So I caught three headlines back to back today on a news ticker. I have got to wonder if the antis can connect the dots
“Guns sales boom in ‘09″
“Violent crime continues to drop says FBI”
“After Heller, homocides in D.C. Lowest since “64″
All across America, more people own and carry more guns in more places and crime gets lower and lower, I wonder how much longer will it take before the Antis get that they are just plain wrong and always have been?
On sunny afternoons, having collected the kids from school, I am sometimes coerced into making a minor detour through a nondescript North London park. The equipment is meagre and battered; there are so many stone steps and steep drops that the place resembles a game of Tomb Raider and, as nothing overlooks the playground, it is both a doggy convenience and a youth hangout.
Today, there are eight or more teenagers, mostly in hoodies, being noisy on the swings. Two women from a local action group are bravely asking the youths how the park could be improved. Then, politely, I ask one of these interviewees to move so that my five-year-old daughter can use a swing. He ignores me, so I walk up and ask again. He stands there for a moment, staring into my eyes with tedious insolence, before slowly moving back a step.
Most of the gang leave but this youth and his mate linger. The interviewers, oblivious to the rising tension, ask what improvements I would like to see as a father. Ignoring the leering elephant in the room (the park would be improved immensely if the yobs would go elsewhere), and louder than necessary (to show how down with the “yoot” I am), I express a wish that there were more facilities for older kids, so they didn’t have to hang around the playground.
As usual, my two-year-old son heads unerringly towards a steep drop and I charge after him. Suddenly, my daughter starts crying loudly. She points at the two youths, dangling inanely on the swings: “Those boys said something horrible to me!” I look at the two hoodies. They glare back. I try to reassure my daughter that she must be mistaken but she is insistent. As the youths stare at me with real malevolence, I ponder what to do, heart racing.
I have dreaded something like this since I became a dad. As a young man I got into fights but since having children I have tried to mellow, to demonstrate to my kids that violence is not the answer (and because I’m a 5ft 7in 42-year-old who never was particularly good at the whole scrapping malarkey). On the other hand, what message am I sending to my children by being pushed around? How can I tell my son to stand up for himself if I won’t stand up for him against bullies?
Life as a modern dad is full of these dilemmas. Working from home, I get to spend time with the children — and the dishwasher. As the son of a militant feminist, I was brought up thinking that this was A Good Thing. Yet recently I read a letter in The Times from a woman whose husband had lost his job; she found having him moping around the house all day very unsexy. Is there some deep part of my psyche that feels somehow emasculated?
Statistically, men are far more likely to inflict violence — and to be on the receiving end of it. Like most men, I’m probably more afraid of being thought a wimp than being hurt. I find the thought of these boys sniggering “That chicken — won’t even stand up for his own kids” as I walk away worse than being beaten or stabbed. I approach the two youths, childishly gratified to see the first element of doubt in their eyes.
“Did you just say something to my daughter?” I ask them. There’s a silence that seems to last aeons. I sense them sizing me up, seemingly making what might be a life-changing decision for us all. As I have recently written a report on the prevalence of knife crime in the capital, and several high-profile murders have taken place near by recently, I try to identify suspicious bumps in their clothing.
Finally one shrugs: “No.” To my dismay, my daughter insists that he’s lying, so I repeat the question. Both youths are still eyeing me up but I refuse to back down until they give me that elusive thing I realise I need, pathetically, as much as they do: respect. The boy again denies saying anything, but less emphatically this time. I say something like, “You really better not have done . . .” then trail off, not wanting to make threats I that might not honour.
To my relief, my son charges off. Grabbing my daughter, I run after him. When I look back the youths are still glaring from the swings. As we walk home, the realisation of what I’ve just done sets in. What if they had admitted that they had said something to my daughter? What if they had had knives? Instead of rising above the situation, I have just risked a violent scene in front of my young children.
When I contact Islington Council to complain about a lack of wardens, I am told that the park is not in Islington. I have to e-mail a photograph of the park sign, which has the council’s name on, to prove that it is. In response, they are quick to emphasise the wide array of local resources for young people.
Yet despite these resources, it seems that many teenagers would rather hang around harassing people, many of whom will probably shrug, walk away and think nothing more about it. By confronting the youths, not only have I risked physical violence but, if anything had happened, my kids would have been witnesses and possibly placed in danger themselves. So what is the right thing to do?
The Mayor of London recently advised Londoners — including his own four children — to walk away from trouble rather than get involved. But what would Boris Johnson do if someone picked on his children? I ask the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) what I should have done. The response is predictably anodyne: “The MPS recognises the concern residents have regarding antisocial behaviour. We work closely with other agencies to tackle the problem of youth crime. If anyone witnesses possible offences by youths, we advise them to contact police.”
Here lies my difficulty: were the youths committing an offence or simply being offensive? As I didn’t hear what they supposedly said maybe I should have backed off. But that’s what people do all the time: walk away, surrender our open spaces. The more I think about my actions, the more convinced I am that I did the right thing.
Just to make sure, I consult the clinical psychologist Linda Blair, whose book The Happy Child is published next month. “By approaching those youths you were placing your needs before those of your children,” she says. “By walking away you would have been protecting them and also providing a role model for the future.
“In this sort of situation you need to breathe in, hold it, then let the air out of your mouth. Ask yourself: is my child in immediate danger? If the answer is no, walk away. If they are in danger, you will do the right thing every time to protect your DNA, to preserve your own genetic material.”
On speaking to other parents, the general consensus seems to be that it is safer to turn the other cheek. One mum-to-be I spoke to recalled an experience when she was a child: “Some older boys made fun of me and my friend when we were with my mum. I was about 7. My mum shouted at them and they gave a bit of back chat and walked off. The next time I saw those boys, though, they made fun of me and my mum. I felt so hurt and embarrassed for her. I wished she hadn’t said anything to them in the first place. It has always really stuck in my mind. I think ignoring them is best as they are sad little individuals just trying to amuse their mates.”
Blair also dismisses my crisis of masculinity as nonsense. As she points out, women are just as capable of reacting when their children are threatened. Yet deep down, some immature part of me is glad that I did something to show those youths they can’t push me around.Having said all that, I haven’t returned to the park since.
Mark Piggott’s novel Fire Horses, published by Legend Press, is out now
And here is my response….dont think he liked it much… he certainly didn’t reply!
Below is a reply to Cool SpringsTN from my last post….thought might make a decent post on its own!
It simple really….
For thousands of years all of Gods Creatures learned that they had to have some means of self defense. Man, being good at tool making, learned how to use tools to defend himself against other creatures, and also to hunt prey he might not have been able to otherwise bring down. They only Animal man had any real troubel with was other men. Before recorded history, Men who had not tried to take things from the men that had. The man with the better tool or stronger will prevailed. As time wore on, Man’s tools got better, however the age old struggle between the haves and have nots, continued. As we formed societies, we were generally speaking safer. Have nots had to work together in large groups to overpowere haves and take, which was not always easier, so large attacks becae fewere and far between. Consequently we began to breed people who had never had been attacked by a have not nor ever had to defend themselves. Since this new breed of man did not ever have to defend himself, he came to believe that no one needed to defend themsleves and no longer did people need to use tools for defense. People who realized that have nots still existed and could become a problem again were conciderd barbarians and deemed to have no place in a modern society. These “modern men” reasoned that if they could just get rid of the tools of defense (now called violence) then that would be that. Since they were “modern” and the others were mindless barbarians, the Moderns believed that they should run soceity since they were the only ones truly evolved enough to understand how the world works. It wasnt unitl the 20th century that these “modern men” began to really get into high ranking positions within the society, and have tried to varing degrees to remove the tools of defense from the backwards primatives who clung to them.
Meanwhile, the Have Nots never went away and continue to florish all over the world as the have thorughout the ages. The are most succesful whereever the Haves cannot or will not fight back. While there have always been individidual have nots, there have been many groups of havenots throughout history. It should be noted that “Have nots’ is a vague term for those who will attack others for gain, not nessisarily material gain, often it is power they seek.
Barbary Pirates, Ancient Rome, Nazi Germany, Vikings, Stalinist Russia, the Mafia (yeah, I know there aint no mafia) Drug cartels, Al Quedia, Yakuza, and the Somali pirates are just a few examples of the Have Nots that the Moderns dont believe we need to defend against anymore. You may recognized the “Moderns” as the Democats, Brady Center, The United Nations, VPC, Open soceity, the Million mom March, IANSA, an the British, Austrailian, and Canadian Governmants to name a few
The Primatives would be the NRA, GOA, Me, Libitarians, and pretty much anyone who belives that as a law abiding Have, you possses a God Given right to protect yourself and your family.
Back to your question: Since the “Moderns” have gotten themselves into positions of power, whereby they can dictate to the Primatives how to live, they have decreed that only those who are designated and under the control of the Moderns shall use tools of defense-and then only sparingly. Since their superioirty is ingrained, the Moderns cannot nor willnot accept any information to the contrary. The moderns also believe that the Havenots have some justification for thier actions and that useing tools of defense against them is just plain cruel or will cause more havenots to attack. the Moderns beleieve that if they could juts talk to the havenots, they could just reason with them. Primitives on the otherhand understand that havenots are very simple…if they can take somthign easier than working for it, they will. The answer therefore is to make it too risky to take somthing, and to forever ready to defend against have nots.
So the “Modern” view is that if the ships are armed, then poor misunderstood Somalis will be killed, and the ship will just become a bigger target for larger groups of better armed poor misunderstood Somalies. and more will die. Protecting against pirates should be left to the Navy with thier very tight rules of enagment to ensure that no one gets hurt, especialy the poor misunderstood Somalis
The “Primitive” Veiw is that if you arm the ships with people trained and prepared to use defense tools, it will only take a few attacks before the CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS which is after all what piracy is, learn to find easier prey.
The “Have Not”
veiw is if I can get three or four guys with AK47s aboard one of these big ships, I can make a couple of million dollars for a couple of days work! As long as I dont run into any one better armed than me, We can make a shit load of money!
I hope this explains things better?
While scribbling my last post, it occurred to me to mention a thought that has bothered me and some of my confederates of late.
It should be no secret that the United Nations abhors personal freedoms, and in particular the freedom of Americans to own and use a firearm for self-defence . (Self-defence is called “escalation of violence” in UNspeak) and they are working hard to get a treaty together that would wipe out the second amendment.
What scares the crap out of me is how would the UN enforce its treaty? Probably the same way they have tried throughout their useless existence to enforce other things…by calling in “peacekeepers”
Unless they have a plan to dismantle the Posse Comitatus act (like I would put anything past them), they will not be able to use the American military as “peacekeepers”
This would therefore mean brining in foreign troops onto American Soil to enforce laws against Americans! Imagine divisions of Russian and Chinese troops unloading in Boston Harbor or LaGaurdia airport? How about having to show your papers to Irani soldiers while they search your home?
Go Ahead…tell me it couldn’t happen this way…tell me I am just being paranoid….Believe me I would sleep better if it were truee
The Maersk Alabama gets attacked by pirates not once but twice
The first time they were unarmed and the Captain was kidnapped and under threat of death until Navy Seals “serviced the targets”
The Second time they had an armed team aboard and repelled the pirates
Unarmed = Victim Armed= Non victim
Why is this hard to understand?
Lets see what the International Maritime Organization has to say
61 It should also be borne in mind that shooting at suspected pirates may impose a legal risk for the master, shipowner or company, such as collateral damages. In some jurisdictions, killing a national may have unforeseen consequences even for a person who believes he or she has acted inself defence. Also the differing customs or security requirements for the carriage and importation of firearms should be considered, as taking a small handgun into the territory of some countries may beconsidered an offence.
All I can say is “wow”. In case you were not aware the IMO is a department of the UN and towing the party line that only governements should have guns. Apearently the part where there is an international flotilla of Navy warships from various nations is not bothering the pirates one lick has not made it through the thick heads of the Ambasadors.
2alago’s challenge: When exactly has the Governement possessing all of the weapons and taking them from the citizen’s EVER worked out for the good?
Folks, there is no way I could make this shit up!-2alago
Shopper, 28, asked to prove her age to buy a pizza wheel Saturday, July 25, 2009, 07:305 readers have commented on this story. Click here to read their views. A 28-YEAR-OLD shopper who went into Marks and Spencer to buy a pizza cutter said she was stunned when she was asked to prove her age. Jenny Palmer, of Gower Street, Derby, went into the chain’s Westfield store to buy the £1.50 item. But when she took it to the checkout she was asked to prove she was over 18, despite being two years shy of her 30th birthday. Miss Palmer said she was shocked. The store operates a Challenge 25 policy which requests staff to ask customers for identification for alcohol and bladed items if they appear to be under 25. Miss Palmer said she agreed stores should be vigilant against selling such items to youths but took offence at being asked for ID herself. She said: “I’m 28 and hardly look like I’m going to go out and physically harm someone. I know I don’t look my age but there are times when I buy alcohol and don’t get asked for ID. “I told the checkout woman that I was buying it because I was moving into a new house, but she said her screen was telling her to ask for ID. I think she could have used some common sense.” The health care assistant, who was purchasing kitchen items for a house she had just bought, said identification laws were becoming too strict. A spokesman for Marks and Spencer said it was illegal for stores to sell blades to people under the age of 18, and that the checkout assistant was right to make the request. He said: “Our policy is not to sell knife or bladed articles to persons under 18, and a pizza wheel fits into to that category. “We are committed to not selling such items to persons under 18 and operate a Challenge 25 policy. Under that policy, any customer who looks under 25 will be asked to provide proof of their age. We are a responsible retailer and our customers expect us to be vigilant in providing blades if people appear to be under age.” Miss Palmer said her friends couldn’t believe what happened. “When I told someone at work they just laughed,” she said. “They couldn’t believe I had to show my ID for a pizza cutter of all things”
Let me say first, I am glad Jim Zumbo is back in the hunting world’s good graces.
That said, I’m not sorry he had a rough time of it. I think he had it coming, but I am hopeful that the “hunting family” got a dose of reality from his error.
Prior to his becoming a (temporary)pariah within the shooting world, I had never even heard of him. Come to find out he is this big time hunting Guru been oll over the world and if it lives in the woods he has shot and eaten it. Bully for him!
Then one day he is bloging about how “assault weapons” had no place in hunting and should be banned form the hunting grounds, and how hunters did not want to be “lumped in the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.” This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods” He even went so far as to call them “Terrorist” weapons. The backlash was swift and terrible! In less than a week he was dropped or fired from just about all of his TV shows, columns and endorsements. Anti- gun forces pointed to how fast the ax swung as proof positive that the pro gun people are zealots and essentially ended one of our own to avoid “healthy debate” on the issue. I understand that Mr. Zumbo was on the receiving end of a VERY um….Lively phone call from Uncle Ted Nugent who brought him down to his ranch for “reeducation” I found myself beginning to wonder if it was overkill as well and then it started; Anti-gun politicians and organizations began quoting him and he became their poster child for a renewed assault weapons ban. This was never Jim’s intention, but now he understood why they axed him so fast. His careless words were giving aid and comfort to the enemy!
Remember geometry in school? “All Squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares”? Well my Hunting Brethren across this country would do well to remember that while all hunters are shooters, not all shooters are hunters. I do not now nor do I have any intention to hunt, but as fellow shooters, I support ALL pro-hunting positions and legislation that comes my way, and I allow hunting in the woods behind my house. My firearms are semi-autos (that were banned under the Clinton AWB) and pistols. I shoot at targets at an outdoor range and thats about it. I do belong to the local sportsmens club becuse they own the range I use. I am somewhat of an enigma to them because I am the only member that never shows up to meetings and I dont hunt or fish which they REALLY can’t figure out. Simply put, all firearms owners are in this together and we have to learn to support each other’s rights and sports. The Antis are out to get us all…one at a time until none of us have so much as a BB gun. Your deer rifle is safe today, but tomorow it will be a “High powered sniper rifle” and keep in mind under HR 1022, any weapon that had ever been used by the military or police would be banned as an “assult weapon” Kiss your mossberg 500 goodbye…
Bottom line is this: Hunters are NOT safe from gun control now or ever….just becuse they tell you that hunting arms are not what they are after, you should add the word “Today” to the end of their claims. You need to support ALL Lawful gun owners, All Lawful reasons for ownership, ALL types of guns, ALL the time and Non-Hunter shooters will help you when PETA and their ilk try to get rid of YOUR sport
Comments 5 | Recommend 3
LIMA – When two men knocked on Charesa Smith’s door at 5 a.m. wanting to use her phone last winter, she feared the worst.
She knew about a rash of home invasion robberies happening around the county.
Smith and her husband never let them inside, where they have three young children. They called the Sheriff’s Office, and the men left.
“It broke the safe barrier I had around myself and my house. I felt as if I was violated. They never did anything, but it felt like it could have gotten nasty,” she said.
That incident was enough to spur Smith and her husband to obtain their concealed carry licenses. She now feels safer, she says, especially since she spends a lot of time out alone with her children, who range in age from 10 months to 7 years old, running to the store and appointments.
“It was a safety issue,” she said. “I don’t think the world is as safe of a place as it used to be, and I wanted something to protect my children.”
More people packing
More and more Ohioans are carrying concealed weapons, with an enormous increase this year alone. Most officials attribute that increase to the fear that Barack Obama’s administration in the White House will take away guns, coupled with the struggling economy and an increase in crime.
Through March, Ohio reported 159,000 residents with concealed carry licenses, which represents about 1 percent of the population. Of that number, 16,323 were new licenses issued in the first three months of the year, a number that continues to climb at a high rate.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimates 25 percent of the U.S. population owns a gun of some type, and half the households in the country have at least one gun inside.
Many local counties report doubling or tripling the number of applicants for the first six months of the year compared to all of 2008. In Auglaize County, 92 licenses were issued last year, compared to 295 so far this year. Allen County issued 323 licenses last year, compared to 449 so far this year.
Insight Firearms Training Development instructor Steve Farmer, of Lima, said there’s been an explosion in the number of people taking his class. In previous years, he averaged 15 in his monthly class. During the first five months of the year, he’s had classes as big as 40 people and had to hold two each month to keep up with demand.
Bob Davis, a 64-year-old owner of a small business in Lima, said his job takes him to all areas of town, including those with high crime rates, where he does not feel safe.
“I just can’t tell someone we can’t do your work because you live in a high-crime area,” he said.
Patrick Kennedy, a former police officer who now works as a psychiatric attendant for the state prison system, said he feels safer carrying a gun. That’s especially true since he deals with criminals every day, some of whom threaten to hurt him should they be released.
“I just want to have a choice to carry it to protect myself and my family,” he said.
Best citizens
Farmer said he sees people in class from all walks of life, from doctors and lawyers to factory workers, teachers and preachers.
Farmer, a former police chief who is also a police firearms trainer, said people with concealed carry licenses are among the most law-abiding. He said he rarely came across people with their concealed carry licenses during traffic stops, saying it’s because they follow the law to begin with.
Allen County Sheriff Crish said people with their concealed carry licenses typically are the most law-abiding citizens. Otherwise, they would not have been issued a license.
“We’re not worried about those individuals,” he said.
Benefits of CCW
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, fought to bring concealed carry to Ohio as a state legislator more than five years ago. He said the law levels the playing field and gives good people the chance to protect themselves, deterring crime.
No law is going to stop a bad guy from carrying a gun, but without a law they had more targets to go after with less worry, Jordan said.
“Now they have to stop and think,” he said.
Carrying a gun makes Davis feel as if he has a chance, especially when he hears about robberies where someone shoots the victim for no reason, he said.
“I just don’t want to be in that position,” he said.
Davis also tries to avoid being in a bad situation. He said he would much rather take preventative measures than to risk harm or be put in a position to use his weapon. He’s never had to pull out his gun since he began carrying last year.
“I hope I never have to pull it for any reason, and I wouldn’t look forward to shooting anyone,” he said.
Another aspect of obtaining a license Smith said doesn’t catch the headlines comes through the training. She wanted to have a gun before taking her concealed carry class under Farmer but was reluctant to get a gun without knowing how to safely store and handle it with three children at home.
Farmer worked closely with her to explain options such as gun storage safes and ways to teach children guns are dangerous, she said.
The police view
When the concealed carry concept was first proposed, those against it said it would lead to shootouts or a return to the days of the Wild West.
That has not happened. Police and sheriffs in the region have not recorded a single case.
“Experience has proven it has not created any problems,” Lima Police Department Maj. Kevin Martin said.
Auglaize County Sheriff Al Solomon said he remembers the few who were opposed saying there also would be vigilantism.
“That hasn’t been the issue,” he said.
Solomon, who supports the law, said he hasn’t even had a case of a concealed carry license holder legally shooting someone in self-defense.
Van Wert County Sheriff Stan Owens supports the law, saying there is proof it deters crime. He said carjackings across the country have declined since concealed carry laws hit the books.
“It adds a deterrent. The criminal may be faced with lethal force should he try to rob or harm someone,” Owens said.
Opposition
While concealed carry is gaining popularity and more are doing it, there’s still those who remain opposed.
Doug Pennington, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign, a Washington-based group whose mission is to reduce gun violence through stronger laws, said the campaign is not completely against concealed carry but believes there are too many problems with existing laws.
He said there are numerous examples where a person held a concealed carry license only to get in some type of trouble. The strongest example is a man in Twinsburg, near Cleveland, who shot and killed a police officer last year during a routine traffic stop.
“These things do happen,” he said.
State Rep. Matt Huffman, R-Lima, said exceptions can be found to almost anything. He said he fears that cases such as the one mentioned by Pennington can lead to responses that are not well thought out. He said some miss the point to begin with, that the right to carry a weapon is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
“We shouldn’t willy nilly be getting rid of guns because a tragedy happens. There are more tragedies with automobiles that cause death and injuries than guns,” he said.
Former Allen County Prosecutor David Bowers said the risks of having more guns outweighs the benefits. As a prosecutor, he saw too many accidents and deaths occur by gunfire.
“I don’t think guns are the answer,” he said.
The Ohio State Highway Patrol also remains opposed to concealed carry. After realizing early on it was just a matter of time before it was law, troopers found a way to accept it by offering measures aimed at officer safety, such as the license-holder’s requirement to notify a police officer he is a concealed carrier during a traffic stop, said Lt. Shawn Davis, a spokesman for the state patrol.
Davis said the patrol occasionally comes across concealed carry license-holders who forget to notify the trooper or who are intoxicated.
“Those scenarios are alarming to us,” he said.
Future of CCW
While some want stronger laws, there are those who want the law to provide more options. Farmer wants the option of being able to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol when he’s having a meal with his family but not consuming alcohol. House Bill 203, which Huffman supports, would provide that.
Existing law makes it a crime to carry a gun while intoxicated.
Huffman said there also is a pending bill to loosen the concealed carry license requirement to taking the training course and passing the FBI background check at the time a person purchases a gun. There would be no license to obtain.
Hardin County Sheriff Keith Everhart said the only change he would propose in the law is to have the person qualify with the gun he or she carries, which is a requirement for police in Ohio.
Mercer County Sheriff Jeff Grey, a supporter of concealed carry, said if he could change anything in the law, he allow a sheriff more room to deny someone who may not have landed in jail but has problems.
“That’s the downside, it’s a shall-issue law. I don’t have the ability to deny someone who I think should be denied,” he said.
Martin said Ohio law does allow police or a sheriff to take away a person’s license if there is trouble or a crime is committed.
There also is proposed legislation in Congress on concealed carry that would require states to recognize licenses from other states, similar to driver’s licenses. Its aim is to do away with the confusion that exists when traveling from one state to another, since each state is responsible for making its own concealed carry laws and not all states allow it.
“It’s common sense. There should be some uniformity to concealed carry law so when you move from one jurisdiction to the next, you don’t find out in one state you were fine and in another you’re in violation of the law,” Jordan said.
Jordan said the national bill has an uphill battle, given the Democratic leadership. Even so, it does have support on both sides of the isle, he said.
“It won’t be easy,” he said.
2alago….what? No shootings over parking spaces? No O.K. Corral or Wild West? No blood flowing in the streets?
With the idea that every cloud has a silver lining, I found that I don’t mind the current ammo shortage so much. Every round that is sold out before I get to it means it went to another Lawful American Gun Owner. As long as all the rounds and guns are going to good causes…….
(besides…I stocked up two days after the election!)
