New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Danoff]

Not exactly what I am trying to say. I am trying to say it wont neccesarily reduce the number of shooters, but the number of victims. To recap I am saying two seperate things here as a result of stricter gunlaws:
1. strict gunlaws will reduce victims (less victims per shooter)
2. increase barrier from thinking about carrying out a violent crime to actually doing it. Which will reduce the amount of shooters.

There are however many more important factors to consider to actually reduce the amount of shooters (additional to point 2). Those have more to do with the psychological aspect (mental health) and standards of living. (less poverty=less crime) Someone who is happy and has a good income has less reason to carry out a violent act.

I do think that law abiding citizens, that obtains guns through proper channels and do neccesary training etc. according to stricter gun laws, have a reduced risk of carrying out mass shootings or other violent acts.

Well you can be happy to die for your god, and that does happen... quite a lot actually. But I generally agree with your "happy and wealthy = nonviolent" rule of thumb.

So the problem is that you're still advocating for strict gun laws in a relatively infrequent crime and trying to reduce the number of victims in probably the hardest crime (terrorist mass killing) to actually make a dent in. There is low hanging fruit elsewhere... other murders that might have been prevented. You're focusing on the hardest one. Why? I'll tell you, it's sensational.

Increasing the barrier to obtaining a gun is the least likely to have an effect on the number of victims when it comes to terrorism. The terrorist, especially the religiously motivated terrorist, but generally terrorism fits this well, is going to find another way.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's one hell of a rephrase. And they say mental health is losing its stigma! It's certainly interesting that you're only now talking about violence and mental health - let's quickly revisit the point at which you entered this conversation:

I'll feign surprise at this point.

Also, again to show you how questions are answered: "Someone with a history of ignoring other people's rights should be monitored to ensure they do not ignore other people's rights again."

You still havent shared your view on both questions though.

You incorrectly claim I do not acknowledge other factors then gunlaws. I have specifically adressed it isnt just a gunproblem. Strict gunlaws are not an end all solution (and never claimed that) , so dont try to misrepresent my narrative. I joined the conversation because claiming that gunlaws are not a factor in mass shootings is incorrect, suggesting I blame just guns for mass shootings is something you made up.

Well you can be happy to die for your god, and that does happen... quite a lot actually. But I generally agree with your "happy and wealthy = nonviolent" rule of thumb.

So the problem is that you're still advocating for strict gun laws in a relatively infrequent crime and trying to reduce the number of victims in probably the hardest crime (terrorist mass killing) to actually make a dent in. There is low hanging fruit elsewhere... other murders that might have been prevented. You're focusing on the hardest one. Why? I'll tell you, it's sensational.

Increasing the barrier to obtaining a gun is the least likely to have an effect on the number of victims when it comes to terrorism. The terrorist, especially the religiously motivated terrorist, but generally terrorism fits this well, is going to find another way.

I agree for most organised terrorism, but I am thinking more about individual acts carried out by disturbed individuals. The amount of mass shootings (not just terrorism) might be reltively infrequent compared with other gunrelated violence in the USA. However I am viewing it from the perspective of the amount of mass shootings relative to other rich western countries. It does make the USA an anomoly. Which admittedly does have other other then just gunlaws. The NZ shooting was worldnews, but mass shootings in the USA seem to be just a part of the regular news cycle. If you look at the absolute numbers in the example below, it is strange that there is little to no effort to reduce this anamoly. How would you explain this? Not just from a gunlaw perspective I mean?

 

[Famine]

You still havent shared your view on both questions though.

That's quite brazen. I have directly answered both of the questions you asked of me in the posts that immediately followed them.

Meanwhile you've still not answered my question about appropriate action, and you've been flailing around about what qualifies as "too dangerous" after trying to answer it at the third time of asking.

You incorrectly claim I do not acknowledge other factors then gunlaws.

You are incorrect to claim that I have claimed that.

I said that you are only now addressing the violence and mental health problem that I talked about in this thread three weeks ago. In fact in response to the post I quoted above you literally dismissed mental health as a factor out of hand with some random statistical comparison.

I joined the conversation because claiming that gunlaws are not a factor in mass shootings is incorrect

Would you like to take another guess?

 

[PocketZeven]

That's quite brazen. I have directly answered both of the questions you asked of me in the posts that immediately followed them.

Meanwhile you've still not answered my question about appropriate action, and you've been flailing around about what qualifies as "too dangerous" after trying to answer it at the third time of asking.

You are incorrect to claim that I have claimed that.

I said that you are only now addressing the violence and mental health problem that I talked about in this thread three weeks ago. In fact in response to the post I quoted above you literally dismissed mental health as a factor out of hand with some random statistical comparison.

Would you like to take another guess?

I answered your question directly and while you just made a unrelated statement to a yes or no question. ignoring rights does not equal violent behavior.

 

[Danoff]

You still havent shared your view on both questions though.

You incorrectly claim I do not acknowledge other factors then gunlaws. I have specifically adressed it isnt just a gunproblem. Strict gunlaws are not an end all solution (and never claimed that) , so dont try to misrepresent my narrative. I joined the conversation because claiming that gunlaws are not a factor in mass shootings is incorrect, suggesting I blame just guns for mass shootings is something you made up.



I agree for most organised terrorism, but I am thinking more about individual acts carried out by disturbed individuals. The amount of mass shootings (not just terrorism) might be reltively infrequent compared with other gunrelated violence in the USA. However I am viewing it from the perspective of the amount of mass shootings relative to other rich western countries. It does make the USA an anomoly. Which admittedly does have other other then just gunlaws. The NZ shooting was worldnews, but mass shootings in the USA seem to be just a part of the regular news cycle. If you look at the absolute numbers in the example below, it is strange that there is little to no effort to reduce this anamoly. How would you explain this? Not just from a gunlaw perspective I mean?

I think we're not sure what to do about it, and we don't agree.

But 133 mass shootings is a drop in the bucket in the overall murder rate. So if you're being serious about caring about deaths, not just deaths that happen in the same place, well then you should focus elsewhere.

 

[Famine]

I answered your question directly

Actually it's still open, and it took three goes to get even that far... Look:

The way you typed the sentence made it incredibly hard to follow your meaning. It looked like you were choosing three criteria: purposefully built; makes it easy to kill a lot of people in a short time; and primarily used to harm other people.

So what you meant to say was that something is too dangerous if it is specifically designed to kill a lot of people in a short time and primarily used for that? If so, great. That's not guns, so guns aren't too dangerous.

while you just made a unrelated statement to a yes or no question

Nope. I answered your question directly.

ignoring rights does not equal violent behavior.

No, but violent behaviour equals ignoring rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think we're not sure what to do about it, and we don't agree.

But 133 mass shootings is a drop in the bucket in the overall murder rate. So if you're being serious about caring about deaths, not just deaths that happen in the same place, well then you should focus elsewhere.

True, but the number compared to the rest of the western world is worrysome. I am not trying to claim other murders are more or less important, but if a certain kind of murder is much higher then anywhere else. The murder rate is 1000% more (per capita) then compared to my country. It is difficult to ignore the glaring difference between europe and the US and that is gunculture. So at least do you understand my reasons for thinking these are related?

It almost seems the US seems to accept mass shootings as a part of living in the USA.

Actually it's still open, and it took three goes to get even that far... Look:


Nope. I answered your question directly.

No, but violent behaviour equals ignoring rights.

I answered many times. Guns are designed to kill efficiently. If you keep proclaiming that they arent, I can never give you an answer that will satisfy you.

Do you live in the UK or somehwere else?

 

[Danoff]

True, but the number compared to the rest of the western world is worrysome. I am not trying to claim other murders are more or less important, but if a certain kind of murder is much higher then anywhere else. The murder rate is 1000% more (per capita) then compared to my country. It is difficult to ignore the glaring difference between europe and the US and that is gunculture. So at least do you understand my reasons for thinking these are related?

It almost seems the US seems to accept mass shootings as a part of living in the USA.

Mass murder, including 911, Oklahoma City, the Boston Marathon, etc. And honestly, none of us want to accept it. But we genuinely do not know and agree upon the right way to stop it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Mass murder, including 911, Oklahoma City, the Boston Marathon, etc. And honestly, none of us want to accept it. But we genuinely do not know and agree upon the right way to stop it.

At least there are people who want stricter gunlaws. That is worth exploring then not acting at all.

 

[Danoff]

At least there are people who want stricter gunlaws. That is worth exploring then not acting at all.

What do you mean "exploring". Talking about? Like we're doing now? Or enacting legislation? Because gun control laws come at a known and necessary downside while the upside is something hope for.

 

[PocketZeven]

What do you mean "exploring". Talking about? Like we're doing now? Or enacting legislation? Because gun control laws come at a known and necessary downside while the upside is something hope for.

It is for your country to decide if the potential upside will outweigh the downside. Last time I heard the majority (60%) support stricter gunlaws. But NRA gunlobbiest doing everything to block any legislation. That results in inaction and no reduction in people being killed.

Perhaps universal healthcare (another main difference between europe and USA) could influence the numbers, but that is even more difficult to achieve.

 

[Danoff]

It is for your country to decide if the potential upside will outweigh the downside. Last time I heard the majority (60%) support stricter gunlaws. But NRA gunlobbiest doing everything to block any legislation. That results in inaction and no reduction in people being killed.

Perhaps universal healthcare (another main difference between europe and USA) could influence the numbers, but that is even more difficult to achieve.

It's not though. We have a constitution which guarantees the protection of human rights. We're not a utilitarian society, we're a society of principle.

I've been setting that aside to point out the strange leaps and assumptions that you're making in your utilitarian calculus. Because you're coming to conclusions that I think are not supported by your own rationale. Before you event get to that point though you need to consider the rights of individuals and what is even permissible to do from that framework.

 

[BobK]

Guns are designed to kill efficiently.

WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

You have made that claim repeatedly and it's been refuted repeatedly. You are, plain and simple, not listening.

You have even been told what they are designed for. Yet you continue to perpetrate your falsehood.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not though. We have a constitution which guarantees the protection of human rights. We're not a utilitarian society, we're a society of principle.

I've been setting that aside to point out the strange leaps and assumptions that you're making in your utilitarian calculus. Because you're coming to conclusions that I think are not supported by your own rationale. Before you event get to that point though you need to consider the rights of individuals and what is even permissible to do from that framework.

Do you assume europeans dont have a constitution?

You also assume that the the specific rights were written in a different time and in a way that is open for interpertation. An amendment can be amended. Have you ever been to europe by the way?

WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

You have made that claim repeatedly and it's been refuted repeatedly. You are, plain and simple, not listening.

You have even been told what they are designed for. Yet you continue to perpetrate your falsehood.

Nope.
1. defense = kill or harm threats
2. hunting = kill animals
3. target shooting = "kill" or destroy target

 

[Danoff]

Do you assume europeans dont have a constitution?

You also assume that the the specific rights were written in a different time and in a way that is open for interpertation. An amendment can be amended. Have you ever been to europe by the way?

Human rights exist independently of the US or EU constitutions or any other constitutions. The function of the US constitution is to protect human rights, not to create or define them.

 

[Blood Eagle]

You also assume that the the specific rights were written in a different time and in a way that is open for interpertation.

Rights exist without needing to be written. The Constitution didn't grant new rights. They already existed. Those rights are protected by writing on a document that guarantees those rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

Human rights exist independently of the US or EU constitutions or any other constitutions. The function of the US constitution is to protect human rights, not to create or define them.

Perhaps, but that would also apply to any object, liquid or tool. That would mean that all banned or illegal substances, weapons etc. violate human rights? Or how should I interpet it?

 

[BobK]

1. defense = kill or harm threats
2. hunting = kill animals
3. target shooting = "kill" or destroy target

Still
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

You are just repeating the same tired claim in different words.

As for point 3, are you seriously equating punching holes in paper targets with killing?

I mean, seriously?

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps, but that would also apply to any object, liquid or tool. That would mean that all banned or illegal substances, weapons etc. violate human rights? Or how should I interpet it?

Well that's not necessarily true.

But I'll go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that any substance, liquid, or tool should be banned for ownership. Just that certain substances, liquids, or tools require higher thresholds of certification and inspection than others. The extensions of this will ultimately get way off into the weeds, so I'd suggest that if you really want to explore this concept that we take it to the human rights thread.

Suffice it to say that I own guns for purposes that are consistent with the preservation of human rights, and that forcibly taking that property would constitute the initiation of force against an innocent individual and would therefore be an infringement of human rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

Still
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

You are just repeating the same tired claim in different words.

As for point 3, are you seriously equating punching holes in paper targets with killing?

I mean, seriously?

Yes target shooting is actually to train to kill you potential target better. Destroying a inanimate object equates to killing a lifeform. The ones who built, designed and manufacture guns were all to more effeciently kill or destroy a target (living or non living). There are no other purpose then the ones individuals chose to give them. You can use them as paperweight, then for you it is a paperweight, but that still isnt what guns were designed for.

If you chose to explain that guns were designed to hurl an object as fast and accurate as possible, you are decribing its workings not its purpose.

edit:

Well that's not necessarily true.

But I'll go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that any substance, liquid, or tool should be banned for ownership. Just that certain substances, liquids, or tools require higher thresholds of certification and inspection than others. The extensions of this will ultimately get way off into the weeds, so I'd suggest that if you really want to explore this concept that we take it to the human rights thread.

Suffice it to say that I own guns for purposes that are consistent with the preservation of human rights, and that forcibly taking that property would constitute the initiation of force against an innocent individual and would therefore be an infringement of human rights.

I fully understand your view and I would categorise guns for a higher threshold (what I essentially mean with stricter gunlaws) . But there are also alternative ways to preserve your rights then using weapons designed for killing. Killing is a violation of rights, but what is killing in selfdefense in your view? I think we found common ground on that subject, however the main point in this thread is that the potential upside, in my view, outweigh the downsides and also is much better then not acting at all.

 

[Exorcet]

1. defense = kill or harm threats
2. hunting = kill animals
3. target shooting = "kill" or destroy target

Harm is not kill, so point 1 doesn't actually support your initial stance that guns are meant for killing. I could also ask what you mean by harm. Guns can be used to incapacitate without any permanent damage, much like a taser that I believe you suggested earlier. If the taser is not "harmful", then guns can easily fall into the same category.

Point 2 is pretty reasonable, though I suppose you could again use non lethal rounds to hunt an animal and then release it.

Point 3 makes no sense at all. If target shooting is about killing a target, then baseball is training to stone someone.

I think we found common ground on that subject, however the main point in this thread is that the potential upside, in my view, outweigh the downsides and also is much better then not acting at all.

Doing something doesn't imply taking guns away from people who have done nothing wrong. Taking them from criminals only makes sense, but for some reason many people seem unconcerned with protecting the rights of innocent gun owners.

 

[PocketZeven]

Harm is not kill, so point 1 doesn't actually support your initial stance that guns are meant for killing. I could also ask what you mean by harm. Guns can be used to incapacitate without any permanent damage, much like a taser that I believe you suggested earlier. If the taser is not "harmful", then guns can easily fall into the same category.

Point 2 is pretty reasonable, though I suppose you could again use non lethal rounds to hunt an animal and then release it.

Point 3 makes no sense at all. If target shooting is about killing a target, then baseball is training to stone someone.


Doing something doesn't imply taking guns away from people who have done nothing wrong. Taking them from criminals only makes sense, but for some reason many people seem unconcerned with protecting the rights of innocent gun owners.

Sorry I will not use "harm" to describe the purpose again. Even when training with guns, people learn to aim for the heart or center of weight. So yes it is for killing. Other uses like non-lethal rounds are secondary uses. Baseballs arent designed to stone someone. These are secondary uses. They were designed for a game. Like baseball bats are designed for baseball, but can be used to harm others.

 

[Exorcet]

Sorry I will not use "harm" to describe the purpose again.

Why not? Apparently it was part of the purpose a few minutes ago.

Even when training with guns, people learn to aim for the heart or center of weight. So yes it is for killing.

What bullseye has a heart? You can train yourself to use a gun for killing, that's undeniable. To suggest that is the only thing people train for is denying reality. Shooting is a sport.

Other uses like non-lethal rounds are secondary uses. Baseballs arent designed to stone someone. These are secondary uses. They were designed for a game. Like baseball bats are designed for baseball, but can be used to harm others.

What divides primary and secondary purposes, and why does it matter? Baseballs are most often used for sport yes, but if I take the logic that you're applying to guns and target shooting, baseball practice is basically stoning practice. I know people usually won't toss a baseball to better their skill at hurting people, but that is exactly the same case for someone using a gun at a range who only intends to better their accuracy on a target. You just seem to keep arbitrarily confining guns to specific purposes for no reason.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why not? Apparently it was part of the purpose a few minutes ago.


What bullseye has a heart? You can train yourself to use a gun for killing, that's undeniable. To suggest that is the only thing people train for is denying reality. Shooting is a sport.



What divides primary and secondary purposes, and why does it matter? Baseballs are most often used for sport yes, but if I take the logic that you're applying to guns and target shooting, baseball practice is basically stoning practice. I know people usually won't toss a baseball to better their skill at hurting people, but that is exactly the same case for someone using a gun at a range who only intends to better their accuracy on a target. You just seem to keep arbitrarily confining guns to specific purposes for no reason.

Because it caused confusing.

Target shooting as a sport is a secondary function, similair to bow and arrow. A car is designed for transport from A to B. Racing is a secondary function.

Do you really think that a gun was invented and primarily used for target shooting?

 

[Famine]

I answered many times. Guns are designed to kill efficiently. If you keep proclaiming that they arent, I can never give you an answer that will satisfy you.

Aside from being inaccurate, that's not an answer to the question. Guns are not designed to kill efficiently. It is, in fact, incredibly difficult to kill someone with a gun - you have to hit them extremely hard with it. They're designed to deliver a projectile (which may be designed to kill incredibly slowly) to a remote point, and the design depends on the size and weight of the projectile and the intended distance and precision of delivery - and even so some 85% of them never do even that. Some are also designed to look nice.

The question was "Where is the line for something being too dangerous for the general public (also what is "the general public" in this context?) to have access to? How dangerous does something have to be to cross that line?".

Your answer appeared to be, after you objected to how it appeared the first time, that something is too dangerous if it is specifically designed to kill a lot of people in a short time and primarily used for that. I pointed out that this isn't guns - they're not specifically designed to kill a lot of people in a short time and aren't primarily used for that - so by that standard guns are not too dangerous for "the general public" to own.

That's where you left it.

You've also not answered the appropriate action question. I think that makes four times, but possibly five, which is a lot even for you.

Do you live in the UK or somehwere else?

Hey, check it out... a question. I'm going to ignore it until you ask it twice more, then evade it.

Yes, I live in the UK. I await the stunning revelation of the relevance of the question.

 

[PocketZeven]

Aside from being inaccurate, that's not an answer to the question. Guns are not designed to kill efficiently. It is, in fact, incredibly difficult to kill someone with a gun - you have to hit them extremely hard with it. They're designed to deliver a projectile (which may be designed to kill incredibly slowly) to a remote point, and the design depends on the size and weight of the projectile and the intended distance and precision of delivery - and even so some 85% of them never do even that. Some are also designed to look nice.

The question was "Where is the line for something being too dangerous for the general public (also what is "the general public" in this context?) to have access to? How dangerous does something have to be to cross that line?".

Your answer appeared to be, after you objected to how it appeared the first time, that something is too dangerous if it is specifically designed to kill a lot of people in a short time and primarily used for that. I pointed out that this isn't guns - they're not specifically designed to kill a lot of people in a short time and aren't primarily used for that - so by that standard guns are not too dangerous for "the general public" to own.

That's where you left it.

Hey, check it out... a question. I'm going to ignore it until you ask it twice more, then evade it.

Yes, I live in the UK. I await the stunning revelation of the relevance of the question.

You found my answer by yourself.

You are describing its workings. The original purpose is to kill where you point it at.

UK has one of the most strict gun laws in Europe so you think it is violating your rights?

 

[Exorcet]

Because it caused confusing.

Not really clear what you're saying here.

Target shooting as a sport is a secondary function, similair to bow and arrow. A car is designed for transport from A to B. Racing is a secondary function.

That would mean this car:

has no primary purpose then, since it clearly wasn't meant to transport anything, but it can race.

Do you really think that a gun was invented and primarily used for target shooting?

What I'm trying to get at is what I brought up earlier in the thread. Purpose doesn't really add anything to the discuss. I think everyone agrees that guns are good at killing, and that makes them something to watch out for. That's different from purpose. Your line of reasoning as stated implies that if someone finds a novel way to use a normally innocuous item to inflict massive casualties we shouldn't be worried because afterall, that wasn't the items purpose. I'm sure you don't actually think that, but it's what your reasoning implies. You're also using a kind of lazy and sloppy way of categorizing objects. You're saying that guns are for killing and cars are for transport, yet these two items are actually rather broad categories. Just for the sake of argument we can say that guns originally were designed for killing. This has nothing to do with the design of a modern gun. A gun made today could very easily be made to kill, but it could also be mad to do something else from non lethal protection:

https://www.saltsupply.com/


to transportation:

https://space.nss.org/l5-news-mass-driver-update/

 

[PocketZeven]

Not really clear what you're saying here.


That would mean this car:

has no primary purpose then, since it clearly wasn't meant to transport anything, but it can race.


What I'm trying to get at is what I brought up earlier in the thread. Purpose doesn't really add anything to the discuss. I think everyone agrees that guns are good at killing, and that makes them something to watch out for. That's different from purpose. Your line of reasoning as stated implies that if someone finds a novel way to use a normally innocuous item to inflict massive casualties we shouldn't be worried because afterall, that wasn't the items purpose. I'm sure you don't actually think that, but it's what your reasoning implies. You're also using a kind of lazy and sloppy way of categorizing objects. You're saying that guns are for killing and cars are for transport, yet these two items are actually rather broad categories. Just for the sake of argument we can say that guns originally were designed for killing. This has nothing to do with the design of a modern gun. A gun made today could very easily be made to kill, but it could also be mad to do something else from non lethal protection:

https://www.saltsupply.com/


to transportation:

https://space.nss.org/l5-news-mass-driver-update/

You answered your own question. Some guns are desgined for other purposes, like some cars. The car in your example is obviously designed for racing. There probably guns designed for target shooting too. But originally the purpose of a car was to transport from a to b. I dont think you need to question the primary purpose of a gun or car, unless designed for other purposes.

 

[Famine]

You found my answer by yourself.

Your answer is the answer I already refuted? Nice, so that means you acknowledge guns are not too dangerous for the general public as they don't meet your criteria for things that are. Glad we agree on that.

You are describing its workings.

Yes, what with "function" meaning "purpose" and all that jazz. How a thing works is pretty much integral to what it's used for.

The original purpose is to kill where you point it at.

We've been over this. The original purpose was to shoot flames. The first recorded use of delivering projectiles against live targets is some two centuries later.

Guns are not designed to kill, or kill efficiently, or kill lots of people - it's pretty hard to kill anyone at all with a gun. They're designed to deliver a projectile to a remote point, with the design depending on the type of projectile, how far away that point is, and how much of it you want the projectile to hit, and sometimes to look nice too.

The projectiles may be designed to kill, or kill efficiently, or kill lots, or kill slowly and horribly, or not kill. Guns don't just point at things and kill them. That's literally not how any of this works. It'd be nice if you'd try to understand what guns are and do.

UK has one of the most strict gun laws in Europe so you think it is violating your rights?

Yeah, already answered that one for you yesterday, the first time you asked about the UK's gun control:

Would you think your country is better with less gun control?

Ah look, more questions coming from the table that evades them... Let me show you how it's done:

"Yes, because a government that does not respect the rights of its civilians is a tyranny."

 

[Exorcet]

You answered your own question. Some guns are desgined for other purposes, like some cars. The car in your example is obviously designed for racing. There probably guns designed for target shooting too. But originally the purpose of a car was to transport from a to b. I dont think you need to question the primary purpose of a gun or car, unless designed for other purposes.

Doesn't this then go against what you've been saying this whole time? It can't be that cars are designed for transport, but this particular car is not designed for transport.

I definitely agree that items of the same type can have different purposes through design or use, but you were arguing against this before.

Bringing it back to guns, if they aren't necessarily designed for killing, then there should be ways facilitate their use without causing harm to people right? Even for something like a military style weapon, if it can only shoot at a gun range and only downrange, what reason is there to ban it?