Ohio school gunman kills self, wounds 4

[natty bumppo 297]

you were talking about insane people ... with intent. I gave an example.

actually I don't think fish had anything to do with the actions of those with intent to distribute poison and kill people.

a gun was not selected as the weapon of choice ... some other means of causing death was.

are drunk drivers really negligent? or doing a criminal (willful) act ?

I never denied that you don't have to have a gun to kill with intent - I guess its just coincidence that all of these rampages: Virginia Tech, Columbine, the police officer the other day, and this kid - all chose the gun to carry out their plan.

And yes - drunk drivers are negligent, regardless of how the law classifies that negligence as wilful intent. At a guess - I'd say that a person who gets boozed up and decides to drive home probably isn't thinking about how many people they can mow down on the way. Now someone who gets up in the morning with the express intent on committing murder... well...

dad was more fearsome than death, believe me

Fair enough. I can relate.

does this assume the person was never made aware that ordering and consuming too much ... then driving could lead to "mowing" people down?

ordering and consuming too much ... then driving is an intentional act. there is always the option of a DD or taxi

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you were talking about insane people ... with intent. I gave an example.

actually I don't think fish had anything to do with the actions of those with intent to distribute poison and kill people.

a gun was not selected as the weapon of choice ... some other means of causing death was.

are drunk drivers really negligent? or doing a criminal (willful) act ?

I never denied that you don't have to have a gun to kill with intent - I guess its just coincidence that all of these rampages: Virginia Tech, Columbine, the police officer the other day, and this kid - all chose the gun to carry out their plan.

And yes - drunk drivers are negligent, regardless of how the law classifies that negligence as wilful intent. At a guess - I'd say that a person who gets boozed up and decides to drive home probably isn't thinking about how many people they can mow down on the way. Now someone who gets up in the morning with the express intent on committing murder... well...

dad was more fearsome than death, believe me

Fair enough. I can relate.

does this assume the person was never made aware that ordering and consuming too much ... then driving could lead to "mowing" people down?

ordering and consuming too much ... then driving is an intentional act. there is always the option of a DD or taxi

Its still not the same - however much you try and force it to fit.

The root of DUI behaviour is negligence and stupidity, the other is malicious, pre-meditated intent.

You can relativise the argument to irrelevance (again), but it doesn't change the fact that there are signficant, "key" differences between the two.

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

so where do you go shopping? lots of places don't allow concealed guns.. and.. well.. why carry a gun all the time, if you carry one.. how often have you had to use it? wouldn't that be kinda paranoic, carrying a gun for the 'just in case'? if you lived in a high crime rate area, that'd make sense, but if you live in a nice place, why carry one? or why carrying one to your worksite? who's gonna go and take all people hostage? isn' that, too paranoic?

and, why not have other preventive measurements against thiefs.. shooting someone cuz they want to steal ur wallet, is kinda extreme imo..

mostly i shop on base, rarely off base. not had to use one, i hardly even carry mine. i do not like to be restricted though and i believe that not being able to keep it on you while downtown because some store owner does not like you having one is a bigger threat than my carrying it - i.e. i have to leave it in my car, which has the potention of being seen and the car being broken into/stolen. so you tell me, which is a greater threat: me legally carrying or having the firearm stored in an unattended vehicle in the parking lot?

while on the topic of extreme, isn't that quite an apt description of those who want outlaw guns in a shortsighted attempt to solve this issue?

oh. well, you're military.. you know how to use a weapon.. but, I really don't think those concealed weapon courses and whatnot give you the experience or the know how to anyone who wants to buy a gun...

i see you've colored your statement by using "weapon" twice. i've never heard of a concealed weapon course btw. maybe a concealed carry course might be the best term for you to use here, eh?

actually, i don't believe my being in the military taught me how to use a firearm, it was all learned prior to my joining. and don't state that about a concealed carry course until you've been to one mkay? otherwise you're speaking from a position of ignorance, ain't you?

I don't think thought that you should just let someone steall ur wallet or mug you and just stand there, but.. going trigger happy on any criminal or suspicious activity, don't think its the solution either... cuz first it'd be, oh you try to mug me, i'll shoot ya, then it'll be, oh, you're being mean to me, i'll shoot ya.. and, I dunno, I still think its paranoic to like wanting to go to best buy, and someone saying, ahh na, don't go to best buy, they dont allow packing.. I know robberies happen, and no business is 100% safe.. but heck

i think you're being quite emotional with that above. cch courses include instructions on when to shoot and when not to, along with the legal ramifications of doing so. in a majority of cases, presentation of the capability of deadly force is enough to stop would be criminals. i.e. someone comes up with a knife and demands my wallet, i just put my hand on my concealed pistol and they buy a clue lightning fast. and also keep in mind that one should be aware of their surroundings - it's kinda hard to sneak up on someone if they are actively monitoring their surroundings for potential trouble.

[natty bumppo 297]

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

And I thought the reason that businesses prohibited firearms was because they would be held legally accountable in the event a person was injured as a result of them? Why else would it be specifically included as a stipulation in say... an employment contract?

Now I'm curious do you have an example of where someone has successfully sued someone because they were shot and/or threatened by a person while in a place of business that prohibits guns?

Is this a 'real' liability or merely wishful thinking on your part?

just like businesses prohibit many other things in the employment contract ... guess you never heard someone tell an "inappropriate" joke in the workplace and afterwords still remain employed.

I'm a little like charles ... I tend to shop in places that don't prohibit firearms ... and there are lots of those places in TX.

Many places will post ... that unlawful chl is not permitted ... meaning lawful chl is permitted

[pedroh 21]

so where do you go shopping? lots of places don't allow concealed guns.. and.. well.. why carry a gun all the time, if you carry one.. how often have you had to use it? wouldn't that be kinda paranoic, carrying a gun for the 'just in case'? if you lived in a high crime rate area, that'd make sense, but if you live in a nice place, why carry one? or why carrying one to your worksite? who's gonna go and take all people hostage? isn' that, too paranoic?

and, why not have other preventive measurements against thiefs.. shooting someone cuz they want to steal ur wallet, is kinda extreme imo..

mostly i shop on base, rarely off base. not had to use one, i hardly even carry mine. i do not like to be restricted though and i believe that not being able to keep it on you while downtown because some store owner does not like you having one is a bigger threat than my carrying it - i.e. i have to leave it in my car, which has the potention of being seen and the car being broken into/stolen. so you tell me, which is a greater threat: me legally carrying or having the firearm stored in an unattended vehicle in the parking lot?

while on the topic of extreme, isn't that quite an apt description of those who want outlaw guns in a shortsighted attempt to solve this issue?

oh. well, you're military.. you know how to use a weapon.. but, I really don't think those concealed weapon courses and whatnot give you the experience or the know how to anyone who wants to buy a gun...

i see you've colored your statement by using "weapon" twice. i've never heard of a concealed weapon course btw. maybe a concealed carry course might be the best term for you to use here, eh?

actually, i don't believe my being in the military taught me how to use a firearm, it was all learned prior to my joining. and don't state that about a concealed carry course until you've been to one mkay? otherwise you're speaking from a position of ignorance, ain't you?

I don't think thought that you should just let someone steall ur wallet or mug you and just stand there, but.. going trigger happy on any criminal or suspicious activity, don't think its the solution either... cuz first it'd be, oh you try to mug me, i'll shoot ya, then it'll be, oh, you're being mean to me, i'll shoot ya.. and, I dunno, I still think its paranoic to like wanting to go to best buy, and someone saying, ahh na, don't go to best buy, they dont allow packing.. I know robberies happen, and no business is 100% safe.. but heck

i think you're being quite emotional with that above. cch courses include instructions on when to shoot and when not to, along with the legal ramifications of doing so. in a majority of cases, presentation of the capability of deadly force is enough to stop would be criminals. i.e. someone comes up with a knife and demands my wallet, i just put my hand on my concealed pistol and they buy a clue lightning fast. and also keep in mind that one should be aware of their surroundings - it's kinda hard to sneak up on someone if they are actively monitoring their surroundings for potential trouble.

but, taking that to a greater scale, wouldn't that make everybody a vigilante? everybody carrying guns for protection, that's basically saying 'cops can't do jack, so I better do it myself'.. isn't that one of the sacrifices one does for living in a society, leaving the impartition of justice or security to the authorities? in that case, make every citizen a cop or a sheriff..

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

i think you're being quite emotional with that above. cch courses include instructions on when to shoot and when not to, along with the legal ramifications of doing so. in a majority of cases, presentation of the capability of deadly force is enough to stop would be criminals. i.e. someone comes up with a knife and demands my wallet, i just put my hand on my concealed pistol and they buy a clue lightning fast. and also keep in mind that one should be aware of their surroundings - it's kinda hard to sneak up on someone if they are actively monitoring their surroundings for potential trouble.

but, taking that to a greater scale, wouldn't that make everybody a vigilante? everybody carrying guns for protection, that's basically saying 'cops can't do jack, so I better do it myself'.. isn't that one of the sacrifices one does for living in a society, leaving the impartition of justice or security to the authorities? in that case, make every citizen a cop or a sheriff..

you're finally catching on. cops can't do everything. they are also not legally liable for your protection. they are more of an after the fact police force - they will come outline you in chalk and take pictures but they cannot keep someone intent on doing you bodily harm from doing so as most of the time they are busy elsewhere. i'm sure you've heard of the expression "never a cop around when you need one" haven't you?

you as an individual are responsible for your safety and well being. and no, it does not make someone a vigilante if someone is attempting to murder, rape, carjack, or rob you. you have the right to defend yourself. perhaps you've heard of that saying "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"?????

[natty bumppo 297]

i think you're being quite emotional with that above. cch courses include instructions on when to shoot and when not to, along with the legal ramifications of doing so. in a majority of cases, presentation of the capability of deadly force is enough to stop would be criminals. i.e. someone comes up with a knife and demands my wallet, i just put my hand on my concealed pistol and they buy a clue lightning fast. and also keep in mind that one should be aware of their surroundings - it's kinda hard to sneak up on someone if they are actively monitoring their surroundings for potential trouble.

but, taking that to a greater scale, wouldn't that make everybody a vigilante? everybody carrying guns for protection, that's basically saying 'cops can't do jack, so I better do it myself'.. isn't that one of the sacrifices one does for living in a society, leaving the impartition of justice or security to the authorities? in that case, make every citizen a cop or a sheriff..

you're finally catching on. cops can't do everything. they are also not legally liable for your protection. they are more of an after the fact police force - they will come outline you in chalk and take pictures but they cannot keep someone intent on doing you bodily harm from doing so as most of the time they are busy elsewhere. i'm sure you've heard of the expression "never a cop around when you need one" haven't you?

you as an individual are responsible for your safety and well being. and no, it does not make someone a vigilante if someone is attempting to murder, rape, carjack, or rob you. you have the right to defend yourself. perhaps you've heard of that saying "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"?????

I'm not sure vigilante is a proper term for protecting yourself. Where is the law performing due process as you are being attacked?

Vigilante

A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his own form of justice when he deems the response of the authorities to be insufficient.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

And I thought the reason that businesses prohibited firearms was because they would be held legally accountable in the event a person was injured as a result of them? Why else would it be specifically included as a stipulation in say... an employment contract?

Now I'm curious do you have an example of where someone has successfully sued someone because they were shot and/or threatened by a person while in a place of business that prohibits guns?

Is this a 'real' liability or merely wishful thinking on your part?

just like businesses prohibit many other things in the employment contract ... guess you never heard someone tell an "inappropriate" joke in the workplace and afterwords still remain employed.

You're relativising again. I'd contend to you that the reason guns are prohibited in say... offices arises out of workplace safety legislation. I'm not crazy or homicidal - but even so if I were to carry a knife on my person I could conceivably be fired for it as a breach of my employment contract. In this instance the company has a duty to the welfare of all its employees, after all. I don't think thats difficult to understand.

[pedroh 21]

i think you're being quite emotional with that above. cch courses include instructions on when to shoot and when not to, along with the legal ramifications of doing so. in a majority of cases, presentation of the capability of deadly force is enough to stop would be criminals. i.e. someone comes up with a knife and demands my wallet, i just put my hand on my concealed pistol and they buy a clue lightning fast. and also keep in mind that one should be aware of their surroundings - it's kinda hard to sneak up on someone if they are actively monitoring their surroundings for potential trouble.

but, taking that to a greater scale, wouldn't that make everybody a vigilante? everybody carrying guns for protection, that's basically saying 'cops can't do jack, so I better do it myself'.. isn't that one of the sacrifices one does for living in a society, leaving the impartition of justice or security to the authorities? in that case, make every citizen a cop or a sheriff..

you're finally catching on. cops can't do everything. they are also not legally liable for your protection. they are more of an after the fact police force - they will come outline you in chalk and take pictures but they cannot keep someone intent on doing you bodily harm from doing so as most of the time they are busy elsewhere. i'm sure you've heard of the expression "never a cop around when you need one" haven't you?

you as an individual are responsible for your safety and well being. and no, it does not make someone a vigilante if someone is attempting to murder, rape, carjack, or rob you. you have the right to defend yourself. perhaps you've heard of that saying "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"?????

I'm not sure vigilante is a proper term for protecting yourself. Where is the law performing due process as you are being attacked?

Vigilante

A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his own form of justice when he deems the response of the authorities to be insufficient.

but isnt that one of the arguments? that authorities response is insufficient?

[natty bumppo 297]

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

And I thought the reason that businesses prohibited firearms was because they would be held legally accountable in the event a person was injured as a result of them? Why else would it be specifically included as a stipulation in say... an employment contract?

Now I'm curious do you have an example of where someone has successfully sued someone because they were shot and/or threatened by a person while in a place of business that prohibits guns?

Is this a 'real' liability or merely wishful thinking on your part?

just like businesses prohibit many other things in the employment contract ... guess you never heard someone tell an "inappropriate" joke in the workplace and afterwords still remain employed.

You're relativising again. I'd contend to you that the reason guns are prohibited in say... offices arises out of workplace safety legislation. I'm not crazy or homicidal - but even so if I were to carry a knife on my person I could conceivably be fired for it as a breach of my employment contract. In this instance the company has a duty to the welfare of all its employees, after all. I don't think thats difficult to understand.

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

i think you're being quite emotional with that above. cch courses include instructions on when to shoot and when not to, along with the legal ramifications of doing so. in a majority of cases, presentation of the capability of deadly force is enough to stop would be criminals. i.e. someone comes up with a knife and demands my wallet, i just put my hand on my concealed pistol and they buy a clue lightning fast. and also keep in mind that one should be aware of their surroundings - it's kinda hard to sneak up on someone if they are actively monitoring their surroundings for potential trouble.

but, taking that to a greater scale, wouldn't that make everybody a vigilante? everybody carrying guns for protection, that's basically saying 'cops can't do jack, so I better do it myself'.. isn't that one of the sacrifices one does for living in a society, leaving the impartition of justice or security to the authorities? in that case, make every citizen a cop or a sheriff..

you're finally catching on. cops can't do everything. they are also not legally liable for your protection. they are more of an after the fact police force - they will come outline you in chalk and take pictures but they cannot keep someone intent on doing you bodily harm from doing so as most of the time they are busy elsewhere. i'm sure you've heard of the expression "never a cop around when you need one" haven't you?

you as an individual are responsible for your safety and well being. and no, it does not make someone a vigilante if someone is attempting to murder, rape, carjack, or rob you. you have the right to defend yourself. perhaps you've heard of that saying "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"?????

I'm not sure vigilante is a proper term for protecting yourself. Where is the law performing due process as you are being attacked?

Vigilante

A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his own form of justice when he deems the response of the authorities to be insufficient.

but isnt that one of the arguments? that authorities response is insufficient?

sigh.........pedroh, what's so confusing about your right to defend yourself when facing a threat of imminent harm, all within the bounds of the law, whereas a vigilante is quite reminiscent of the lynch mobs that would storm a jail cell in the old west and string up the cattle rustler. quite often the vigilante faced no threat of harm, he (and most of them were he) would take the law into their own hands because they felt the criminal got off lightly or they were so outraged at the crime. an modern day example for you - link

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

And I thought the reason that businesses prohibited firearms was because they would be held legally accountable in the event a person was injured as a result of them? Why else would it be specifically included as a stipulation in say... an employment contract?

Now I'm curious do you have an example of where someone has successfully sued someone because they were shot and/or threatened by a person while in a place of business that prohibits guns?

Is this a 'real' liability or merely wishful thinking on your part?

just like businesses prohibit many other things in the employment contract ... guess you never heard someone tell an "inappropriate" joke in the workplace and afterwords still remain employed.

You're relativising again. I'd contend to you that the reason guns are prohibited in say... offices arises out of workplace safety legislation. I'm not crazy or homicidal - but even so if I were to carry a knife on my person I could conceivably be fired for it as a breach of my employment contract. In this instance the company has a duty to the welfare of all its employees, after all. I don't think thats difficult to understand.

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

And I thought the reason that businesses prohibited firearms was because they would be held legally accountable in the event a person was injured as a result of them? Why else would it be specifically included as a stipulation in say... an employment contract?

Now I'm curious do you have an example of where someone has successfully sued someone because they were shot and/or threatened by a person while in a place of business that prohibits guns?

Is this a 'real' liability or merely wishful thinking on your part?

just like businesses prohibit many other things in the employment contract ... guess you never heard someone tell an "inappropriate" joke in the workplace and afterwords still remain employed.

You're relativising again. I'd contend to you that the reason guns are prohibited in say... offices arises out of workplace safety legislation. I'm not crazy or homicidal - but even so if I were to carry a knife on my person I could conceivably be fired for it as a breach of my employment contract. In this instance the company has a duty to the welfare of all its employees, after all. I don't think thats difficult to understand.

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

that's a state law.........not the restaurant's law. they must have that sign as they serve alcohol.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

And I thought the reason that businesses prohibited firearms was because they would be held legally accountable in the event a person was injured as a result of them? Why else would it be specifically included as a stipulation in say... an employment contract?

Now I'm curious do you have an example of where someone has successfully sued someone because they were shot and/or threatened by a person while in a place of business that prohibits guns?

Is this a 'real' liability or merely wishful thinking on your part?

just like businesses prohibit many other things in the employment contract ... guess you never heard someone tell an "inappropriate" joke in the workplace and afterwords still remain employed.

You're relativising again. I'd contend to you that the reason guns are prohibited in say... offices arises out of workplace safety legislation. I'm not crazy or homicidal - but even so if I were to carry a knife on my person I could conceivably be fired for it as a breach of my employment contract. In this instance the company has a duty to the welfare of all its employees, after all. I don't think thats difficult to understand.

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

that's a state law.........not the restaurant's law. they must have that sign as they serve alcohol.

Then going by Natty's logic I presume the state would be legally liable if you complied with that law and ended up getting shot in a bar by someone who chose to rob it at gunpoint?

Is there are precedent for that - suing the state because your injury might have been avoided if you didn't have to obey that law?

Edited October 12, 2007 by Number 6

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

And I thought the reason that businesses prohibited firearms was because they would be held legally accountable in the event a person was injured as a result of them? Why else would it be specifically included as a stipulation in say... an employment contract?

Now I'm curious do you have an example of where someone has successfully sued someone because they were shot and/or threatened by a person while in a place of business that prohibits guns?

Is this a 'real' liability or merely wishful thinking on your part?

just like businesses prohibit many other things in the employment contract ... guess you never heard someone tell an "inappropriate" joke in the workplace and afterwords still remain employed.

You're relativising again. I'd contend to you that the reason guns are prohibited in say... offices arises out of workplace safety legislation. I'm not crazy or homicidal - but even so if I were to carry a knife on my person I could conceivably be fired for it as a breach of my employment contract. In this instance the company has a duty to the welfare of all its employees, after all. I don't think thats difficult to understand.

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

that's a state law.........not the restaurant's law. they must have that sign as they serve alcohol.

Then going by Natty's logic I presume the state would be legally liable if you complied with that law and ended up getting shot in a bar?

Is there are precedent for that?

already stated above somewhat in regards to the police not being liable for your protection or lack thereof. and the business owner isn't responsible as he's required to follow the law and post that sign. catch-22 if you happen to be in the business when some nutjob decides to rob it.

(reply intentionally left lengthy just for lisad)