"Why do you need" a Concealed Weapon (split thread)

[tkkfan]

I may just get up in time to stop and apply for my conceal and carry permit before work

Why would you need that??? Having it on you is asking for trouble. Besides, don't you need a REALLY good reason too?

In Cali, can't get one unless we have a REALLY good reason, and even then, mostly ain't gonna happen.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by tkkfan
Why would you need that??? Having it on you is asking for trouble. Besides, don't you need a REALLY good reason too?

In Cali, can't get one unless we have a REALLY good reason, and even then, mostly ain't gonna happen.

Another reason I won't ever live in California.

And no, having a CCW isn't "asking for it".

[Peetster]

Originally posted by tkkfan
Why would you need that??? Having it on you is asking for trouble.

I invite you to take that argument to Tilted Politics.
I also suggest you check out the notice about this place here.

This forum is NOT a place to bash others for their views of weapon ownership, either pro or con. If you want to discuss your views on weapon ownership, etc, go to Tilted Politics.

[tkkfan]

I invite you to take that argument to Tilted Politics.

I AM NOT BASHING.

I was stating that it is really hard to get that in California (for good reason). I DID NOT SAY that basmoq or lebell are bad people, but not in just my opinion, but state lawmaking opinion, one who carries a weapon that is designed to kill, will most likely use it.

[Lebell]

Whoa!

ttkfan,

I don't think Peetster was saying you were saying we were bad people (something that wouldn't be tolerated on TFP regardless of the forum), but that you are expressing a personal opinion on guns that really belongs in "Politics".

[tkkfan]

ok. Maybe I sounded a little too critical in that statement.
What I mean is having a weapon, in public, within reach automatically puts a person (opinion or not, politically or not) in a very compromising situation. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

All I did was ask why someone would need that. He is obviously not a cop or any type of security, because he wouldnt have to apply. I wondered if maybe he was being threatened, or he went to Compton everyday with a Confederate flag or something and had intended to use it. I don't see how that falls into politics.

This forum is NOT a place to bash others for their views of weapon ownership, either pro or con. If you want to discuss your views on weapon ownership, etc, go to Tilted Politics

Please be respectful of the opinions of the posters. That does not mean you can not disagree or debate. It does mean you can not name-call, flame, or resort to behavior typically found on an elementary schoolyard. We like weapons here. If you don't, that's fine. Move along.

According to that statement which is found here, I didn't do anything wrong. I was respectful, all I did was ask a question. I did not name call, or resort to poor behavior. I do like weapons; I am sorry that I had an opinion on a CCW, and I'm sorry that you didn't like it.

Lastly, if one doesn't need a good reason to get a CCW in another state, then I'm moving. It is soooo hard to do anything here. I have to drive 80 miles away to go to the desert and I STILL have to worry about police helicopters and stuff.

[Lebell]

Hookay,

I think we'll give this one more try for everyone's sake and then take it PM's if there are any more questions.

Originally posted by tkkfan
ok. Maybe I sounded a little too critical in that statement.
What I mean is having a weapon, in public, within reach automatically puts a person (opinion or not, politically or not) in a very compromising situation. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Well, I don't see any "fact" there.

Thousands of people do this legally everyday without being compromised, myself included.

All I did was ask why someone would need that. He is obviously not a cop or any type of security, because he wouldnt have to apply. I wondered if maybe he was being threatened, or he went to Compton everyday with a Confederate flag or something and had intended to use it. I don't see how that falls into politics.

According to that statement which is found here, I didn't do anything wrong. I was respectful, all I did was ask a question. I did not name call, or resort to poor behavior. I do like weapons; I am sorry that I had an opinion on a CCW, and I'm sorry that you didn't like it.

Seriously, this isn't about liking or disliking your opinion.

If I can try to distill it:

You have an opinion on whether or not carrying a concealled gun is a good idea and that opinion is "no". There are those that would disagree with you. The argument would then center on "need", the Constitution, the role of Government, safety statistics, crime statistics, etc.

I think I speak safely saying that this is the sort of opinion that belongs in "Politics", as it has nothing to do with the technicalities of gun ownership, how to carry concealed, how to make thermite, etc.

Lastly, if one doesn't need a good reason to get a CCW in another state, then I'm moving. It is soooo hard to do anything here. I have to drive 80 miles away to go to the desert and I STILL have to worry about police helicopters and stuff.

Start packing

As far as I know, most every state that has a "Shall Issue" CCW law does not require "reason" other than because the individual wants to.

This is certainly true in Colorado.

I am not 100% only because I don't know if Illinois is a "shall issue" state, but I don't think they are.

For more CCW information, try www.packing.org

[blockmaan2000]

Seems to me, not having a weapon in certain situations puts you in a very compromising position. Do you always NEED that spare tire in your trunk? If you ever need it, won't you thank your lucky stars you have it? Would you use it? Same rationale applies to CCW.

[tkkfan]

Thats not the same thing. I am talking about ending a life, not repairing a tire.

This should be in the politics forum now.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by tkkfan
Thats not the same thing. I am talking about ending a life, not repairing a tire.

This should be in the politics forum now.

Yup, because that's how I've seen every conversation like this evolve .

Split and moved.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by tkkfan
Thats not the same thing. I am talking about ending a life, not repairing a tire.

This should be in the politics forum now.

Minnesota instituted its "shall issue" CCW law last year. So far, over 10,000 people have registered. Want to take a wild guess as to how many of those new concealed-weapon-carriers shot people? Zero. Absolutely none. CCW permits go to those who demonstrate that they are of sound mind, are not bank-robbers, and know how to responsibly use a weapon. If you don't want to carry, by all means, don't. Just don't try to tell me that I can't safely carry.

[yournamehere]

To answer the original question (at least I think it's the original question - looks like this thread has been modified):

I'll give a case where a CCW permit was "needed"
My father was a pharmacist who owned his own drug store - and was therefore the last to leave every night - after dark. There's no way he would have considered leaving at night and walking to his car - usually with the day's cash AND keys to the narcotics cabinet in his pocket - without having one hand very close to his handgun.

Now, that being said - that was years before CCWs were readily available - but every cop in the area knew he had that gun. In fact, he bought it from a policeman.

[tkkfan]

Originally posted by seretogis
Minnesota instituted its "shall issue" CCW law last year. So far, over 10,000 people have registered. Want to take a wild guess as to how many of those new concealed-weapon-carriers shot people? Zero. Absolutely none. CCW permits go to those who demonstrate that they are of sound mind, are not bank-robbers, and know how to responsibly use a weapon. If you don't want to carry, by all means, don't. Just don't try to tell me that I can't safely carry.

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States. FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1996

All these countries ban owning a gun, except America.

Secondly, if I knew that the gang-banger down the street from me could get a CCW, and I could get a CCW--for whatever reason I might have to get one, then I would be totally freaked out. There is no need to carry unless you plan to use it. The DMV gives out licenses to ppl that are careless all the time. What about ppl that are allowed to carry guns? Lets say someone has a really bad day. I dont want to worry about being a potential target.

Now by having a weapon, you are automatically thrust into a position of power. That your way goes...heh Anarchy. Leave it to the police to carry weapons and the citizens to be citizens. Defend yourself by not putting yourself in a compromizing situation. If it does happen, POLICE.

Finally, I love guns. I want a CCW, but Im afraid that I would use it, or threaten with it, whatever. Times when I should and times when I shouldn't. I do not want anarchy. I do not want the guy next door to rule me because hes got a bigger gun, or more guns, etc. Lines have to be drawn that affect good and bad people. One might demonstrate that he is sane to have a CCW, but when a situation is thrust on this individual, he might overreact and have a slaughter. Do you want to worry about that??? I dont.

[tkkfan]

Originally posted by yournamehere
To answer the original question (at least I think it's the original question - looks like this thread has been modified):

I'll give a case where a CCW permit was "needed"
My father was a pharmacist who owned his own drug store - and was therefore the last to leave every night - after dark. There's no way he would have considered leaving at night and walking to his car - usually with the day's cash AND keys to the narcotics cabinet in his pocket - without having one hand very close to his handgun.

Now, that being said - that was years before CCWs were readily available - but every cop in the area knew he had that gun. In fact, he bought it from a policeman.

I feel this is a valid reason. Thats all I was looking for. If everyone here has a valid reason, and I dont mean cause it looks good with my hi-tops, then I'll shut-up.

I realize there are bad ppl out there. They have guns, illegally. But they are not every Jim, Bob and Joe out on the street.

[debaser]

It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Caveat - If you are properly trained!

[tkkfan]

That's true. But how often do you need a gun anyway?

If you need one more than once a week, then by all means, I'll shut-up

Fact is, ppl get robbed, they get bullied by ppl with guns adn theres nothing you can do about it.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by tkkfan
In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States. FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1996

Wrong. Handgun deaths are not all the result of murder. These sort of stats have to be analyzed fully before you can jump to any conclusions about handgun use in the US. Take that 9,400 number, subtract suicides, subtract people killed by police, subtract hunting accidents, subtract "I-didn't-know-it-was-loaded" accidents, and you will have a more realistically comparable number considering our history and our constitutional right to bear arms.

Originally posted by tkkfan
Secondly, if I knew that the gang-banger down the street from me could get a CCW, and I could get a CCW--for whatever reason I might have to get one, then I would be totally freaked out. There is no need to carry unless you plan to use it. The DMV gives out licenses to ppl that are careless all the time. What about ppl that are allowed to carry guns? Lets say someone has a really bad day. I dont want to worry about being a potential target.

Are you even reading my posts? Gangbangers are not able to get CCW permits in any state that (rightly) institutes background checks before issuing permits. A gangbanger will carry a gun anyways, even if there is no CCW permit program in your state, so either way you are in a bad position.

As for "there is no need to carry unless you plan to use it," I think that someone shouldn't carry unless they are absolutely positive that they can, and will use it if they need to. You don't get a CCW permit and "hope" that something bad happens, you just prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Originally posted by tkkfan
Now by having a weapon, you are automatically thrust into a position of power. That your way goes...heh Anarchy. Leave it to the police to carry weapons and the citizens to be citizens. Defend yourself by not putting yourself in a compromizing situation. If it does happen, POLICE.

You couldn't be more wrong here. The first "C" in CCW means "concealed" which means that you should not expose the gun, thus not giving you any power over others unless you absolutely need to draw your weapon. In my CCW training we learned to back down at all points and ONLY draw if we felt that our lives were in immediate danger. You will get arrested, and your permit taken away, if you show your weapon to try to get a discount at a store, or anything ridiculous like that.

As for the Police, there is no guarantee that Police will be able to help you and they cannot be held responsible if they flat-out ignore your request for help. So, protect yourself just in case. If you are afraid of guns, do not get one as you will probably misuse it and hurt yourself or someone else.

Originally posted by tkkfan
Finally, I love guns. I want a CCW, but Im afraid that I would use it, or threaten with it, whatever. Times when I should and times when I shouldn't. I do not want anarchy. I do not want the guy next door to rule me because hes got a bigger gun, or more guns, etc. Lines have to be drawn that affect good and bad people. One might demonstrate that he is sane to have a CCW, but when a situation is thrust on this individual, he might overreact and have a slaughter. Do you want to worry about that??? I dont.

If you don't trust yourself with a gun, do not get a CCW permit. I don't want to have to use my handgun when I carry it to the mall or a movie, but I know that if I never need to, I will be able to. CCW laws are there to provide good, law-abiding citizens, the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones. Bad people do not care about laws in the first place, so a CCW law does not empower them in any way.

[tkkfan]

In states where it is illegal to carry concealed weapons, the crime rate has fallen by more than twice as much as in states permitting concealed weapons.

Guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional or suicide-related shooting than in self-defense. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in less than 2% of home invasion crimes.

Suicides by guns (yearly)
16,599 (note: equivalent to 5.76 per 100,000 people based on 280 million Americans)


Look buddy, Im on your side....I like guns, I want guns, but there is a time and a place.
If youre not a cop, a MP, or Security, you have no business carrying a weapon in public.

FINAL ANSWER

[SecretMethod70]

Actually, I'm curious about your sources here. There is a book called More Guns, Less Crime that outlines quite well that crimes consistantly fall when states issue right-to-carry laws.

[hrdwareguy]

If we are all going to start throwing numbers at each other than:

In 1996 there were 34040 firearms related deaths in the US.

18166 Suicides
14327 Homocide and legal intervention

From the 1996 CDC Report

In fact, violent crimes have gone down in Oklahoma since the passage of the CCW law here.

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation report

[tkkfan]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/
http://www.peacecoalition.org/facts/firearm_facts.shtml


http://<b>http://pearlyabraham.tripo...guns2.html</b>

"The general correlation between the murder rate and the ownership of guns, especially handguns, is clear. Some might try to muddy this correlation by appealing to differences in gun control laws, but that doesn't help much.

Europeans have far stricter gun regulation than the U.S.. So their lower murder rates are actually an argument in favor of gun control.

The correlation between gun availability and murder begs the question : which causes which?

Before delving into this argument, we should note that the correlation itself is embarrassing to the gun lobby. They would love nothing more than to see the U.S. with both the highest gun ownership and lowest murder rate in the world. But this is not the case, and gun lobbyists are reduced to esoteric, "what-if" types of arguments.

For example, what if the U.S. had even fewer guns than it has now? Then the murder rate would be even higher, they claim. (!!!) It's only because the murder rate is soaring that people are defending themselves by buying more guns.

There are several weaknesses to this argument.

One might ask what kind of a "deterrence" is correlated to the very crime it is supposed to deter. The gun advocate might respond, "Well, firefighters are correlated to forest fires." But in the latter stages of a fire there is a negative correlation, as firefighters increase and fires diminish. A similar negative correlation between guns and murder has yet to be observed, anyplace, anywhere.

Furthermore, when guns are involved in the vast majority of murders -- 70 percent and growing -- it is clear that the "solution" and the "problem" are one and the same.

One might also ask how a nation achieves a high murder rate in the first place without guns. After all, it's not easy to kill by clubbing, stabbing or hanging; these methods lack the super-ability and feasibility that guns provide. This is borne out by the fact that the murder rate is significantly lower in places where these are the primary murder methods. An even stronger rebuttal is the effect of gun control laws.

If the above pro-gun argument were true, we should expect to see the murder rate climb, not fall, after the passage of gun control laws. But the introduction of gun control in Washington D.C., Kansas City, Canada, the Massachusetts 1974 Bartley-Fox Amendment, and the Brady Law shows that the murder rate indeed falls.

But perhaps the greatest weakness of the pro-gun argument is that only I percent of all murders are considered by the FBI to be justifiable homicide by firearm. Self-defense might be the intention of people who buy guns, but when these weapons actually get used, it's almost always for murder. The implications of this are fatal to the pro-gun argument, because people's intentions are irrelevant -- the only thing that matters is how these guns are actually used. If they are used mostly for murder, with little deterrence effect, then the arrow of causality runs from gun availability to murder. Even then, causality wouldn't be the central issue here; guns could be banned simply on the grounds that they are used mostly for murder. "


I am through arguing about this. I am for guns, but I am not for killing ppl or animals. Obviously I cannot contend with so many people who are intent on proving a CCW is valuable to the public. This is what I feel. I will not change. Stated above are FACTS NOT OPINION. You do not have to prove yourselves to me. I am not the Federal Government/State Legislature, and I do not have the power to change any present and future laws. I am not interested in arguing a subject that has no end.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by tkkfan
In states where it is illegal to carry concealed weapons, the crime rate has fallen by more than twice as much as in states permitting concealed weapons.

In every state where CCW "shall issue" laws have passed, violent crime rates have dropped.

Originally posted by tkkfan
Guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional or suicide-related shooting than in self-defense. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in less than 2% of home invasion crimes.

Please don't pull stats from ridiculously inaccurate sources like "Bowling for Columbine" or the Brady center. Take a look at the base sources and crunch your own numbers if you want to know the truth.

Originally posted by tkkfan
Look buddy, Im on your side....I like guns, I want guns, but there is a time and a place.
If youre not a cop, a MP, or Security, you have no business carrying a weapon in public.

I'm sorry, but you are completely ignorant to the truth and you've yet to respond to any of my posts directly. Feel free to live in whatever fantasy-land you want, where there is a policeman in every home and guns magically injure children by themselves. I'm just glad you're not in a position of authority, because you really need to research your harsh view of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

[Peetster]

I'm getting mine as soon as I get to Florida, where it's pretty easy if you are active or retired military. I'll frequently be carrying large sums of cash to the bank.

That's the plan at least.

[tkkfan]

Please don't pull stats from ridiculously inaccurate sources like "Bowling for Columbine" or the Brady center. Take a look at the base sources and crunch your own numbers if you want to know the truth.

Thats bullshit.

[Seaver]

Thats bullshit

No it's not, Micheal Moore makes up numbers, or he conveniently leaves out tidbits of important information in order to prove his points. I dont even thing left wingers will deny this.

Thats not the same thing. I am talking about ending a life, not repairing a tire.

No, we are not talking about the same thing. We are talking about saving lives.

Outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns. Now CCW laws are in place so gangbangers dont have access to CCW permits. If they are caught with one, they are prosecuted. Why prosecute the law abiding citizen who might be wary, or who already fell victom to a robbery?

I am through arguing about this. I am for guns, but I am not for killing ppl or animals.

How interesting you threw in the animals into the argument. Because you know, this is about the childrens safety.

After all, it's not easy to kill by clubbing, stabbing or hanging; these methods lack the super-ability and feasibility that guns provide.

Hanging should not be in there, it is a pre-ordaned and organized method.

Stabbing? Ask any police officer a knife is more deadly than a gun. Dont believe me? Ask one, you can be stabbed 7 times before you draw your gun. If you're halfway smart you twist the knife and you make a half-inch hole in the body it's almost 100% guarantee of death. You dont get that from a gun unless shot directly in the head, which is a lucky shot at best.

Clubbing? One knock to the head he's unconcious, easy prey for whatever you wish. So no, both of these do not require "super-ability"


Oh yeah, those statistics you pointed out are flawed because they dont look at the larger picture. The crime rate has continued to fall since the early 90s, this trend predates your statistical dates of CCW laws.

So, lets go over this one more time. Correlation does not equal Causation. Gun control laws do not affect national trends that predate them, just as having stealth bombers today did not affect WWII.

[analog]

Originally posted by tkkfan
Thats not the same thing. I am talking about ending a life, not repairing a tire.

When used properly by a person trained to use the gun, a gun rarely needs to kill (or does kill, for that matter) a person in order to be effective. If i were to stab someone, I wouldn't think that I absolutely MUST stab them to death for my personal safety to no longer be in jeopardy.

Originally posted by tkkfan
I feel this is a valid reason. Thats all I was looking for. If everyone here has a valid reason, and I dont mean cause it looks good with my hi-tops, then I'll shut-up.

So, I guess we should make you, tkkfan, the sole judge and decision-maker on whose reasons are "valid" or "not valid", since you seem to have everything figured out for us.

A valid reason is no more than, "because I want one" wherever a "shall issue" law is in effect, and as for the rest, they need to catch up. It is ridiculous to assert that there could be a person or panel, etc., who could truly decide what is or is not a "good reason". This is why where it is tougher to get a concealed permit, it is so difficult- you basically need absolute proof of need, with no grey area whatsoever, which is dangerous for those who don't get it and might actually need it.

BTW- your constant reference to "gangs", etc. (including your comment about high-tops), does little to address the whole issue. We are more likely to run into the person you call "average joe" than these roaming packs of minorities you obviously keep hinting at. This does not help support your argument, and only shows us the type of thought processes you are having.

After all, it's not easy to kill by clubbing, stabbing or hanging; these methods lack the super-ability and feasibility that guns provide.

Man, I love when people use this lame argument, because then I get to proudly state: I can be standing at arm's length away from you, and kill you with a single blow, in only the time it takes me to reach out to you, using only 2 fingers on my hand. If you don't believe me, go look up most any good martial arts advanced training or military training tehcniques. There are dozens of ways to kill a person with a single blow.

You wouldn't even see my arm swing up.

And there is no super-ability involved, pretty much anyone smart and good enough to fire/use a gun could more than manage such maneuvers.

Originally posted by tkkfan
Thats bullshit.

This is not an appropriate response. This type of post is rude, a little flaming, and trolling. No more.

Strike. One.

[ARTelevision]

It seems argumentation was the intention here.
I'm not interested in incessant argumentation.

The answer to the question is - one needs a concealed weapon because there are people out there with malicious intent carrying concealed weapons.

[Peetster]

Hmmm... aparently this thread has a strike against it. We all know what that means. We are this close to having this conversation closed down. Please, be civil in your discussions.

[OFKU0]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
It seems argumentation was the intention here.
I'm not interested in incessant argumentation.

The answer to the question is - one needs a concealed weapon because there are people out there with malicious intent carrying concealed weapons.

Could you imagine a world where one needs not a weapon since those looking to exact malicious intent have no weapons either.

[seretogis]

I suggest closing this thread. There is no chance that it will go anywhere, and the thread starter should just use the search function.

[Kadath]

Originally posted by seretogis
I'm sorry, but you are completely ignorant to the truth and you've yet to respond to any of my posts directly. Feel free to live in whatever fantasy-land you want, where there is a policeman in every home and guns magically injure children by themselves. I'm just glad you're not in a position of authority, because you really need to research your harsh view of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Okay, this is a little obnoxious, and yet people jumped on the "That's bullshit" line. Snide responses don't serve any purpose. You are ignorant, you live in a fantasy land, "magically," etc. I don't think this topic serves any purpose any more, ever, and we should restrict all discussion regarding gun laws. We've all been there and done that.

Also, I'd like to thank Art for introducing me to the word "argumentation." I was previously ignorant of its existence.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Kadath
Okay, this is a little obnoxious, and yet people jumped on the "That's bullshit" line. Snide responses don't serve any purpose. You are ignorant, you live in a fantasy land, "magically," etc. I don't think this topic serves any purpose any more, ever, and we should restrict all discussion regarding gun laws. We've all been there and done that.

Yes, my response was a little snippy but I think that my points remain true. It is beyond naive to think that the police can protect you from harm all of the time, and ignorant to suggest that law-abiding citizens shouldn't be able to protect themselves with a handgun. It is also ridiculous to suggest that CCW permit holders are any significant source of crime. Of 9,000 handgun murders (if that stat is accurate) how many of them are committed by CCW permit holders? One? None?

Ignorance can be cured by using the search function, and posting in the morning.

[Kadath]

See, this is what I mean. Characterizing your opponent and ignorant and naive serves what purpose, other than to make you feel like a big man? Can't you have a civilized discussion without belittling others?

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Kadath
See, this is what I mean. Characterizing your opponent and ignorant and naive serves what purpose, other than to make you feel like a big man? Can't you have a civilized discussion without belittling others?

"Thats bullshit."

[Kadath]

A robust response, sir. I salute you!

[timalkin]

Statistics are like turds. Everybody has seen one and they all look like shit.

Haven't we all learned that statistics can be twisted to justify anything?

Read up on what the Founding Fathers of the United States of America had to say about firearms.

[SecretMethod70]

Originally posted by OFKU0
Could you imagine a world where one needs not a weapon since those looking to exact malicious intent have no weapons either.

There's a major and critical flaw in this logic. Those looking to exact malicious intent with a firearm almost ALWAYS possess said firearm illegally. The laws do nothing, and this has been proven beyond a doubt many times over. If most crimes with firearms were committed by people who own them legally, then this argument might have a leg to stand on.

[Lebell]

And the original poster thought his comments didn't initially belong in "Politics".

Hah!

[Seaver]

Could you imagine a world where one needs not a weapon since those looking to exact malicious intent have no weapons either.

Yeah, I could also imagine a world in which nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons do not exist. It does not mean you could expect that anytime soon, no matter how many laws are passed.

[ARTelevision]

OFKU0

I don't inhabit imaginary worlds.