I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
That is an interesting point. Most, if not all, in that photo just look like your run of the mill hunting rifle and shotgun. No AR-15s in a photo promoting banning AR-15s, weird...?
Where does it state that it is a photo promoting banning specifically AR-15s?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I think I see two ar-15’s, a bunch of browning auto 5’s, one m-1 garand, a shit load of bolt actions, shotguns and sks s. A whole lot of wood but no scary black guns.
The gun was locked in his car. How the kid knew that is beyond me. The kid has a screw loose. Can't you see that?
Does he have a screw loose or was he just another pissed off pre-teen with access to a gun? Is locked in a car an acceptable means of firearm storage? Department policy when not with the firearm?
Let us know the answers after you find them out.
Sorry, I’m not your google machine. And I read the full article when I posted it. Maybe one of the “responsible” gun owners on here can speak to whether a firearm locked ina car is an approved, legal or acceptable method of safe firearm storage?
you're not his google machine? didn't you ask the original question? That's pretty rich. LOL
That he did lol
You’re a gun owner, right? Is storing them in a locked vehicle an acceptable and “responsible” firearm storage method? There, I asked you a direct question. LOL.
If you don’t have some sort of trigger lock on it especially with kids then it is a no go for me. But how messed up is your kid that they broke into your police vehicle because you took away their play station?! Can a policeman lock up their work firearm? (I have no clue, honest question)
In relatively sane Sweden I believe police officers are not allowed to bring their weapon home, unless they apply to do so for a specific reason.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
That is an interesting point. Most, if not all, in that photo just look like your run of the mill hunting rifle and shotgun. No AR-15s in a photo promoting banning AR-15s, weird...?
Where does it state that it is a photo promoting banning specifically AR-15s?
That’s an excellent observation there, the laws reach well beyond a specific category (just stating more of the obvious).
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
That is an interesting point. Most, if not all, in that photo just look like your run of the mill hunting rifle and shotgun. No AR-15s in a photo promoting banning AR-15s, weird...?
Where does it state that it is a photo promoting banning specifically AR-15s?
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
That is an interesting point. Most, if not all, in that photo just look like your run of the mill hunting rifle and shotgun. No AR-15s in a photo promoting banning AR-15s, weird...?
Where does it state that it is a photo promoting banning specifically AR-15s?
The mass murder in 1996 was committed with an AR-15.
But the change in laws in Australia did not apply only to AR-15s.
And the discussed changes in laws in New Zealand do not specifically only apply to AR-15s.
So SC is correct to question the comment made.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
That is an interesting point. Most, if not all, in that photo just look like your run of the mill hunting rifle and shotgun. No AR-15s in a photo promoting banning AR-15s, weird...?
Where does it state that it is a photo promoting banning specifically AR-15s?
The mass murder in 1996 was committed with an AR-15.
But the change in laws in Australia did not apply only to AR-15s.
And the discussed changes in laws in New Zealand do not specifically only apply to AR-15s.
So SC is correct to question the comment made.
That's fine but the title clearly calls out a single weapon.
The caption and the pic is what I was getting at. Just going with what was originally posted.
It's always interesting on what people get out of things.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
The gun was locked in his car. How the kid knew that is beyond me. The kid has a screw loose. Can't you see that?
Does he have a screw loose or was he just another pissed off pre-teen with access to a gun? Is locked in a car an acceptable means of firearm storage? Department policy when not with the firearm?
Let us know the answers after you find them out.
Sorry, I’m not your google machine. And I read the full article when I posted it. Maybe one of the “responsible” gun owners on here can speak to whether a firearm locked ina car is an approved, legal or acceptable method of safe firearm storage?
you're not his google machine? didn't you ask the original question? That's pretty rich. LOL
That he did lol
You’re a gun owner, right? Is storing them in a locked vehicle an acceptable and “responsible” firearm storage method? There, I asked you a direct question. LOL.
If you don’t have some sort of trigger lock on it especially with kids then it is a no go for me. But how messed up is your kid that they broke into your police vehicle because you took away their play station?! Can a policeman lock up their work firearm? (I have no clue, honest question)
Do you mean while on duty? The shotgun they carry is locked in the car, but the pistol never is. They lock them up (or should) like everyone else when not on duty.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I found one ( I think, maybe)!
Yeah, one. Pretty surprised at all of the bolt action rifles and pump shotguns in the pic...It looks like people just raided their grandparent’s gun cabinet!
More people were killed in Chistchurch by that one guy in a couple of hours then are murdered in ALL of NZ in a whole year. Read that again America And then again And let's be sure to do NOTHING in regards to stricter gun control.
Yeah I will never understand. I mean there are a lot of issues that need fixed to stop this...but the first and easiest step should be separating killing machines from people. The next is to ensure ownership of other, lesser weapons is well tracked and understood. Along with that, strict standards on how people must control these weapons and very strict penalties should you not.
Then you can go after the mental health issue and hate issues.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I found one ( I think, maybe)!
Yeah, one. Pretty surprised at all of the bolt action rifles and pump shotguns in the pic...It looks like people just raided their grandparent’s gun cabinet!
That's why most gun buyback programs are pointless. As a member of law enforcement by dad was involved in many over the years. They are exactly what you said, many not even working or antique guns. I've even known people who buy a non working gun for $30 so they can turn it in at the next buyback program for $100. It ends up costing the city or county hundreds of thousands of dollars and the result is really no guns off the "street." Just guns that were cleaned out of grandpa's closet, often inherited and didn't know what to do. Just as annoying as the ineffective programs are those who when you point out the facts will jump on you and say "o so there's nothing we can do about it then, we just have to get used to shootings." That's not what I was saying at all, but since that is the typical response I thought I'd jump on it first.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I found one ( I think, maybe)!
Yeah, one. Pretty surprised at all of the bolt action rifles and pump shotguns in the pic...It looks like people just raided their grandparent’s gun cabinet!
That's why most gun buyback programs are pointless. As a member of law enforcement by dad was involved in many over the years. They are exactly what you said, many not even working or antique guns. I've even known people who buy a non working gun for $30 so they can turn it in at the next buyback program for $100. It ends up costing the city or county hundreds of thousands of dollars and the result is really no guns off the "street." Just guns that were cleaned out of grandpa's closet, often inherited and didn't know what to do. Just as annoying as the ineffective programs are those who when you point out the facts will jump on you and say "o so there's nothing we can do about it then, we just have to get used to shootings." That's not what I was saying at all, but since that is the typical response I thought I'd jump on it first.
Believe Mace1229's anecdotal evidence and presumptions or Australia's empirical evidence of less gun crime.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I found one ( I think, maybe)!
Yeah, one. Pretty surprised at all of the bolt action rifles and pump shotguns in the pic...It looks like people just raided their grandparent’s gun cabinet!
That's why most gun buyback programs are pointless. As a member of law enforcement by dad was involved in many over the years. They are exactly what you said, many not even working or antique guns. I've even known people who buy a non working gun for $30 so they can turn it in at the next buyback program for $100. It ends up costing the city or county hundreds of thousands of dollars and the result is really no guns off the "street." Just guns that were cleaned out of grandpa's closet, often inherited and didn't know what to do. Just as annoying as the ineffective programs are those who when you point out the facts will jump on you and say "o so there's nothing we can do about it then, we just have to get used to shootings." That's not what I was saying at all, but since that is the typical response I thought I'd jump on it first.
Believe Mace1229's anecdotal evidence and presumptions or Australia's empirical evidence.
What I said had nothing to do with Australia. I was commenting on our current practices on buyback programs here in America. But see what I mean when I say many people don't like it when flaws are pointed out. Ever wonder why people get annoyed with this topic and nothing gets done? I don't. And I can tell you because of people like you nothing will change with our buyback programs and nothing will get accomplished because of them. Good job.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I found one ( I think, maybe)!
Yeah, one. Pretty surprised at all of the bolt action rifles and pump shotguns in the pic...It looks like people just raided their grandparent’s gun cabinet!
That's why most gun buyback programs are pointless. As a member of law enforcement by dad was involved in many over the years. They are exactly what you said, many not even working or antique guns. I've even known people who buy a non working gun for $30 so they can turn it in at the next buyback program for $100. It ends up costing the city or county hundreds of thousands of dollars and the result is really no guns off the "street." Just guns that were cleaned out of grandpa's closet, often inherited and didn't know what to do. Just as annoying as the ineffective programs are those who when you point out the facts will jump on you and say "o so there's nothing we can do about it then, we just have to get used to shootings." That's not what I was saying at all, but since that is the typical response I thought I'd jump on it first.
Believe Mace1229's anecdotal evidence and presumptions or Australia's empirical evidence.
What I said had nothing to do with Australia. I was commenting on our current practices on buyback programs here in America. But see what I mean when I say many people don't like it when flaws are pointed out.
Still seems like anecdotal evidence and presumptions to me. Regardless of country.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
So what evidence do you have? I have several family members who have been involved in buyback programs. I have first hand accounts of how they work. Why are first hand account not valid here? They don't advertise that the city spent 1 million dollars to buy broken guns from non-criminals, because that doesn't sound very effective. But that is what happens, and the next day the headlines read "2,000 guns taken off the street"
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I found one ( I think, maybe)!
Yeah, one. Pretty surprised at all of the bolt action rifles and pump shotguns in the pic...It looks like people just raided their grandparent’s gun cabinet!
That's why most gun buyback programs are pointless. As a member of law enforcement by dad was involved in many over the years. They are exactly what you said, many not even working or antique guns. I've even known people who buy a non working gun for $30 so they can turn it in at the next buyback program for $100. It ends up costing the city or county hundreds of thousands of dollars and the result is really no guns off the "street." Just guns that were cleaned out of grandpa's closet, often inherited and didn't know what to do. Just as annoying as the ineffective programs are those who when you point out the facts will jump on you and say "o so there's nothing we can do about it then, we just have to get used to shootings." That's not what I was saying at all, but since that is the typical response I thought I'd jump on it first.
Believe Mace1229's anecdotal evidence and presumptions or Australia's empirical evidence.
What I said had nothing to do with Australia. I was commenting on our current practices on buyback programs here in America. But see what I mean when I say many people don't like it when flaws are pointed out. Ever wonder why people get annoyed with this topic and nothing gets done? I don't. And I can tell you because of people like you nothing will change with our buyback programs and nothing will get accomplished because of them. Good job.
I know the pic is used to grab attention but it always bothers me when the topic is about a specific firearm and not a one can be spotted in the bunch.
I found one ( I think, maybe)!
Yeah, one. Pretty surprised at all of the bolt action rifles and pump shotguns in the pic...It looks like people just raided their grandparent’s gun cabinet!
That's why most gun buyback programs are pointless. As a member of law enforcement by dad was involved in many over the years. They are exactly what you said, many not even working or antique guns. I've even known people who buy a non working gun for $30 so they can turn it in at the next buyback program for $100. It ends up costing the city or county hundreds of thousands of dollars and the result is really no guns off the "street." Just guns that were cleaned out of grandpa's closet, often inherited and didn't know what to do. Just as annoying as the ineffective programs are those who when you point out the facts will jump on you and say "o so there's nothing we can do about it then, we just have to get used to shootings." That's not what I was saying at all, but since that is the typical response I thought I'd jump on it first.
Believe Mace1229's anecdotal evidence and presumptions or Australia's empirical evidence.
What I said had nothing to do with Australia. I was commenting on our current practices on buyback programs here in America. But see what I mean when I say many people don't like it when flaws are pointed out.
Still seems like anecdotal evidence and presumptions to me. Regardless of country.
And how does what I say not just sound like common sense? If you have a gun worth $1000 that you don't want, are you going to give it to authorities and receive $100 gift card in return, or sell it through a gun shop for $1000? Voluntary buyback programs the way they are run here in USA just don't work. It invites only worthless and broken guns of little to no value. Why that is difficult to understand and believe I don't know.
In 2011, Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis reviewed the research on Australia's suicide and homicide rate after the NFA. Their conclusion was clear: "The NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."
What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.
Now, Australia's homicide rate was already declining before the NFA was implemented, so you can't attribute all of the drops to the new laws. But there's good reason to believe the NFA, especially the buyback provisions, mattered a great deal in contributing to those declines.
"First," Hemenway and Vriniotis write, "the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."
There is also this: 1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was actually implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
In 2011, Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis reviewed the research on Australia's suicide and homicide rate after the NFA. Their conclusion was clear: "The NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."
What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.
Now, Australia's homicide rate was already declining before the NFA was implemented, so you can't attribute all of the drops to the new laws. But there's good reason to believe the NFA, especially the buyback provisions, mattered a great deal in contributing to those declines.
"First," Hemenway and Vriniotis write, "the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."
There is also this: 1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was actually implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004.
That has zero relation to anything I said. My comment was simply that the current way buyback programs are run in the USA simply do not work. I never said they don't work in other countries, or that we can't/shouldn't change how they are run here. My comment was simply that gun buyback programs as they are current run in the USA are a waste of taxpayers dollars. How you got into all that I have no idea. But again, check out my original post and I predicted as such, I knew it would be twisted around and turned into something completely unrelated to what I was saying, because it always is.
Now do you disagree with what I actually said? Do you think the government spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on nonworking guns is a good use of money, and that they actually get working guns out of the hands of violent people? Or do you agree with me and think that these buyback programs are a waste of time and money and probably just a screen of people running for office?
In 2011, Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis reviewed the research on Australia's suicide and homicide rate after the NFA. Their conclusion was clear: "The NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."
What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.
Now, Australia's homicide rate was already declining before the NFA was implemented, so you can't attribute all of the drops to the new laws. But there's good reason to believe the NFA, especially the buyback provisions, mattered a great deal in contributing to those declines.
"First," Hemenway and Vriniotis write, "the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."
There is also this: 1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was actually implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004.
You are referring to an all out ban(Australia) where Mace was referring to a buyback program(USA).
Two totally different things.
He is 100% right about buyback programs. You are right about an all out ban.
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
I already said I don't give a flying fuck if a gun company is held accountable whether they technically should be or not. But in my opinion, America is the ONLY country with the problems it has in this context, even though all the other countries have those same video games and movies in their culture, so clearly those are not the culprits at all. It is the crazy gun industry itself and how it fuels the exclusively American gun culture that is the culprit. That is the ongoing factor that's unique to America.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
(Not that knowledgeable about our nationalparks)
The mass murder in 1996 was committed with an AR-15.
But the change in laws in Australia did not apply only to AR-15s.
And the discussed changes in laws in New Zealand do not specifically only apply to AR-15s.
So SC is correct to question the comment made.
The caption and the pic is what I was getting at. Just going with what was originally posted.
It's always interesting on what people get out of things.
Just as annoying as the ineffective programs are those who when you point out the facts will jump on you and say "o so there's nothing we can do about it then, we just have to get used to shootings." That's not what I was saying at all, but since that is the typical response I thought I'd jump on it first.
Ever wonder why people get annoyed with this topic and nothing gets done? I don't.
And I can tell you because of people like you nothing will change with our buyback programs and nothing will get accomplished because of them. Good job.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/
It’s really quite simple. Extraordinarily simple.
In 2011, Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis reviewed the research on Australia's suicide and homicide rate after the NFA. Their conclusion was clear: "The NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."
What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.
Now, Australia's homicide rate was already declining before the NFA was implemented, so you can't attribute all of the drops to the new laws. But there's good reason to believe the NFA, especially the buyback provisions, mattered a great deal in contributing to those declines.
"First," Hemenway and Vriniotis write, "the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."
There is also this: 1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was actually implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004.
My comment was simply that the current way buyback programs are run in the USA simply do not work. I never said they don't work in other countries, or that we can't/shouldn't change how they are run here.
My comment was simply that gun buyback programs as they are current run in the USA are a waste of taxpayers dollars. How you got into all that I have no idea. But again, check out my original post and I predicted as such, I knew it would be twisted around and turned into something completely unrelated to what I was saying, because it always is.
Now do you disagree with what I actually said? Do you think the government spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on nonworking guns is a good use of money, and that they actually get working guns out of the hands of violent people? Or do you agree with me and think that these buyback programs are a waste of time and money and probably just a screen of people running for office?
Two totally different things.
He is 100% right about buyback programs. You are right about an all out ban.
Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up.
Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington.
I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?