Cliff LyonGun Lobby Stages Press Club Event: Buses in Bible Thumpers with Pimples
C-Span has been airing a forum hosted by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus called Handguns on College Campuses. The thesis is “More Guns, Less Crime”
I’ve been taking notes from time to time. Here they are in rough.
*Best I could tell, the audience was comprised of about 25 well-pimpled bible thumpers.
John Lott spoke first. He’s probably the biggest whore (Alan Korwin is a distant second) and financial beneficiary of the pro-gun hype and hysteria. For those of you who don’t know, in 1998 Lott published the infamous book More Guns Less Crime. The NRA used it as their bible.
It was and is the most shameless, inaccurate, piece of pro-gun propaganda imaginable for an actual professor of a major University. It has been thoroughly discredited across the board, including by people in the pro-gun lobby. He is a serious freak show. Since then, he’s made some of the most ridiculous arguments on women’s liberation, abortion, and any other right-wing cause that gets him speaking gigs.
In his speech today, all Lott does is give us lots of anecdotes. All of them relate to multiple victim public shooting (MPVS) events that are so rare as to be statistically irrelevant.
He says, in States with right to carry laws, MPVS events were reduced by 40%. Then he says 40% of school shootings have been prevented by people with other guns.
Since both events occurs so infrequently (probably less than 1 per year) in most states…well, you can see how shallow these guys are, or at least how stupid they think their adoring fans are.
Paul Hemke from the Brady Campaign followed. Turns out, he is the only gun control guy all day.
Paul says, cops only hit their target 20% of the time. (Is that true JD?)
He counters Lott’s Kirkwood MO, shooting anecdote which involved a guy who took a gun from a cop, ran into the courtroom, shot another cop by reminding us the shooter was actually subdued by someone throwing a chair at him.
While Lott tried to argue that Concealed Carry Permit (CCP) holders appear to be trustworthy. Hemke reminds of all the times a CCP holder has shot a cop, his wife, or himself.
99.99999% of classroom time on college campuses is free of gun violence. With binge drinking 50% higher than non-college kids, the high rate of college suicide by guns, and the difficulty of securing a handgun, the very notion that anyone is safer by having more guns on campus is so ridiculous as to be criminally and materially deficient.
Lotts rebuttle:
Lott says, “The problem with gun free zones is the cops are taken out first.” He uses Israel and terrorism as an example. I would be insulted if someone asked me to take that comparison seriously.
The problem with this argument, is that in these kinds of cases (ESPECIALLY with terrorists), the shooter WANTS to die, so the likelihood that someone nearby has a gun is hardly a deterrent.
Lott actually argues that very few CCP holders ever have their permits revoked. I’m not sure how that is relevant to anything.
The rest of the day were panels of all pro-gun people. As a group they were all fairly morose looking, and most either angry or seemed afraid of the world.
I’m gonna end this with a classic example of a stupid argument. This guy, the head of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, complains that most companies forbid employees from keeping guns locked in their cars because the insurance companies don’t like it. So he’s pushing legislation that would wave companies from the associated liability.
One would think if hand guns were so damn safe, insurance companies would be promoting them. I’ve yet to see an insurance company unwilling to make a good bet.
So Bill S, my friend. How much more evidence do you need that more hand guns = more death and injury?
Just follow the money.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I guess that you can judge for yourself if the effects are statistically significant, see Lott, John R. and Landes, William M.,Multiple Victim Public Shootings(October 19, 2000). Also you got some of your numbers wrong. Lott said that there was a 60 percent drop in the rate of attacks, not 40%. He also said that almost 25 percent of the public school shootings were stopped by people with guns before uniformed police were able to arrive.
Could you point to your evidence that he is a financial beneficiary of being pro-gun?
August 1st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I agree that most of those who do these attacks want to die. My own research finds that about 75 percent of these killers die at the scene, and that does explain why normal law enforcement that punishes people after the fact doesn’t work in this case. However, the goal of these nuts is to harm as many people as possible and the faster you can get a gun on the scene the more you can limit the harm and take away them accomplishing their warped goal. If you read the paper linked in the previous comment you will get a more detailed discussion of that.
BTW, there were a lot more than 25 people there. Also given that there was no discussion of religion, I am not sure what you could infer about people’s religious views.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Cliff,
I’ve tried to stay out of this lest I cause you to lose your composure and call me names again, but since you put it up I’ll reply.
I’ll work it in sections. Let’s start with this quote:
First, do you have a source that that claim of 99.99999% of classroom time is free of gun violence? I also notice that you only talk about class room time, but people spend more time on campus then in class. You seem to be trying to imply that colleges are nearly completely crime free.
Second, I notice you limit it to “gun violence”, how about violence that doesn’t involve guns?
Let’s look at some numbers, here is the link
Check the link out, but for brevity, I’ll only list On Campus crime stats.
Aggravated Assaults 2001 - 3,176 2002 - 3,070 2003 - 3,050
Arson Total 2001 - 1,204 2002 - 1,103 2003 - 1,060
Burglary 2001 - 28,142 2002 - 29,304 2003 - 29,125
Robbery 2001 - 2,142 2002 - 2,193 2003 - 2,086
Murder/Manslaughter 2001 - 18 2002 - 23 2003 - 10
Forcible Sex Offenses 2001 2,206 2002 - 2,350 2003 -2,581
Not quite the crime free environment you tried to portray, is it?
And those are just the crime stats that occur on campus. How many occur on the way to or from college?
Second, let’s address the young students issue. Most states, if not all (anyone?) require people to be 21 or over to even purchase a handgun. So there are a couple of years for the “youths” to age and gain a little maturity.
Then there is the issue of adults returning to college. Who do you think is more likely to take the time to get a concealed carry permit, the young college student only out to party or the more responsible and usually older college student?
Approximately 37% of all college students are 25 years old or older according to the census.
I was one of those. I started college at 22, took a long time to finish my associates degree, then only 20 months to get my bachelors, god bless accelerated programs. I was 39 when I finished up. Why should folks like me be forced to disarm when we walk onto a campus?
Next let’s move how many students live on campus. According to American Council of Education, in 2001 only 20% of all students lived on campus. That means 80% of all college students have to commute in one form or another. So, even if college campuses were absolutely safe, people have to get to them and back often through parts of town that aren’t the safest. Again, why should they have to be disarmed to travel?
Hmm, what else? How about the professors, administrative personnel, support personnel? Are they young people out of control that can’t be trusted with firearms? Usually not, but because of the laws, they too are disarmed and prevented from carry an effective means of defense.
By the way, I noticed that a couple of times today my comments were stuck awaiting moderation. I think one still hasn’t appeared. I don’t think it is a deliberate focus on me, just something to bring to your attention. You have been remarkably good about allowing most posts.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
This is fun and fascinating. Take a time out and check it out.
Some people are living better than this entirely stupid shit.
/restoran.us/trivia/unusual.htm
August 3rd, 2008 at 7:14 am
Hi Bob,
I noticed some of your post go caught in moderation. I apologize for that. Its nothing about you, it just happens sometimes for reasons I cannot decipher.
August 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 am
Dear Bob S and John Lott,
I think statistics are great, but not proportionally relevant in terms of saving lives.
The discussion I blogged about was based upon the premise that more guns means less crime.
Obviously, the debate is old and tired and so desperately stupid argument that few will debate with you. I think you understand why.
I wrote about the forum because I was struck by how pathetic the whole thing was — John Lott especially. Lott is smart enough to know that the numbers do not support an argument for having more guns on campus.
I went to college. I saw more crazy drunkiness almost 24 hours a day than I can fully appreciate even today. The idea that some corn fed Bubba on his 15th beer might be within 5 miles of a loaded gun is frightening enough.
And I don’t mean to single out Iowa farm boys. I found the New England prep schools boys were the craziest, smarter, but crazier.
When I was there, UVM was in the top ten party schools nationwide which didn’t surprise me. There were open keg parties all the time everywhere.
Yep, I thought UVM was crazy. Then my cousin enrolled at Middlebury a hundred miles down the road and I began to go visit. I tell you, these even SMARTER and richer boys were even crazier.
I walked into a dorm room quarters game one night. These guys had taken it to the next level. After a couple too many penalty beers, they would go to the bathroom and purge so they could keep going.
It was insane. At any given frat party, there were always fights, outrageous demonstrations of pushing the envelope like jumping off roofs, over-turning cars. And their were LOTS of other drugs, and people passed out in the grass AND snow.
John Lott argued that the prevention of even one death at Virginia Tech, justifies more guns on campus (not a very scientific argument)
I would argue that one less homicide due to the banning of guns on campus…
Bob S, if you are really interested in statistics, look at campus death from over-intoxication, drug overdose and suicide and then you may understand why no intelligent person would seriously entertain the idea of allowing concealed hand guns on campus.
Its bad policy and bad business. Actually Bob, its FUCKING STUPID.
Any real college that allowed guns on campus would lose enrollment so fast it would be out of business in a week.
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Cliff,
You ignore completely what I posted, dismissing it as statistics. That’s the problem, looking past what is presented, seeing only the points that you want to discuss.
Is drinking a problem at colleges and universities, yes. I’ll admit some students drink.
Are there irresponsible students attending colleges and universities, yes I’ll admit.
Question becomes how many of those students even eligible to carry a firearm legally? Note that legally portion, if they are so irresponsible or so criminally minded they can carry anyways and there is little that can be done to stop it.
Isn’t that the point that Cho and the other campus shooters made? Nothing stopped them from carrying weapons onto the campus and committing murder. NOTHING.
The statistics I cited tried to point out that the majority of those eligible to carry concealed don’t meet your drunken irresponsible underage stereotype.
The argument I hear in your statements is this: Because someone, somewhere, might sometime mis-use something; nobody should be allowed to have that item. Isn’t that what it boils down to?
If that is the case, why not address more immediate issues like drinking and drive, heck just drinking. As you say there are too many deaths due to over-intoxication; why not ban drinking for everyone under 25, 30, 35?
At what age do we let people take responsibility for their own actions?
What else do we ban because someone might mis-use it? Knives- someone some where has stabbed someone…let’s ban all knives.
Someone somewhere has used a car to run over, run someone off the road, run into them, etc; let’s ban all cars?
Please explain to me why I as a 30 something year old, working on my bachelors degree after 4 years in the Air Force; attending an One night of the week accelerated program while working full time, maintaining my own apartment, paying my own bills; should be considered to irresponsible to be allowed to carry concealed on campus?
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Cliff,
Thanks for the response on the moderation. As I stated, I didn’t take it personally for I have not seen that type of response from you or this site.
You and I may disagree on much, but I do recognize your commitment to maintaining an open discussion. It is appreciated.
I wanted to say something as a way of feedback so you could be aware of the issues. Nothing more. Thanks again for keeping an open site.
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
“John Lott argued that the prevention of even one death at Virginia Tech, justifies more guns on campus (not a very scientific argument)”
Sorry, but where do you make up these claims from? This argument makes as much sense as saying we should have gun control if it saves even one life. What I said in the debate on Friday was that guns make it easier for bad things to happen, but they also make it easier for people to defend themselves. We all care about the net effect on lives saved. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
” Lott is smart enough to know that the numbers do not support an argument for having more guns on campus.”
The first comment to your post actually links to my research on this subject. If you have something coherent to say about why it is wrong, please do so.
As far as I can tell, those are the only two responses you have to my work and comments.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Cliff,
Let’s continue the de-construction of your post, shall we?
This isn’t quiet true, the criminal wants to die after shooting enough people to make the news. That is a big difference then what you said. Suicide by cop is the issue that correctly describes what you pointed out.
The criminal wants to be remembered as the person who did Columbine or Virginia Tech ( I refuse to name the criminals because of that very reason). They don’t want to be around to face the consequences of their actions. The criminals are usually stopped one of two ways; by a armed resistance or they run out of victims or time and shoot themselves.
There are a few cases of a criminal being stopped by unarmed resistance but those are very few.
Next let’s talk about these two statements:
It is readily apparent when putting the two statements together why it is a valid issue. The anti-gun groups are always crying that allowing people to carry will cause “Blood in the streets” (TM), “Wild West shoot outs” (TM), and dozens of other tired mantras that just don’t happen.
So is it a valid argument to say that those who take the time to legally carry a firearm are more or less likely to commit crimes? To me, it is valid to ask is someone carrying a gun is more likely to cause trouble.
I don’t know about other states in particular, but here are some stats from Texas
Total Offenses –61,539 CHL holders - 140 Percentage 0.2275%
Most of the convictions were under 1%, a couple were higher but those are either due to very low number of convictions or the crimes are primarily things that affect CHL holders more.
The Population of Texas in 2006 was estimated at 23,507, 783, with 258, 162 CHL holders. As you can see, with 1.1% of the population CHL holders only had .22 % of the convictions. Strong indications that license holders are generally more law abiding then the general population. About 5 times less likely to commit a crime.
Given that overall law abiding nature, is it common sense to say those who take the time to legally carry are likely to be the drunken out of control college students? Nope.
So why should their rights stop at the edge of campus?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Bob S,
You certainly are one persistent bastard.
I only mentioned Lotts characterization of CPP holders (as trustworthy) BECAUSE it is so irrelevant.
Let simplify this.
You are a sophomore at bucolic 4 year Jesuit college in Alabama (its hot), returning from summer vacation with your new licensed hand gun and a CCP.
You arrive at your dorm room unpack your things. Your new roommate is not there yet. You are in a hurry to get to the pool party and enjoy the last few hours of total freedom before classes start the next day.
As you put on your swim trunks and gather your towel, t-shirt, and sunscreen, you realize you’ve got to do something with your gun.
What do you do with your gun? Do you take it to the party? What if you wanna go swimming? Do you hide it in your dorm room?
Its a dilemma. Today could be the next Virginia Tech. You could be the hero. It is after all the reason your Dad (bob) gave you the gun.
Or do you hide it in your room and go to the pool blending in with the rest of the normal students not carrying a loaded handgun?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Cliff,
First, a typical sophomore would not be eligible to carry concealed. 2 years out of high school at 18 would put that person at 20, not 21 years old.
Second, the responsible gun owner has at least 1 product to secure his/her firearms. So anyone planning on carrying in a dorm would have thought of that and provided a way to secure a firearm. There are many products on the market, like this one or this one
There are products to lock a firearm up in your car also, since many kids in college have cars. Double the protection, locked case inside a locked car.
So, next distraction.
You raised the issue, not once but twice, and it isn’t irrelevant. If CCP holders were shown to be less law abiding or hazardous to the general public, I would be willing to see tighter restrictions but they aren’t. One of the favorite ploys of gun banners is to call it a public health issue but there isn’t the data to support the fact that those carrying concealed are an issue.
You raised the issue and I responded showing that the characterization of CCP holders as law abiding is accurate. If Lott was accurate about that, how much else was he accurate about that you aren’t willing to admit?
August 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I think I’ll go swimming today! Let’s see, I’ve got my towel, my pool keys, suntan lotion and…
my gun safe?
You own a little gun shop, don’t you Bob S?
August 5th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Ok Bob,
The kid flunked 10th grade so she’s twenty one and hot hot hot.
She’s heard about date rape so she decides to take the gun to the pool party.
Describe the scene for me. Help me understand things like how she would wear the gun. What if she wanted to go swimming?
What if a drunk guy saw the gun and started teasing her?
Thanks for you help on this Bob. I’m really trying to understand how the idea of CCP on campus is something other than retarded, moronic, pathetically stupid, and not worth talking about.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Jesus Christ Bob,
I looked at the gun safes. Are you drinking?
I could easily break into either of those and take all the time in the world because I would simply steal the whole thing.
Christ. I would make a fun semester project.
I could sell raffle tickets for a chance to drop it from the clock tower. The one who drops it when it breaks wins the pot and has to provide fatties for a week.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Cliff,
Let’s demolish your straw arguments one point at a time.
First, most of the gun safes have bolts to secure them to a shelf or floor. Making it harder to steal. Can it be done, yes but will it stop the curious room mate that you originally started with, yes. Talk about moving the goal posts again.
Second, Nothing is impregnable. Storage and security for firearms, like most safes are rated in how long it would take the thief to break into them. How long would it take to break into your house, steal a knife, baseball, screwdriver, etc and kill someone–less then it would take to break into a gun safe.
Now onto your red herring about the sophomore swimmer. I’ll break it into two parts.
I’ll take it real slow since you seem to be struggling with the Concealed part of Concealed Carry.
From Mirriam Webster Online dictionary- concealed
From the Texas state statutes:
So the lady in question, is required by common sense and by law to keep the presence of her handgun from the rest of the people at the pool party. She can do that by carrying it in a purse like one of these.
Most states require CHL holders not to get intoxicated, so a concealed weapon that nobody knows about, a Non drunk carrier making sure no one messes with her purse…I could go on and on.
But the real reason you set up the scenario, in my opinion, is to get an admission that somewhere, some youth in college will do something dumb or unsafe resulting in someone getting shot. I will concede it is possible, it is likely and in probably that it will happen.
Question becomes will it happen often enough to take away the rights of all the other students. Drinking, admitted by you and I, happens on campus; should all cars be required to have alcohol interlocks because someone else drinks and drives? Drunk driving kills more then firearm accidents– why not violate everyone’s rights in the name of public safety?
From personal experience a family friend’s college student drank and did a handstand on a second floor balcony. He slipped and fell, now he’s confined to a wheel chair. Should we ban second floors?
How about banning alcohol? Wait, that was tried, how did it work out?
You keep trying to divert the subject to get to the point that it is a public safety issue but you don’t back it up with any numbers. Why not?
Let’s go back to a question that you didn’t answer. I started college at 22 after 4 years in the Air Force. I went to a community college, worked a full time job, lived in my own apartment- Why should I and those in the same situation be disarmed at the edge of campus property?
August 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Because, Bob, sometimes it just make sense to prevent things from happening that might otherwise be permitted under the law!
I feel for you, dude, being so scared that you cannot walk a college campus without a firearm tucked away on your person.
PS Ever think of moving to Utah? You’d fit right in, that’s for certain!!
August 5th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Albert,
Read the previous posts, it might help. Nothing can stop those things from happening. How many laws against murder do we have, how many against drunk driving? Do any of those actually STOP any of the crimes, Nope. Only prescribe the penalty for breaking the law.
Can anyone carry a firearm onto campus now? Yes, Virginia Tech, NIU, Columbine proves that the laws don’t stop the criminal. What is hard to understand about that? The laws against concealed carry only stops those willing to follow it.
I keep hearing how it makes sense, but in order for it to make sense Cliff has to set up a nearly no win situation.
Please explain how it makes sense? You have firearms in your home correct? Are you likely to fly off the handle and hurt someone with them? No, neither am I and the vast majority of CHL holders.
How about some details in how it doesn’t make sense. Please explain how it makes sense to disarm me.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Bob:
Perhaps the word “sense” was a bad choice on my part. What I meant to say is that there are some institutions that have survived for centuries without CCPs - churches, for example, come to mind - and absent strongly compelling rational to do otherwise, it is wise to maintain the status quo in this regard.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Is it wise considering the incidence of armed nuts going on murdering rampages? Do those law abiding licensed have no rights to protect against those that do illegally armed mayhem as they please?
Appears like unarmed places seem to be opportunities of choice for committing psychotic acts of mayhem.
Such an environment is open to the problem, until society has a better handle on dealing with psychotics, I would fear that your hopeful attitude regarding old social norms are rather inadequate. It is a fearful denial of the places we live, and more, study in.
Furthermore, “it just makes sense” Albert, is an entirely subjective argument, and one made in a vacuum of current reality given the events that have occurred repeatedly.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I pity those of you who live in such fear for your lives, TM. Indeed, you have likely more to fear driving on the interstate near your home than you do being shot by someone in a church or on a college campus.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Albert,
Try studying your history a little more, there has many churches were the traditions included the members to go armed.
From the Heller Decision:
Out west it was a tradition that people carried arms to church because the journey was hazardous and often the church was used as a meeting point in case of Indian attacks.
Jeanne Assam of the New Life Church in Colorado proved just recently how valuable it is to have armed church members in attendance. No, she wasn’t a paid security guard. She and other CHL holders had met and discussed security issues, developed a plan and then when a criminal came to increase his victim count she acted. Her shooting the criminal caused him to commit suicide before he could kill more then 2 other people at the church. What would have the death toll been had there not been armed resistance?
The other aspect that you throw out is Fear. It is not fear that drives people to carry, but preparedness. Do you have insurance on your car? Does that mean you fear accidents?
How about medical insurance? Do you fear disease, injury? Probably not, just prepared in case something happens.
How about a fire extinguisher in your car or home? Fear fire? Probably not, just prepared in case one does happen.
Do you lock your doors at night, have lights on outside your house? Fear being robbed or your home invaded? Or just taking sensible precautions?
It’s not fear but preparedness that drives us, the same reason I have several days worth of food and water in the house during storm season. Same reason I have savings in the bank in case of being laid off, not fear of loosing my job, but being prepared in case it happens.
You are right, there is more danger in driving to my church then there is danger of being shot by someone in a church or college campus. But I’m also concerned aware of robberies, car jackings, muggings, etc. A concealed weapon is much like car insurance, you hope fervently that it never has to be used, but you sure dont’ want to be without it when it does need to be used.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:42 am
And with that, I’d say, Bob, you are stuck on living in the days of old - I’m speaking of the here and now.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Albert,
Your reading comprehension skills stink or your memory is gone, that comment was in response to your assertion that:
I proved that recently, within a century, firearms have been carried to church, that even just a little farther back firearms were required to be carried to church.
Some churches have survived, but some haven’t.
I also earlier pointed out the New Life Church in Colorado, don’t you think the people in that church are glad that Ms. Assam was carrying? < A very recent case of where not all churches forbid carrying>
How about addressing my point, using sense or any other word. Given the fact that I started college at 22 after 4 years in the Air Forced, lived off campus, worked full time, etc. I also took my time (job change stopped school for 7 years) getting my degree. I ended up finishing my bachelor’s at 39.
Given those, and there are many stories like mine, why should a person be required to disarm at the edge of campus if they are legally licensed to carry?
August 6th, 2008 at 9:18 am
This is a reality vs. wishful thinking argument, ans as such takes up a bunch of space to not verry much purpose.
Those with the will, will carry. Legal or otherwise.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Bob - you should be disarmed at the edge of campus because it makes Albert and Cliff feel safer. After all, you’re an angry white male - probably on the edge of a red state meltdown. You could go “postal” any second (ignoring the fact that most postal workers, being union members, are Democrats).
Being armed on campus would demonstrate that you did not properly genuflect to the elite status of your educated and properly credentialled “betters”? Chaos would reign if plebes in shirtsleeves were allowed to discard their zebibah in favor of self reliance.
The police, or student escorts to the darkened parking lots of campus should be able to adequately protect you. Their shiny badges and yellow shirts and bicycles reflect a level of training that could never be aspired to by a commoner such as yourself.
Finally, should you be assaulted, try to lay back and enjoy it. Fighting back might enrage your attacker - and since he’s most likely armed (having already shrugged off the protective mantle of “our betters”) you might get hurt (worse).
August 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am
JD,
Good to see you again. Seems like you’ve been laying low avoiding most of the discussions like I have.
Don’t forget that I should be disarmed because the criminals will take away my gun and use it against me.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Bob -
I was watching you rowing alone - and though I feel that you are more than capable, I thought I’d quickly jump in and grab an oar.
Besides, things have been hectic on the home front, lately. Things always pick up in the Fall.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Understand completely JD, I would have given a shout out if I needed help. Besides the odds weren’t even…there are only 5 or 6 of them for every gun nut…needed one or 1 of us to sit out for a while to even it up.
Appreciate the snark that you bring…made me chuckle reading the first post.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Cliff,
You planning on finishing up this discussion?
Or have you realized that your red herring argument won’t stand up.