Why no resurge in gun control advocacy?

[SkepticLance]

ParanoiA said :

 

You don't know that loose gun control is the cause of the per capita murder rate. I'm sure it contributes, but to what extent? We also have a pop culture completely in love with violence.

 

Certainly. The culture is probably a bigger problem than the availability. However, short of nationalising all movie, TV and video game producing companies, I am not quite sure how you can change the culture. Plus, how do you stop the motivations driven by testosterone from happening? I do know you can tighten gun control.

 

Bascule said :

 

We're #24.

 

Certainly again. But no cookie for Bascule.

My comparison was to other OECD countries, in which the comparison is USA number 1. If you want to make the comparison with sub-Saharan Africa, or to Eastern Europe, you are not comparing the proverbial apple with other apples.

 

Bascule also said :

 

However, those differences have not changed substantially since the UK and New Zealand imposed gun control laws.

 

Again, very faulty logic. Since the murder rate had little to do with guns in the first place in the UK and NZ, with most murders caused by weapons other than fire arms, your point is hardly surprising.

 

Do things like gang violence and its cultural glorification ever enter into your thinking?

 

Absolutely. We have a terrible gang problem here in NZ. We have large organisations built around gangs, in which the drug culture has gone putrid. Massive sales of methamphetamine, with all the violence that this drug stimulates. Yet there are very few shootings compared to the USA. And their culture is such that guns are like mothers milk. The difference is availability, and police arresting anyone carrying a gun.

 

 

Only 5% of violent crime committed with a firearm within the US which lead to a successful prosecution involved a legally obtained firearm.

 

Which probably means something close to 95% of all such crime happened with someone using a gun stolen from someone else who first had it legally. Again, tighten gun control and stop it happening.

 

ParanoiA said :

 

I have no idea who you're listening to or where you're getting your poetry on american gun lust, but it's almost funny.

 

Actually, with the exception of a few women who want guns because they are plain scared, it is testosterone fuelled lust for power. It is common to almost all males, and you will find in many of the nations that Bascule referred to in making USA no. 24, that carrying a gun confers upon the bearer feelings of power and importance. And if you don't think that such feelings influence guys, you just ain't a red blooded male.

[PhDP]

Which probably means something close to 95% of all such crime happened with someone using a gun stolen from someone else who first had it legally. Again, tighten gun control and stop it happening.

 

And what if gun ownership (legal) was encouraging criminals to get armed ? It could have an impact. It's why only serious studies on the relation between an increase in gun ownership and crimes can inform us on all the ramifications.

 

My comparison was to other OECD countries, in which the comparison is USA number 1.

 

It's quite revealing that the US be compared with countries with a much lower GPD/capita to look good.

 

Why would it come down to that? Freedom of speech could increase crime. Our civil liberties can increase crime. If we couldn't leave the house after 10:00 PM it would probably decrease crime, but that's mostly irrelevant isn't it?

 

Why do you need to compare the right to own a weapon to freedom of speech ? Why can't you use this argument with other deadly weapons ? We already restrict the use of some weapons because they are too dangerous.

 

I also think making this an issue of "Freedom" vs "Oppression" is just a rhetorical trick. Nobody likes to be against freedom and liberties, especially in the USA. Some liberties and rights are more essential than others, and the rights to live, is, IMO, far more important than your right to own a weapon. If I thought your liberty to own a weapon was not endangering the rights and liberties of others, I would support it.

[ParanoiA]

Why do you need to compare the right to own a weapon to freedom of speech ?

 

Because you said:

 

However it all comes down to this; does an increase in gun ownership leads to an increase in crimes. Probably.

 

So, my point was, that simply because a certain behavior or lack of behavior results in an increase or decrease in crimes, is not a good enough reason to restrict freedom. Your logic is faulty. You can decrease crime by using the death penalty as the sole sentence for every petty crime. But that's not right is it? That's silly. Just because we'd be "safer", doesn't make it right to legislate it.

 

Why can't you use this argument with other deadly weapons ? We already restrict the use of some weapons because they are too dangerous.

 

Because, these weapons are not outlawed solely because it would "decrease crime", or "make us safer", they're outlawed because we can't demonstrate a need for these kinds of weapons as a general public when balanced against those points. That's the qualifier you need to add to your logic. Can we demonstrate a need for guns, in general, that tilts the balance towards that need over the sacrifice in safety and increased crime? I think we can.

 

I also think making this an issue of "Freedom" vs "Oppression" is just a rhetorical trick. Nobody likes to be against freedom and liberties, especially in the USA.

 

Yeah..imagine that. A country born of freedom - with an emotional aversion to oppression - trying to maintain that freedom and the individual liberties that makes life worth living. I'd rather die than do without the civil liberties that I enjoy everyday. There are many civil liberties that you enjoy, that endanger me. That's not unreasonable. That's a fact of life.

 

Some liberties and rights are more essential than others, and the rights to live, is, IMO, far more important than your right to own a weapon. If I thought your liberty to own a weapon was not endangering the rights and liberties of others, I would support it.

 

How is my owning a weapon endangering the rights and liberties of you? The gangbanger with a gun is endangering the rights and liberties of everyone, including you, and would also do so with a knife, a slingshot, a car, a bomb - whatever the top weapon is that he can get ahold of.

 

But how do I, a responsible gun owner, endanger your rights and liberties? How do you know I won't save your life when a madman starts mowing down a restaraunt we're dining in?

 

Edit: Funny how the title of this thread is about how gun control advocacy didn't come up - and here we are going at it like it's the top news story...

[ParanoiA]

Actually, with the exception of a few women who want guns because they are plain scared, it is testosterone fuelled lust for power. It is common to almost all males, and you will find in many of the nations that Bascule referred to in making USA no. 24, that carrying a gun confers upon the bearer feelings of power and importance. And if you don't think that such feelings influence guys, you just ain't a red blooded male.

 

Sorry, you're wrong. Your take on gun owners is similar to an ignorant person's take on drugs and drug users. You sound like someone who's never owned a gun, but thinks they have a bead on those who do. People who have never done drugs, sound just as ignorant. They think they get it - I don't know if it's from TV, peers, conditioning - but those who don't know, sound like they don't know.

 

I think what you're confusing "power and importance" for "security" in terms of responsible gun owners. Like I said before, as red blooded males we obviously want to protect our homes. My wife doesn't lock the doors - I do. My wife doesn't get up to check on creepy noises in the night - I do. Of course we're more concerned about guarding the pack, and desire the "power" to do so. This is good. We should do that. It's not about lust and some childish power fantasy. This is good ole fashioned survival instincts.

 

But this power is not a lust for more of it, rather a reinstatement of the loss of power - a security aid. When someone breaks in my home and I don't have a gun, I'm vulnerable. If they have a gun, it's over, I'm powerless. If they don't have a gun, and I do, then yes I have the power - this is a good kind of power. The situation can now be diffused and my family is protected against potential slaughter and assault. If we both have guns, then the playing field is leveled. Neither has really more power than the other. Either way, this is not an unhealthy desire for power - it's about protecting ourselves from those who wield it to hurt us.

 

The power and importance you're selling is the driver for gangbangers and etc. For them, it's about alpha male, getting their power back from a dismal life or abused past, perceived oppression by "the man" and etc. But you're trying to paint all of us that way.

[Haezed]

The idea that you need guns to oppose an oppressive government is just as ridiculous.

 

There are many ways in our system of government to oppose an oppressive government. 99.999% of the protection comes for separation of powers, checks and balances and all of that basic stuff.

 

However, if worse ever came to worse, as it did for the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, guns are a check. You ignore the demonstrable fact that even with a few guns but with brains and guts, the Jews held off the Germans for far longer than anyone would have thought. If they had been armed, the result would have been the same, but far more costly to the Germans.

 

In fact, I wonder what would have happened had the Jewish population of Europe been generally armed during the holocaust. I know one thing: Hitler's first step would have been to make gun ownership for Jews a crime.

 

The IRA felt they had an oppressive government. Whether they were right or wrong, the fact is that they faced very strict gun laws and still managed to get enough weapons to carry out all sorts of highly destructive actions.

 

Sure but imagine how much worse it would have been if guns had been more commonly available. Also, I'm not talking about a terrorist sect in a country but the use by guns as a basis for mass resistance.

 

If America got an oppressive government, and had to establish a resistance movement, they would have no problem getting all the weapons they needed illegally.

 

All the weapons they needed? That's quite an assumption. It sure didn't work that way for the Jews of Warsaw.

Free availability of guns is an unmitigated disaster.

 

Strawman: No one argued for free availability of guns. I'm all for background checks.

[Haezed]

One question that vexes me is why so many not from America care so deeply about our internal gun laws? Don't get me wrong; I want all POVs and want to hear from everyone. There is almost an emotional tone to the debate, however, which makes me think that some think our guns laws prove something about America's "high testosterone" national character. Is that too much of a leap?

[ParanoiA]

One question that vexes me is why so many not from America care so deeply about our internal gun laws? Don't get me wrong; I want all POVs and want to hear from everyone. There is almost an emotional tone to the debate, however, which makes me think that some think our guns laws prove something about America's "high testosterone" national character. Is that too much of a leap?

 

I'm not sure if it's a leap or not, but I feel it too. I think they're seeing a corrollation between our approach to war and gun ownership. We seem like a bunch of trigger happy rednecks that dress up in camo and go to war to play with our testosterone toys, I suspect.

 

Of course, when you see some of our soldiers and you hear them talk, tell their story or whatever, you see a completely different picture. These are some impressive folks. Maybe they're just playing to the cameras, or putting on a good front, but they come across quite professional to me. Courteous and intelligent.

[Dak]

i think it's probably closer to: non-americans percieve you as being stupid in this area, and people are dying as a result of your stupidity.

 

like if the uk had -- by a massive amount -- the highest fatal road-traffic-accident rate of developed countries, and we also had the laxest controlls on cars. wouldn't you (continually) try to get across to us, for our own benifit, that we should probably restrict car ownership a bit more, so that only trained and responsible people owned cars? then get a bit peeved when we said "but people have a right to transport themselves! if we regulated cars, then only the criminals would have cars, and who would be able to catch them then??!?"

 

then peeved summore when you said 'but our countries have strickter car control, where you actually have to be trained for months in safe car usage, before you're allowed one, and less people die in car accidents in our country', only to have the brits turn around and say 'nah, tighter restrictions on cars wouldn't work 'cos criminals, being criminals, would ignore them; and besides, it would be taking away our rights (presumably meaning our right to drive a car even if we do not know how to, and are deminstratably irresponsible)'.

 

"cars don't kill people, people kill people; so, we obviously shouldn't regulate cars then"

 

not presenting that as an argument, just saying that's how it seems from non-americans povs: americans arguing in favour of guns seem to be a bit stubborn, and non-americans, not being used to guns and getting on fine all the same, seem to not understand why and get peeved as a result.

 

Sure but imagine how much worse it would have been if guns had been more commonly available. Also, I'm not talking about a terrorist sect in a country but the use by guns as a basis for mass resistance.

 

you realise the distinction is an artificial one? if you agreed with the IRAs struggle, then they'd be a bunch of civillians mass-resisting. if not, then they're a bunch of terrorists.

[ParanoiA]

not presenting that as an argument, just saying that's how it seems from non-americans povs: americans arguing in favour of guns seem to be a bit stubborn, and non-americans, not being used to guns and getting on fine all the same, seem to not understand why and get peeved as a result.

 

Not bad. Good argument actually. But ( and you knew this was coming ), freedom to drive cars isn't a fundamental check and balance for the power of the government. Our system is dependent on that amendment.

 

And yes you're getting on just fine. But I'll bet the Jews would take issue with that. The thing is, you don't know when your number's up. You don't know who or what country is going to turn on its people, or what will set it off or how it will happen. Incrimentally? Overnight?

 

You can't look at the blue skies today and assume it will always be that way. You're really taking a lot for granted. And you really don't know how much that will or won't cost you in the long run. You may enjoy better numbers in terms of gun control today - but a couple of decades from now, you could be in a completely different position, like praying to Allah by law.

 

Our system requires that amendment. We know the cost, and it's worth it.

[Sisyphus]

 

Of course, when you see some of our soldiers and you hear them talk, tell their story or whatever, you see a completely different picture. These are some impressive folks. Maybe they're just playing to the cameras, or putting on a good front, but they come across quite professional to me. Courteous and intelligent.

 

I don't think you can make any generalizations about the personalities of the entire military. Obviously if they're going to be on camera, they're heavily coached and it's heavily edited. You could easily - as many have done - edit in the opposite direction. So yeah, the military attracts a lot of people with a profound sense of honor, courage, and social responsibility. It also attracts a lot of trigger-happy, testosterone-crazed jackasses. To a certain extent, their training enhances both tendencies. (This seems logically obvious to me, but is also based on many interactions with midshipmen at the US Naval Academy, who I'm guessing are among the more upstanding of the lot.) ANYWAY, [/OT]

[Dak]

You could easily - as many have done - edit in the opposite direction.

 

this is the more common edit in the uk. because, apparently, 'americans can't shoot strait, but still shoot. alot. generally at us and hospitals' sells more papers than 'americans at least half competent'.

 

most british losses in a conflict to american troops = american troops are dumb.

 

only british tank loss in a conflict to another british tank = weeeel, fog of war, what chaps? can't be helped.

 

Not bad. Good argument actually. But ( and you knew this was coming ), freedom to drive cars isn't a fundamental check and balance for the power of the government. Our system is dependent on that amendment.

 

And yes you're getting on just fine[...]

 

this is kind of the point. in the uk, we've never had as many guns as you do in the US. and we also are at no more risk from our govournment than you are from yours, plus we're significantly at less risk from each other, as most of us have no guns.

 

so, protection against the state is neccesary, but protection against the state by owning guns is not.

 

you could always just not pay taxes, riot, etc...

 

anyway, look at terrorism. i think 'resorting to violence' isn't really a good check. in the old days, it had a veneer of democracy, in that you needed alot of people to rebel with you to have an effect. increasingly, tho, you need a smaller and smaller minority to rebel and have an effect.

 

not paying taxes, striking, rioting, etc all seem better options imo, as they still have that 'democracy at it's basest form' element (ie, need lots of people for it to be effective)

[SkepticLance]

As a non-American, the gun control thing affects me, because I have twice visited the USA, and will probably visit again more than once. I would like to know that if I walk the streets of an American town, I will not be shot.

 

As I have said before, the crux of the whole thing is the simple fact that the USA, with relatively lax gun laws, has a murder rate much higher than any other OECD country. If those gun laws were tightened up, including raids by police on criminal hang-outs, to confiscate any illegal weapons, we can expect with a high degree of surety, that the murder rate wil go down.

 

In other words, tight gun laws save lives.

 

When I walk around at home in NZ, I know that I might get mugged, assaulted, or even killed. However, my chances of getting murdered are only a quarter compared to being in the USA, and the chances of getting shot are almost zero.

[Saryctos]

we can expect with a high degree of surety, that the murder rate wil go down.

Expect it all you like, it won't happen.

 

...I know that I might get mugged, assaulted, or even killed. However, my chances of getting murdered...

?

[SkepticLance]

Saryctos said :

 

Expect it all you like, it won't happen.

 

I find it hard to understand why so many people suffer this selective blindness. Outside the USA, it is clear cut that restricting access to guns reduces murder by gunfire. Hell, it is basic common sense, backed up by real world experience.

 

I was raised on a farm. My father owned three sporting guns, which he justified in saying he used them to kill pests. As a teenager, I used the 0.22 rifle to hunt rabbits, and on one occasion, the shotgun to hunt ducks. I fully understand the emotional reaction to guns. A hot blooded guy picks up a loaded gun and stands taller. He feels great, and feels powerful. A gun makes weak people feel strong. I know it affected me that way.

 

And then we grow up. Emotional logic becomes less convincing. Real world facts get considered. Guns make it easy for evil bastards to kill. Access to guns leads to higher murder rates. The USA is an absolutely classic example of this principle at work. Once a person puts aside the emotional attraction of being made powerful by carrying a gun, then he or she can see that this access to guns leads to death. Sure, it is only the nastiest 10% of the population that causes this. So what? We do what we can to stop the evil bastards, and restrictions to gun access is one of the most effective.

 

Of course, some people never grow up and emotional logic remains their guide.

[Saryctos]

Outside the USA, it is clear cut that restricting access to guns reduces murder by gunfire.

Well as long as people are getting killed by something else it's ok right? Gotta maintain that murder per capita.

 

Of course, some people never grow up and emotional logic remains their guide.

Glad you cleared that up for us.

[SkepticLance]

Saryctos said :

 

Well as long as people are getting killed by something else it's ok right? Gotta maintain that murder per capita.

 

The point is that the murder rates are much lower in OECD countries other than the USA. Guns make killings too easy. So many situations where the presense of a gun leads to a quick, easy killing. eg. a road rage situation. Without a gun, the killing would not have happened. I know this, because people are the same everywhere. We get these road rage situations here in NZ, but without the killings. Why? Because the killing is a result of anger, which is short lived. If the killing cannot be done quickly and easily, it probably won't happen. Ditto for domestic violence. etc. etc.

 

Even gang violence is far more likely to end in killings if guns are easily obtained. Here in NZ, gangs obtain illegal guns, but cannot carry them for fear of arrest. Thus they are not used in unplanned brawls, and the number of killings is less.

 

The USA has the loosest gun laws and the highest murder rate in the OECD. This is not coincidence.

[Phi for All]

As a non-American, the gun control thing affects me, because I have twice visited the USA, and will probably visit again more than once. I would like to know that if I walk the streets of an American town, I will not be shot.

Well, we like having you here spending money, but don't expect us to change everything just for the few times you visit. That's not good fiscal planning.

As I have said before, the crux of the whole thing is the simple fact that the USA, with relatively lax gun laws, has a murder rate much higher than any other OECD country. If those gun laws were tightened up, including raids by police on criminal hang-outs, to confiscate any illegal weapons, we can expect with a high degree of surety, that the murder rate wil go down.

Now you're bordering on restriction of trade. Let's say I own a gun manufacturing company (we'll call it LM Corp). It's in my best interests to keep demand for LM's product high. My marketers tell me that tighter gun laws will make our sales suffer. Without sales of our guns my employees and I will also suffer. So I donate US$2.3M to the presidential campaign that respects my right to run my business without oppressive laws that restrict my trade. This is completely legal and has the benefit of gaining me first crack at some nice government contracts too (preferentially written so only LM Corp can fill them!).

 

Better sales means I can now afford to pass along some savings to my customers as well. I reduce costs to my distributors and support a marketing campaign so they can run a sale on my .38 caliber snub-nose 6-shot revolver. This actually makes me more money because it's a crappy gun that makes people long for my sleek 15-shot semi-auto nines. Much more accurate and ammo sales go through the roof since the trigger practically pulls itself on a good 9mm.

 

This is business, my friend, and I play by the rules. I can't help it if some of my customers use my product poorly. Are you going to put the auto manufacturers out of business because some people are bad drivers?

In other words, tight gun laws save lives.

But I employ 140,000 people worldwide. Put me out of business and a lot of people suffer.

When I walk around at home in NZ, I know that I might get mugged, assaulted, or even killed. However, my chances of getting murdered are only a quarter compared to being in the USA, and the chances of getting shot are almost zero.

News Zealand, huh? Shame about those muggers and killers. You need some protection. It's just not right that you should walk around afraid. Do you know anybody in government there? Ever thought about running for office? If we could just get someone to relax a few of those restrictions we could all make more money.

[Pangloss]

The idea that you have to shoot a burglar is a mite ridiculous. There are always alternatives. If you and your family are able bodied, just jump out a window, and call the police from your neighbours. Sure, the burglar may do all sorts of damage in the mean time (that's why you have insurance); but damage to home and property is better than a killing.

 

If you and/or your family are not able bodied, make lots of noise. That works 99% of the time. Then call the cops.

 

I realize this reply is tardy, but I'm a bit shocked by this post. Not only do I completely disagree with this reasoning, but I'm surprised this "logic" was let stand by most of this community.

 

I don't think having a gun in that situation is necessarily an answer either, and I absolutely think you should "run" before "defending your turf" -- no question about it. If you can. But I think it's absurd to suggest that one can run or "make noise" in 99% of all criminal cases. Utterly absurd.

 

Simple logic renders that comment ridiculous -- we wouldn't have any crime on our streets at all if you could simply run away from criminals with guns. People get held up and shot at gunpoint EVERY DAY. Surely it's easier to escape from an armed gunman in public than it is in your home. Yet how many times have we seen video of a suspect holding up a convenience store? Why didn't those victims just... run away?

 

In fact they often get SHOT. And certainly the vast majority of them aren't armed, and so you would think they would run away if they could.

 

I'm really, seriously disappointed that that statement was allowed to stand by everyone on this thread except ParanoiA. Wow.

[Phi for All]

I'm really, seriously disappointed that that statement was allowed to stand by everyone on this thread except ParanoiA. Wow.

Curb your disappointment a bit. He specified burglar, twice, not robber or mugger. A burglar is typically interested in theft by stealth, and usually isn't armed, at least that's the distinction I make. That's why I didn't jump on him with both feet.

[Saryctos]

I realize this reply is tardy, but I'm a bit shocked by this post. Not only do I completely disagree with this reasoning, but I'm surprised this "logic" was let stand by most of this community.

 

Well, he had a good explanation...

Of course, some people never grow up and emotional logic remains their guide.

[ParanoiA]

A hot blooded guy picks up a loaded gun and stands taller. He feels great, and feels powerful. A gun makes weak people feel strong. I know it affected me that way.

 

Would someone else please chime in here? Who "feels taller" with a gun? Who "feels powerful" with one? You made this up or your conscience is speaking for you. Criminals will seek guns for necessity - with a degree of power and influence, sure. You're making this sound like we're all frothing like Gollum with the Ring. Please...you obviously are not a gun owner. And you're losing credibility in proving your ignorance about it.

[Phi for All]

Would someone else please chime in here? Who "feels taller" with a gun? Who "feels powerful" with one? You made this up or your conscience is speaking for you. Criminals will seek guns for necessity - with a degree of power and influence, sure. You're making this sound like we're all frothing like Gollum with the Ring. Please...you obviously are not a gun owner. And you're losing credibility in proving your ignorance about it.

Seriously, SkepticLance, you're talking about a phenomenon more related to an otherwise upstanding citizen who feels a need to be respected rather than true criminality. As ParanoiA suggest, criminals who use guns don't do it for feelings of power, they use them for greed and need.

[Pangloss]

Well like I said I support leaving burglers to their efforts when you can, but exit locations and window arrangements certainly don't support escape "99% of the time". You get out IF you can, but look at the consequences if you don't. Having a gun in that situation absolutely HAS to increase your chance of survival, even if it does introduce other risk factors. Suggesting that it can ONLY cause an increase in detrimental odds is illogical.

[JohnF]

If both the criminal and the house holder have a gun there is a chance that either of them could be shot. I would expect that the house holder is more likely to be shot as the criminal is more likely to be prepared.

 

If just the house holder has a gun then there is little chance that the house holder will be shot but some chance that the criminal will be shot since the house holder is going to feel anger and is not likely to be calm.

 

If just the criminal has a gun then there is less chance of the criminal being shot but some chance of the house holder being shot.

 

If neither of them has a gun then there is no chance of either of them being shot.

 

It is clear that the best situation to be in is to have neither of them with a gun, but this is not likely to be possible without removing everyone's right to own a gun. If you remove such a right you leave the guns in the hands of the criminals whilst law abiding citizens remain defenceless.

 

Why does the criminal carry a gun? I suggest it is because carrying a gun is allowed and it also gives the criminal an advantage.

 

If you remove the right to carry the gun, but not the right to own one, then this places the criminal in a disadvantaged position. The criminal would still like to have a gun but now runs an additional risk of being arrested for carrying one. The house holder runs no such risk, the house holder owns a gun which is at home.

 

The right to own a gun is not as great a problem as the right to carry one. Remove the right to carry one and the criminal is less likely to carry a gun and therefore disadvantaged. This is true only for situations where the criminal enters the house holders home though. For situations outside of the home where the house holder, who is assumed to be law abiding, has no gun but the criminal, who is less likely to obey this law, is in possession of a gun the advantage falls to the criminal. However, the criminal use of a gun in a mugging or robbery is primarily to subdue the victim and ensure compliance with the criminals demands. Use of the gun, although possible, is less likely as it will draw attention the crime in progress. This may seem to place the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage, but then how likely is it that in the case of a mugging the criminal will allow the victim to make use of a concealed weapon. You may argue that the criminal would use the gun anyway. If it is the intent of the criminal to kill the victim then this will happen regardless of whether the victim has a gun or not. The criminal is prepared, the victim is not.

[Haezed]

I realize this reply is tardy, but I'm a bit shocked by this post. Not only do I completely disagree with this reasoning, but I'm surprised this "logic" was let stand by most of this community.

 

My silence was not meant as consent. I preferred to focus on the more serious statements.