Forum:LUV and AD on guns

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
If you absolutely must get a gun, despite the evidence that a household accident, hasty suicide, or homicide is far more likely than successful defense, then a shotgun is a much better choice than a handgun.
Despite my love of guns, I would never have one in the house. Sufficient precautions to render it safe would also make it useless in a defense situation.--ADtalkModerator 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
@ AD I recognize that the cost in blood is too high, and there is no practical purpose.that would not be better served by a different gun. -- You cannot think of a single practical purpose where a semiauto handgun would not outperform a singleshot hunting rifle? What about self defense against a raper or murder in the home? I am sympathetic to your intent and reasoning, but not to such brazen dishonesty. At least go with your original good implied argument that "the purported benefits (if any) of self defense cost too much blood". LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
See above. Pepper spray is what I have in my home, complemented by hand weapons and sensible precautions.--ADtalkModerator 06:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain your reasoning to me please about how a shotgun is a more effective home self defense weapon than a handgun? All of the reasoning I have heard on this issue squarely disagrees with you. Also, you are surely not comparing the effectiveness of a gun to pepper spray. Please don't dig the hole deeper. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're being so nasty to me, calling me "brazenly dishonest" and "digging the hole deeper." Try polite disagreement and intelligent discussion, before invective, maybe?
When considered for home defense, you want to be able to warn your assailant off so you don't actually need to shoot. If you are familiar with firearms, then you know that a Glock's "cocking" (which is actually not really necessary) is a significant click, and a wheelgun's cocking is only somewhat more distinctive. Racking the slide on a shotgun, on the other hand, is an immediate and frightening sound that is readily-identified. If you can scare off your attacker effectively, you have won.
If you do have to shoot, you want to make sure you hit your target, whereas killing power is less important. Very few assailants will press an attack if hit with a charge of buckshot, preferring instead to flee. A shotgun, as less lethal (when charged with shot rather than a slug, as it should be) is thus again an advantage, especially when you consider the likelihood of a mistaken target (a frequent occurrence). It is preferably to only wound your uncle, not kill him, if you shoot him accidentally.
Next, you have the theft possibility. Because handguns are easily concealed and convenient, they are frequent targets for theft. Shotguns are less frequently stolen, and accordingly less likely to be taken and sold and end up in a crime. In your home, solidity is more useful than concealment, because it's your home.
I am hard-pressed to think of really any situation in which a handgun would be better, except perhaps if a child wanted to take out a handgun and play with it. A S&W .44 is heavy, but less heavy than a full-stock Remington shotgun.--ADtalkModerator 06:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
So, you do not consider the length as a detriment while navigating narrow corridors such as a home? You also seem ok with throwing the less physically capable to the wolves, older and infirm people who might have more trouble handling a heavier shotgun compared to a lighter handgun. You also neglect the benefit of leaving a hand free, such as to operate lights, doors, a phone to 911, etc. Are you talking about a pump shotgun by the way? I can easily make an argument that a higher rate of fire of a semiauto handgun would be a benefit in self defense. If you miss with the pump shotgun then you cannot shoot again, and not everyone is an expert marks-person under pressure. I am also aware of the deterrent effect of the pump action of a shotgun, and other cocking mechanisms. However, I think you grossly overestimate the window of opportunity that you could employ that if you are faced with an attacker. Usually when I hear about such things it's with the police before attacking a criminal in a situation where both sides are holding. Finally, you have been throwing out strawman (pepper spray) and attempting to redirect the conversation to the issues you want (you're more likely to accidentally shoot an innocent instead of an attacker), instead of what is the most effective weapon when faced with an attacker in the home, which gives me some justification for the "dishonest" comment, though perhaps that was premature. You haven't been earning my trust though. The fact remains that handguns are the most common weapon purchased for home self defense. Do you know why that is, considering that shotguns are probably easier to obtain? Do you think this is some vast conspiracy? Or that all gun owners are just that ignorant about what is the best weapon of choice? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Again: you don't have to be a prick to me just because we disagree. I don't want to throw anyone "to the wolves," and I am not trying to throw out straw men. I have not declared any vast conspiracies, so your contempt there is also "premature."
Yes, barrel length is an issue with a shotgun, and one of the downsides, and so is the weight. However, I think this is vastly outweighed by the other aspects. Overpenetration is another aspect. A salt charge or anything less than #1 buck is not going to go through most walls, and won't hurt anyone that much even if it did. A .44 slug is going right through, and maybe hitting someone next door. The moderate increase in unwieldiness in a shotgun is not really a decisive factor, when considered overall.
You should not be attempting to call 911 while shooting your shotgun. Make the call, then assume a ready position.
If someone is elderly, they might have trouble handling a shotgun - but then they're also going to have trouble with the kick of anything much over .22. Frankly, I'm not sure the very old or very disabled have many good options. The slice of people who are capable of intelligently handling a gun at that age, but not physically capable of handling a shotgun, is going to be very very very small.
I agree that it is very easy to shoot off a number of hasty shots with a handgun, yes. That is not a good thing. It is possible you might need to fire several times to hit your assailant, but - as I already said - it is much, much easier to hit your target with buckshot than with a bullet. It is also much, much easier to aim a shotgun. Go to the range and try it sometime, and compare first-shot targets at ten yards.
You seem to be positing a situation where an armed criminal is attacking you or your family. I should point out that this is by far the least likely circumstance a gun owner will face. It is much more likely that an intruder is a robber who will be frightened away, and also likely they are themselves unarmed. And many times more likely than any of these circumstances is the situation of the gun being used in a hasty and very effective suicide, being part of an accident that hurts, maims, or kills you or a loved one, or stolen and used in a crime. If you want to keep your family safe, getting a gun is a poor decision.
I'm not sure why you consider pepper spray to be a straw man. It is effective and debilitating. The main hindrance is that you inevitably also get yourself a little, even if you use it well.
Oh, and I'm not sure why many more people have handguns. Perhaps because handguns are much more fun to own? Are you arguing that because many more people have handguns, therefore they are more effective and I am wrong?--ADtalkModerator 07:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I am forced to conclude that you have no clue what you're talking about. You make some of the classic mistakes of people who have only played Call Of Duty and think that they know what they're talking about. The best spread of a shotgun you're likely to see at short range is quite small. Google suggests at best 4 inch spread at 10 ft, and 10 ft is longer than what a lot of engagements in this scenario will be. The higher rate of fire of a semiauto clearly wins here. -- Next is that rock salt is largely ineffective against human targets. [1] If the target can be scared off by a pump action noise or a rock salt load, it can surely be scared off by just yelling "I've called the police". Also, a rock salt load is a horrible idea from a legalistic standpoint. If you shoot someone with rock salt, that is considered assault with a deadly weapon, with intent to kill, by the current standards. Thus, you need to be shooting when you feel that your life is in imminent danger, and frankly, if you genuinely feel your life is in imminent danger, you should be shooting to incapacitate and kill, not to scare them with rock salt. Shooting early with rock salt is a great way to ensure that you're the one going to prison. -- The point of the matter is that the inherent killing power of the firearm is what makes it effective at self defense. As you lower the killing power, then you lower its effectiveness at self defense, as you so rightfully note by comparing it to pepper spray. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The spread is going to depend on your load. But I'd say 4-10" is probably a likely size at ten feet. Thank you for helping establish that point. Incidentally, in case you hadn't noticed (even though I've said) I am a previous gun owner (not allowed where I am or else I still would be). Please stop being such an asshole to me personally, just because you disagree.
Salt charges are not intended to kill or even wound, but just scare away the assailant. I mentioned it as an option, but you appear to have seized upon that point - not sure why. If you really want to be able to maim or kill someone, you can load #1 and do so easily. If you do want to use rock salt, though I'm not sure "ice cream salt" is the best choice or a good test.
I agree that often you do not need a gun to scare off an intruder, and can just shout and call the police. Thank you.
Tell you what: I agree that if you are in a firefight in your home and your intentions are to kill another human being, the handgun is probably the best choice. I'm just not sure why you have consistently ignored every other factor. Are you just not reading my whole comments? Because, as I said, a gun in the house is much more likely to lead to suicide, a terrible accident, or a theft than successful defense. Children do not kill each other with pepper spray. No one ever overpenetrated their wall with pepper spray. No one ever "stood their ground" against someone to death with pepper spray.
Yes, pepper spray is less lethal than a gun. That is a good thing. Death is bad. Especially for me and my loved ones and the neighbors, but also for the assailant, who is likely just after my television or jewelry.
What problem are you trying to solve?--ADtalkModerator 07:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Here, let's just cut to the chase. You think that genuine scenarios where you actually need a functioning lethal firearm are so rare as to be irrelevant and outweighed by the great harm of having a handgun in the house (and gun violence, etc.). That's the summary of your position. Please just say that in the future instead of forcing us to go through this obtuse maze of reasoning. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
To quote myself from earlier: "If you want to keep your family safe, getting a gun is a poor decision." I have only ever answered your bile-filled questions.
If you feel that your reasoning is obtuse, I'd suggest preparing an outline of your thoughts before you begin writing, and consider what issues you are trying to address.--ADtalkModerator 07:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
10 inch spread at 10 feet? What kind of shotgun are you using? A sawed off shotgun? The point of the matter is that you have been dishonest in this argument, and I find it irritating. You made the claim that you cannot think of a scenario where handguns are more effective than shotguns. I brought up an example of self defense. You then proceeded to "win" the debate via a No True Scotsman by narrowly defining self defense to exclude the very scenarios where you need to kill someone. You turned the debate back into "you're more likely to hurt yourself than an assailant", dodging the question entirely. I call that evidently dishonest. If this is "bile", then I hesitate to see how you would react to actual bile. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not a "no true scotsman" to assess the various possibilities of a self-defense scenario. It would instead be an example of such a fallacy so as to pick only the least likely case, disregard all other factors, and call that the real "self-defense" situation. Golly, who might have done that?
I am exiting this argument. Here, though, let me help: you are completely right and I am completely wrong. The actual statistics are irrelevant - suicide, accident, theft. All that's relevant is that in one particular possible scenario of a self-defense situation, and when ignoring everything else, a handgun would more effectively end human life.
Ah, such a warm glow.--ADtalkModerator 08:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
That's nice. Attempt to win the point on the technicality, don't own up to your dishonesty. You should have said up front "I believe the risks of a lethal firearm outweigh the benefits associated with self defense" instead of leading me on that you were serious about discussing shooting intruders. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, do you have any reliable statistics that gun ownership actually increases the risk of death, broken down by accidental shooting outside of self defense, suicide, and during self defense? Moreover an attempt to account for the confounding variable of those living in higher crime areas might have higher gun ownership rates? Frankly, IMHO it's dishonest to quote those statistics without clarifying the numbers attributable to suicide, and it seems that they make up quite a large number. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Because you keep shrieking about this, I will unwillingly re-engage. You can again assume the persona of grizzled defense expert who googles spread, and I will be the poor ignorant naif who doesn't know that ice cream salt is a terrible load.
Here is a study about guns in the home, conducted in 2004. The literature review first describes the past findings:
[P]revious researchers have used case-control study methodology to evaluate the relation between gun ownership and risk of a violent death in the home. For example, Kellermann et al. (13, 14) examined the relation between gun ownership and injury outcomes. After they controlled for a number of potentially confounding factors, the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8) (13) and an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7) (14). Other case-control studies have also found an increased risk of suicide for those with firearms in the home, with relative risks ranging from 2.1 to 4.4 (15–19).
Some studies have specifically examined the association between purchase of a handgun and risk of a violent death (20, 21). In a case-control study of members of a large health maintenance organization, Cummings et al. (20) found that a history of family handgun purchase was associated with an elevated risk of both homicide and suicide. Wintemute et al. (21) reported similar findings for suicide in a population-based cohort study of persons who had purchased a handgun in California.
The limitations on these past findings are that they are Americentric, had small samples, and failed (in the view of these authors) to adequately control for other factors. This study was intended to overcome some of these deficiencies, and found that owning a gun was associated with an increased homicide factor (1.9!), perhaps because more than 75% of victims knew their killer and the gun was readily at hand. Suicide rates also went up hugely - 5.6 overall without adjustment, but with adjustment it was 10.4 for men and 2.3 for women. Thus:
The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death. This finding was particularly the case for males, who in general have higher rates of completed suicide than females do. The findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous research (14, 20, 23, 24), although, when compared with suicide, are not as strong. Studies that have examined the risk of either violent victimization or perpetration at the individual level show relative risks between 1.4 and 2.7 (14, 20, 23, 24). Our findings are also in this range.
Our findings also suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the chance that a homicide or suicide in the home will be committed with a firearm rather than by using other means. Victims of suicide living in homes with guns were more than 30 times more likely to have died from a firearm-related suicide than from one committed with a different method. Guns are highly lethal, require little preparation, and may be chosen over less lethal methods to commit suicide, particularly when the suicide is impulsive. Suicidal persons may also be more likely to acquire a gun to commit suicide and, given the lethality of the weapon, are more likely to complete suicide, although the evidence on this point is mixed (20–22).
For victims of homicide, there was also a strong association between guns in the home and risk of dying from a firearm-related homicide, but this risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. These deaths may have been related to domestic violence or to other interpersonal disputes either involving them or someone else in the household. The majority of victims knew their assailant, suggesting that the assailant was either a family member or was acquainted with the victim or victim’s family and less likely to be an unknown intruder.
I am shortly going to move this to a forum.--ADtalkModerator 21:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

bait and switch[edit]

Look, I don't really want nor care anymore to talk about guns with you. You don't know what you're talking about, so it's a waste of time. We also disagree on values so vehemently, that I also see little purpose doing that.

However, I do want to try to ask you honestly about this one thing. You earlier responded to someone other than me: "So you cannot attack me personally, like ToP, and say that I am arguing from ignorance when I tell you that I would immediately, if possible, outlaw handguns and semi-automatics. Because as fun as they are, I recognize that the cost in blood is too high, and there is no practical purpose.that would not be better served by a different gun.". Surely it's reasonable to assume that "gun" means "instrument which is used to shoot lead or steel or other metal to wound, maim, and kill people", right? Because right after that, we began a conversation where you initially backed up that position - arguing about spread, ease of hitting the target, etc., make (pump action) shotguns a better weapon than handguns. However, you slowly eased back on your position that the shotgun is a better firearm, and eased into the position that non-lethal firearms are better than lethal firearms. I believe that is an accurate assessment of the conversation, which means that you did do a bait and switch with your initial comment that "there is no practical purpose.that would not be better served by a different gun.". If you cannot see this as a bait and switch, then you really are either so wound up in this conversation that you are completely unwilling and unable to give even an inch, or you are utterly incapable of parsing English at a high school level. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The conversation has certainly changed somewhat as it progressed, but solely in response to your own eagerness to seize on perceived error. If you read this page, you can see my first response to your challenge was to speak of pepper spray, and we only moved to shotgun v pistol when you directly asked me about it. It is difficult for me to see a switch on my part, when I have answered your challenges as they came (accompanied by shrill abuse). Resolution to your shrieking came halfway through, as I said, "I agree that if you are in a firefight in your home and your intentions are to kill another human being, the handgun is probably the best choice. I'm just not sure why you have consistently ignored every other factor." If that was all you wanted to discuss, then, um, you win? You kept arguing, apparently because that wasn't satisfactory and you needed to prove me "wrong," by making me out to have argued under false pretenses or claiming I was "[a]ttempting to win the point on the technicality, [not owning] up to your dishonesty."
But whoops, I have numbers and science! You don't really want to discuss those stats you demanded! You are far too upset about the "point" I won "dishonestly!"--ADtalkModerator 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I still have not expressed my actual position on gun control, and I do not plan to. You're welcome to talk about gun control, gun safety, and so on. I do not want to, especially with you. I never demanded the statistics - I asked, as an aside. And to hell with focusing on who won. I'm pissed off that you engaged in dishonest debate tactics, and continue to refuse to acknowledge it, and refuse to offer apology. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
An "aside"? It was a whole paragraph-long response! You just saw another shiny that you thought might not be backed up, maybe giving you the chance to score another "point," huh?
What a poor delicate flower.--ADtalkModerator 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
"you can see my first response to your challenge was to speak of pepper spray, and we only moved to shotgun v pistol when you directly asked me about it" - Unfortunately, your move missed some of the conversation. I will give the benefit of the doubt and say it was accidental. My first post was an immediate reply to where you said ":If you absolutely must get a gun, despite the evidence that a household accident, hasty suicide, or homicide is far more likely than successful defense, then a shotgun is a much better choice than a handgun.". I think you need to stop being dishonest to yourself and to me. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for potentially repeating myself. Let me put it like this. You first made the claim that shotguns are better than handguns for home self defense. This claim was very clearly made. I thought this claim was factually false, so I addressed it. You performed a bait and switch, and more or less bitched at me for calling you dishonest, with the justification that you are unchallenged and correct on the completely separate issue of whether guns for home self defense are a good idea. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Why didn't you read what you added?
"If you absolutely must get a gun, despite the evidence that a household accident, hasty suicide, or homicide is far more likely than successful defense, then a shotgun is a much better choice than a handgun.
Despite my love of guns, I would never have one in the house. Sufficient precautions to render it safe would also make it useless in a defense situation."
Clearly I've been saying the same goddamn thing from the start, but also obligingly answering your demands, despite your attitude - and even complying with requests for numbers and stats about which you do no even care, but were only demanding to try to find some way you could "win!"
Goddamn, you're tedious. If you don't actually give a shit, why waste my time? Go "win" elsewhere- maybe someone accidentally described eggshell white as off-white. That'd be a debate worthy of your obsession with "winning."--ADtalkModerator 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
And I still haven't even seen a good justification of that. Try again - why is a shotgun better than a handgun for home self defense? Because you can render the shotgun into a not-firearm ala rock salt and slower rate of fire? And you don't see the dishonesty here? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to start repeating this whole thing when you've confessed you don't care - you're just interested in some bizarre rhetorical triumph. Reread re: ease of aim, overpenetration, theft prevention, lower lethality, and other factors. Work on your comprehension, and try reading content instead of looking for ways to score points.--ADtalkModerator 02:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I confessed I don't care whether it's a good idea to have a gun in the house or not, and argued that it's orthogonal to the issue at hand. You seem to think it's relevant. Thus this is a point under contention. I can grant you that having a lethal firearm in the house is a bad idea. Let's see where that takes us. -- I actually talked to a gun nut friend of mine. He agrees that it's much easier to aim a longarm, so that is a point in your favor. Your rock salt idea is still beyond retarded for the aforementioned reasons - it's still lethal at close range, and you can't use it pre-emptively if you want to avoid jail. Funnily enough, you seem to think that buckshot is less lethal than a bullet. My gun nut friend who knows several ER doctors assures me otherwise. In their experience, you have a decent chance of living after a single bullet wound, but if you took most of a shotgun shot blast esp. in the torso area, you're going to die. The question is whether you're going to be dead on arrival or dead a couple hours later. You're simply wrong that the shotgun is less lethal than a handgun, except with the aforementioned lol rock salt. -- Funnily enough, I thought you had no clue what you were talking about at the 10 in. spread comment, but my gun nut friend broke down when I mentioned using the pump action noise as intimidation. Meh, I guess I always can't be a winner. -- You know there are bullets designed for guns that try to lessen overpenetration, right? -- So, overall: ease of aim, you win. Overpenetration you slightly win. Theft prevention seems to be bullshit and a red herring. Lower lethality you're actually just in fantasy land. Overall, I guess you did a meh job at defending your point. I'm satisfied now. -- By the by, my gun nut friend was hard pressed decide between a handgun and a shotgun, but his reasoning was slightly different. It was that shotgun shot wounds are much more incapacitating and lethal, the rate of fire is almost as good as a semiauto, and the shotgun is easier to aim, but the handgun is easier to maneuver and harder to disarm. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Buckshot needs to be less than #1 to be less lethal than a slug, as I said. With that cleared up, perhaps you will note that your sneering and vicious attitude makes you look like even more of an ass than you would have been if you'd only been completely wrong, rather than completely wrong and a huge prick about it.--ADtalkModerator 23:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess I was pissed at some of the lesser tangible points. I still really feel that you were and are dishonest when you claimed that X gun is better than X gun for self defense, when some of your premises are that no one should have a gun for self defense, and you are unwilling to kill someone in self defense. In your defense and against me, you were open with this points relatively early in the conversation. I fixated. However, your premises skews your results into finding the least effective firearm that you can, and relying on a mishmash of both good and fantasy arguments. For example, you are the one who suggested that maybe you should shoot someone with rock salt to scare them off, which is exactly the position one would expect from a gun nut because of how amoral and legally stupid it is. Yet you are the one who made it. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I accept your apology. Oh wait, you're clinging by your fingernails to the only remaining shinies that just might make you the "winner." Class act.--ADtalkModerator 23:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Meh. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm just asking that you either justify your claim that shotguns are better than handguns, or that you explicitly retract the claim. Ideally an admittance too that you keep trying to shift the discussion from what I have been talking about - handguns vs shotguns - to your personal favorite pet topic - guns are evil - and furthermore that such red herrings are not the most honest thing to do in a discussion. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

After reading ths block of text I came to the conclusion that it might be rather the exemplified thickness, that persistent desire to "win" the argument, that whole culture of confrontation rather cooperation that might be the root of your violence problem and not so much your gun culture. My two cents--Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 23:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting conversation, I can see the points that both sides have and a slight evolution of what [User:AD|AD] has said. Both sides should not be afraid to admit they are partially wrong and compromise for the common goal. Man of Perspective (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have bent over backwards, repeatedly, to say that there are plenty of plausible, compelling arguments that we should not have individual gun ownership. Perhaps my tone could use a little work, and definitely my approach, but otherwise I do not see what is wrong. I do know I sound like as ass now, and I will especially sound like an ass when I ask "What could I do better, really, specifically?" LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As I have explained elsewhere, I used to be in policy debate. I quit the team, and did not pursue it, largely because formal policy debate is focused on winning instead of being right, of finding truth. I fully admit to being a perfectionist, and I will argue any point into the ground if I feel that I am right, unless of course I have been demonstrated to be wrong. I will make no apologies for that. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)