genius you're qualified to make this call. With all your animosity and brilliance, you've got to be currently enrolled at Yale, right? That or else you're just pissy because it's an intelligent analysis from one of the nation's (and moreover, one of the world's) most academically-reputable schools that rebukes your side's broken record self-defense argument. Shit, Harvard's School of Public Health also has accurate statistical and diagnostical information relating to guns and suicide which are common knowledge at this point, never mind its self-defense information presented here which is also pretty much common knowledge too. So sorry, but it's going to take more than "nuh-uh" to say that the facts they're accurately presenting are invalid. If you actually were someone with a reputable background, then maybe it would make sense to be more persuaded by your opinion than what I'm sure most people are (save for the ones who are already on your side). But you're not anyone, and you haven't got a reputable background. So what the fuck are you arguing about exactly? [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] Maine and Vermont have significantly smaller rural-based populations compared to California, which is the most populous state in the Union with 38+ million people and has such ridiculous urban clusters as Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, etc. Vermont has like 600,000+ people in it and Maine has 1.3+ million. No shit in terms of numbers there will be fewer overall firearm homicides committed in them than in California, or Louisiana or Arkansas for that matter. In terms of rates however, per 100,000 people, California doesn't have anywhere near the highest rate of people murdered with firearms; Louisiana, South Carolina, Maryland, my fantastic home of Missouri, Michigan, Georgia, Arkansas, and Mississippi (and so on) do. Generally, with the exception of Maryland, these states have pretty lax gun laws. I mean, they're outright southern or border states (except for Michigan); would you expect something different? In addition, they also generally have higher rates of gun ownership than California does. Arkansas for instance has not quite 3 million people living in it, almost 58% of the state's population is armed, and they're in the top 10 for murder firearm rate (ranked 7th highest). Louisiana: 4.6+ million people, 44.5% of its population is armed, ranks 1st in the Union for murder firearm rate. Etc. So the correlation still stands: more guns/higher rates of gun ownership = more gun-related violence. [editline]6 October 2015[/editline] If it seems like I'm annoyed, it's because I am. It's 2015, and the gun debate has been running hard here in recent years since the Virginia Tech Massacre. There's no reason to not be informed on this stuff now and for people to not be on the same page with the facts. Holy fuck, no wonder no progress is being made. If it isn't just general ignorance that's trying to be fought off, it's willful ignorance.[/QUOTE] Washington DC has the highest rate and Arkansas isn't in the top ten.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48841799]This is a bit subjective, but finding slums as hardcore as some in the U.S. is quite difficult in the U.K. and Germany, France etc Hell, are there any? I can't find 'em![/QUOTE] There are definitely some shitholes in the UK, but ongoing urban renewal has redeveloped/modernised a lot of the worst offending areas.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.