Why are some gun owners afraid of permitless concealed carry?

[Mrkeller]

Quite ****ing True

Oh, my bad. Other forums that I'm apart of, well it means something totally different. Don't I feel like an idiot.

 

[DarkRose]

Dark, I understand your concerns, but answer me this: why should there ever be a barrier to entry for a constitutional right?

Should there ever be a prior restraint on speech? Or, do we punish misuse? Should we not do the same for the RKBA?

In some cases I support punishing mis-use, in other cases, I favor preventing mis-use... And I know the government can't watch all people, all the time (contrary to the tin-foil-hat crowd's belief), so it's up to us to watch ourselves.
Sometimes that means watching our image as much as watching anything else...
Granted, this may sound a bit prejudiced, or that I'm profiling, but I went to my first 1500 in August, and there were just individuals that "stuck out" so to speak, and I didn't think a lot of it, but I did pay attention to some of these people, and from what I OBSERVED (not just assumed), some of my assumptions were entirely correct, and some were way off-base...

There are people carrying firearms that I'm not comfortable being around because of the manner in which they handle them or whatever, but how do we keep firearms out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them without infringing rights? Who determines who should have them?

If you're caught drunk driving, you lose your liscence whether you hurt someone or not... That pro-ctive. With guns, you usually don't lose that liscence until someone HAS been hurt, or threatened, I consider that reactive...
We can punish misuse after someone is injured or dead, but we can't prevent misuse in the first place? (With firearms)

I still feel I'm having problems typing my thoughts out well...

 

[DarkRose]

QFT

(quoted for truth)

To clarify where he might be coming from, in the on-line gaming world QFT often means "Quit F**king Talking"

That was the first thing I thought when I first saw it on here and had to dig around for other meanings.

 

[Mrkeller]

To clarify where he might be coming from, in the on-line gaming world QFT often means "Quit F**king Talking"

That was the first thing I thought when I first saw it on here and had to dig around for other meanings.

That's exactly what I thought it meant. And yes, I am a gamer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

One where I didn't need a permission slip to carry a firearm to the range or in my car. Shoot, I could even OC and drink coffee without being proned, if I wanted.

Kentucky?

You could have sent a cheque! *runs out of room crying*

 

[Disposable Heart]

Well, Bill of Rights, Promethius (spelling? ) and Kirk bring up points I have thought about today. I went running after work and thought it through. In all honesty, they presented their case with the most determination and eloquence, backed with fact, as opposed to folks who scream, insult and consider anyone who doesn't believe their views as stupid. I can only hope and pray that people like the three mentioned talk to anti's first instead of knee jerk reactionaries. They are persuasive in the art of logos, instead of the pathos I am innundated with daily by emails, blogs and boards.

I believe I have misthought my views, more succintly, I have been swayed in my views based on the evidence brought to me by the three mentioned. Constriction or denial of rights is wrong, period. In my thinking, I was sacrificing liberties for safety, which is unacceptable in case and point.

Criminals carry regardless, that is a fact. The thing that scares me is inappropriate usage of firearms by those who dont know any better or do not want to learn proper safety.

Working at a range, I often find myself "burned out" trying to teach safety constantly to those who dont listen or cannot listen. I find myself constantly correcting people that I have succinctly put the rules into their heads. CONSTANTLY surrounded by people that point guns at me, mess with guns when people are down range, etc... I have even had an NRA instructor mess around with guns when we called cold!

Common sense? Something needs to be done. What is a realistic sanction upon stupidity? None, when liberty is called into question. Realistically, if one really thinks about it: When I ask someone to act responsibly, I am technically damaging their rights. Safety or liberty? I want liberty, but what is realistic approach to safety?

So, that being said: I will admit the "wrong", but I pose upon INGO to help me with the dilemma: What is the way to promote safety that WORKS, but tramples no rights?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What is a realistic sanction upon stupidity?

Working to change the culture. Enshrining proper weapon handling and gun school/training as "cool".

Remember, what would Jeff Cooper do?

When I ask someone to act responsibly, I am technically damaging their rights.

No, not at all. My rights end at another's nose and keeping another's muzzle away from my nose is protecting my rights. Another has no right to point a gun at me (unless in self-defense, and that's unlikely at the range, even if someone is talking like Jeff Cooper or acting like they are galloping on a horse by thumping on their chest rig like hoofbeats).

 

[Bill of Rights]

Working to change the culture. Enshrining proper weapon handling and gun school/training as "cool".

Remember, what would Jeff Cooper do?



No, not at all. My rights end at another's nose and keeping another's muzzle away from my nose is protecting my rights. Another has no right to point a gun at me (unless in self-defense, and that's unlikely at the range, even if someone is talking like Jeff Cooper or acting like they are galloping on a horse by thumping on their chest rig like hoofbeats).

Cooper would just shoot them. (teasing, of course.) You're correct. he would educate them. Sadly, there was only one Jeff Cooper and we shall not see his like again. That does not mean we can't follow his example, only that we're not too likely to do it as well as he did.

There is a phrase heard on ranges: "Watch your muzzle!" At Appleseed, we teach that if someone says that to you, your first reaction should probably be to thank them, since they just made it less likely that you'd accidentally shoot someone.

As for hoofbeats.... Thumping the chest rig is a poor imitation. Coconuts, OTOH....

YouTube - Monty Python Coconuts

 

[beararms1776]

There are people carrying firearms that I'm not comfortable being around because of the manner in which they handle them or whatever, but how do we keep firearms out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them without infringing rights? Who determines who should have them?

There are people many people that are not comfortable around people who don't carry firearms. Should they not have a firearm?
It's impossible to keep firearms away from ones who really shouldn't have them so why have a license as a requirement for others to carry one.

 

[Eddie]

There are people many people that are not comfortable around people who don't carry firearms. Should they not have a firearm?
It's impossible to keep firearms away from ones who really shouldn't have them so why have a license as a requirement for others to carry one.

There are many people who say things that I am not comfortable with hearing. How do we control what those people say so that I and others like me don't have to hear what they are saying?

There are many people who worship in a way that I don't agree with. How can we prevent this from happening so that I don't have to feel uncomfortable?

As a fellow INGOer is fond of saying: Freedom is Scary.

I would add: Harden up. It takes a tough individual to tolerate Freedom. Don't be a wimp!

 

[beararms1776]

So, that being said: I will admit the "wrong", but I pose upon INGO to help me with the dilemma: What is the way to promote safety that WORKS, but tramples no rights?

It's not right because gun carrying criminals don't have to do this but maybe the state could issue a temp license and require a reasonable amount of hrs. of gun safety class and/or training at a range before a person can carry into the public. After completion, they can obtain the full ltch. jat.
Just like getting a pilot license but of course not as many hours of training.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well, Bill of Rights, Promethius (spelling? ) and Kirk bring up points I have thought about today. I went running after work and thought it through. In all honesty, they presented their case with the most determination and eloquence, backed with fact, as opposed to folks who scream, insult and consider anyone who doesn't believe their views as stupid. I can only hope and pray that people like the three mentioned talk to anti's first instead of knee jerk reactionaries. They are persuasive in the art of logos, instead of the pathos I am innundated with daily by emails, blogs and boards.

I believe I have misthought my views, more succintly, I have been swayed in my views based on the evidence brought to me by the three mentioned. Constriction or denial of rights is wrong, period. In my thinking, I was sacrificing liberties for safety, which is unacceptable in case and point.

Criminals carry regardless, that is a fact. The thing that scares me is inappropriate usage of firearms by those who dont know any better or do not want to learn proper safety.

Working at a range, I often find myself "burned out" trying to teach safety constantly to those who dont listen or cannot listen. I find myself constantly correcting people that I have succinctly put the rules into their heads. CONSTANTLY surrounded by people that point guns at me, mess with guns when people are down range, etc... I have even had an NRA instructor mess around with guns when we called cold!

Common sense? Something needs to be done. What is a realistic sanction upon stupidity? None, when liberty is called into question. Realistically, if one really thinks about it: When I ask someone to act responsibly, I am technically damaging their rights. Safety or liberty? I want liberty, but what is realistic approach to safety?

So, that being said: I will admit the "wrong", but I pose upon INGO to help me with the dilemma: What is the way to promote safety that WORKS, but tramples no rights?

Thanks, DH, it always helps when you have someone willing to listen on the other side of the conversation.

You work on a range. You're GOING to be exposed to people who don't know better, and that's a fact, not to mention unavoidable so long as you work there. Sadly, you will also be exposed to people who do (or da*n well SHOULD know better and have become complacent. Complacency can be lethal.

Individual rights, in a free society, MUST come first, last, and always before other considerations. I'd almost go so far as to say before any other considerations, but speaking in absolutes is inviting someone to prove you wrong.

So... you asked for a method by which we can promote safety that WORKS and tramples no rights: Education. Education and changing the climate, as Kirk mentioned. Make it cool to get training. Make it something people choose to do not because they have to meet some arbitrary requirement but because they impose their own requirement on themselves.Good example: Think back 20 years: How many people carried cell phones or even wore beepers? In less than a quarter century, we've gone from nearly none to nearly all people carrying some method of instant communication with them at all times.

How do we translate that to the gun community? How about the various ranges around start offering discounts to those who've taken a class there. Maybe a larger discount if you've taken two, three, four, or five classes. Maybe once several are doing that, they could network; Maybe MCFG is offering a carbine class this month but my range doesn't have that scheduled at all. Conversely, maybe mine has a CQB class that no one else is offering, or maybe Ken Campbell is offering Louis Awerbuck's shotgun class. If all of those places were recognizing each other (especially if Sheriff Campbell was offering a discount on his class to those who had taken other training), it would self-perpetuate. In other words, if I know that Awerbuck's class is normally $350.00 (or whatever) but I know that if I've taken three other classes prior, I'll get $10/each off of that, it's win/win: I get more training so that I can get better training at a discount.

I know of an instructor here on INGO who has in the past offered a free class to the person who sets up a venue and brings X number of students at full price. It DOES work, and if it became widespread enough, it might catch on. An instructor offering his class for $350/student is teaching it anyway. If the class is 15 people and even ten of them have the predetermined number of classes for that $30 discount, the instructor is short $300, but he's still made $4,950.00 as opposed to $5,250.00, Not bad for two days work, and the end result, that more people are trained in the use of a firearm in multiple ways is a plus for any instructor whose focus is "more people with good training" instead of "more money in my pocket" (I don't disparage capitalism, I just think that many instructors would see the benefit. I also think that Awerbuck, to continue the example, would likely get people taking his classes who would not otherwise do so, to get the discount to still other classes. It's all done voluntarily, too, so no rights are trampled at all.

Thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[beararms1776]

There are many people who say things that I am not comfortable with hearing. How do we control what those people say so that I and others like me don't have to hear what they are saying?

There are many people who worship in a way that I don't agree with. How can we prevent this from happening so that I don't have to feel uncomfortable?

As a fellow INGOer is fond of saying: Freedom is Scary.

I would add: Harden up. It takes a tough individual to tolerate Freedom. Don't be a wimp!

There are some though that you cannot practice the same freedom around them as they do you. Somehow it's just different.

 

[beararms1776]

Thanks, DH, it always helps when you have someone willing to listen on the other side of the conversation.

You work on a range. You're GOING to be exposed to people who don't know better, and that's a fact, not to mention unavoidable so long as you work there. Sadly, you will also be exposed to people who do (or da*n well SHOULD know better and have become complacent. Complacency can be lethal.

Individual rights, in a free society, MUST come first, last, and always before other considerations. I'd almost go so far as to say before any other considerations, but speaking in absolutes is inviting someone to prove you wrong.

So... you asked for a method by which we can promote safety that WORKS and tramples no rights: Education. Education and changing the climate, as Kirk mentioned. Make it cool to get training. Make it something people choose to do not because they have to meet some arbitrary requirement but because they impose their own requirement on themselves.Good example: Think back 20 years: How many people carried cell phones or even wore beepers? In less than a quarter century, we've gone from nearly none to nearly all people carrying some method of instant communication with them at all times.

How do we translate that to the gun community? How about the various ranges around start offering discounts to those who've taken a class there. Maybe a larger discount if you've taken two, three, four, or five classes. Maybe once several are doing that, they could network; Maybe MCFG is offering a carbine class this month but my range doesn't have that scheduled at all. Conversely, maybe mine has a CQB class that no one else is offering, or maybe Ken Campbell is offering Louis Awerbuck's shotgun class. If all of those places were recognizing each other (especially if Sheriff Campbell was offering a discount on his class to those who had taken other training), it would self-perpetuate. In other words, if I know that Awerbuck's class is normally $350.00 (or whatever) but I know that if I've taken three other classes prior, I'll get $10/each off of that, it's win/win: I get more training so that I can get better training at a discount.

I know of an instructor here on INGO who has in the past offered a free class to the person who sets up a venue and brings X number of students at full price. It DOES work, and if it became widespread enough, it might catch on. An instructor offering his class for $350/student is teaching it anyway. If the class is 15 people and even ten of them have the predetermined number of classes for that $30 discount, the instructor is short $300, but he's still made $4,950.00 as opposed to $5,250.00, Not bad for two days work, and the end result, that more people are trained in the use of a firearm in multiple ways is a plus for any instructor whose focus is "more people with good training" instead of "more money in my pocket" (I don't disparage capitalism, I just think that many instructors would see the benefit. I also think that Awerbuck, to continue the example, would likely get people taking his classes who would not otherwise do so, to get the discount to still other classes. It's all done voluntarily, too, so no rights are trampled at all.

Thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

Great ideas. What about for people who have to have a permit before even going to a range. There must be thousands who won't risk getting in trouble by leaving the home with their firearm without the ltch.

 

[bwframe]

Thoughts?

Ok, you got me going now.

DH has a very, very valid point about the safety issue. I can only begin to fathom what he must have to deal with daily. I see seriously dangerous safety issues frequently. Not just from newbies, but from people you would think should know better. Military, LEOs and seasoned gun owners.

Bill, you offer some great solutions. However, the most important issue is how to convince "Joe Blow" that training is necessary. For some, it doesn't matter whether it's a $400 weekend or a $50 half day. One is a new gun, the other a couple boxes of ammo.

It has been said that 90% of all men spend their whole life thinking they were born with natural abilities.
Those include;
Driving like Tony Stewart
Screwing like Casanova
Shooting like Rob Leatham

That is what you are up against...

 

[theweakerbrother]

Ok, you got me going now.

DH has a very, very valid point about the safety issue. I can only begin to fathom what he must have to deal with daily. I see seriously dangerous safety issues frequently. Not just from newbies, but from people you would think should know better. Military, LEOs and seasoned gun owners.

Bill, you offer some great solutions. However, the most important issue is how to convince "Joe Blow" that training is necessary. For some, it doesn't matter whether it's a $400 weekend or a $50 half day. One is a new gun, the other a couple boxes of ammo.

It has been said that 90% of all men spend their whole life thinking they were born with natural abilities.
Those include;
Driving like Tony Stewart
Screwing like Casanova
Shooting like Rob Leatham

That is what you are up against...

And bbq'ing like lovemywoods!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Great ideas. What about for people who have to have a permit before even going to a range. There must be thousands who won't risk getting in trouble by leaving the home with their firearm without the ltch.

Thanks. The LTCH? Well... I've already written a state Senator to inquire about introducing a bill to take care of that problem. I'm still waiting on an answer, but I'll be really surprised if the issue is not addressed.

Whether or not it becomes law, though, is going to depend first and foremost on one thing: We must get Pat Bauer out of the Speaker's seat and get a guy like Brian Bosma back into it, otherwise all the pro-gun bills you want might pass the Senate unanimously, but when they go to the House, Bauer will assign them to committees that never meet or that if they meet, they never bring those bills up for discussion and vote, ergo the bills die in committee and the House never hears them. Without the House, they never go to the Governor for signature. It was under Bosma that we got Castle Doctrine and Lifetime LTCHs, and while under Bauer, last year, we got private LTCH info and the parking lot bill, we did so only so that some Democrats could get some political pro-gun cover, ("See? See what I voted for? That means I'm pro-gun and you can vote for me!") never mind what they'd vote under any other circumstance.

So.... How many letters have your Senator and Representative gotten?

Ok, you got me going now.

DH has a very, very valid point about the safety issue. I can only begin to fathom what he must have to deal with daily. I see seriously dangerous safety issues frequently. Not just from newbies, but from people you would think should know better. Military, LEOs and seasoned gun owners.

Bill, you offer some great solutions. However, the most important issue is how to convince "Joe Blow" that training is necessary. For some, it doesn't matter whether it's a $400 weekend or a $50 half day. One is a new gun, the other a couple boxes of ammo.

It has been said that 90% of all men spend their whole life thinking they were born with natural abilities.
Those include;
Driving like Tony Stewart
Screwing like Casanova
Shooting like Rob Leatham

That is what you are up against...

Thanks Burl. I disagree that you have to convince him it's necessary. You just have to make him see the benefit of it. Consider the cell phone analogy: Do you carry one because you NEED it or because it's really convenient and maybe because it has some cool doodads on it like the ability to carry pictures of your family or friends? Could you get by without your cell phone? Sure. Not as easily, and not as conveniently, but you could. The tinfoil hat crowd might say you'd be better off, considering the built-in GPS, the ability to use it for a roving wiretap, etc., but you've decided, as have I, that that tradeoff is worth having the phone.

We just have to find what it is about firearm training that will make it attractive to gun owners, and I think the answer came from Kirk: You have to make it cool to have X, Y, and Z gun classes, or A, B, C, and D workshops. How? Well, INGO has a great way of doing it: Where were you last Sunday? (same place I was!) What brought us there? The AARs from the last two years! AARs tell everyone what a GREAT time you had. Are your AARs limited to the computer screen? Hell, I know I told almost everyone I know about going down there and having a great time shooting some really cool guns. I know we did it safely and guess what... THAT is training, my friend! Now... NFA day won't prepare any of us to be professional door kickers, but God forbid we ever have to pick up a weapon like that and use it, we won't shoot in a / pattern, or at least not as big of one. More basically, we all got yet another chance to practice Cooper's Four Rules. Practice makes perfect.

We don't all have to be Rob Leatham. One of the things I hear on the Appleseed forums is "Perfect is the enemy of good enough."

I'd wager that with a couple of empty guns, you could prove to a whole lot of people that they aren't "good enough", provided they weren't hiding behind that steel plate. (and I can say that because I missed a few targets I was shooting at, too, and probably more than you did.)

As for DH's comment, you're right on that, too. When Printmitch was talking about opening his range here in Lafayette, there was a big uproar about the rule he had written, "No loaded guns inside except at the firing line, unless you're an employee or an on-duty LEO." After some backchannel conversations, one of the big concerns he and his partner had was exactly what DH speaks of here: people come in and handle their guns irresponsibly. I like to think that I had some small part in their decision to change the rule to "no unholstered firearms except at the firing line", which seems, from what I hear, to have worked wonderfully for them. Sure there are irresponsible idiots out there, but no law will fix stupid nor should it try. Peer pressure, OTOH... Now that has some potential, if you can turn it to your advantage.

Thanks for your input, gentlemen!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

And bbq'ing like lovemywoods!

Best example of all of them.

 

[Lex Concord]

I wish I had more time.

Regarding
That is the exact reason that I quit buying Rugers back in the day when they started stamping a whole paragraph of warnings on the side of the gun.

I just want to quickly address the drivers license issue.
The Constitution does not grant any the right to drive a car.
Since it was written before the car existed, it does not even grant the right to ride a horse, drive a carriage, or a wagon.
We applied laws and limits because cars are dangerous, yes we did.
But since the Constitution does specifically grant the right to bear arms "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" then it follows that the LTCH must be an infringement and therefor unconstitutional even though we have drivers licenses for many of the same reasons,

And Kudos to DH for being so brave...

Call me nitpicky but the statement in bold is wholly incorrect.

The only thing granted by the Constitution are the specifically enumerated powers given to the three branches of government it also creates.

Rights exist (explicitly in the Declaration and, more importantly, implicitly in the existence of the 10th Amendment) without regard to their mention in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The right to drive a car does exist without the Constitution, and no grant is necessary. The state gets away with licensing it and making it a de facto privilege due to the fact you do it on "public" roads.

A 10-year-old is perfectly within his rights and legal driving dad's pickup around the back 40 all day long, and it probably happens quite a bit.

The sad part is, by allowing the state to license carry, it has become a privilege just like driving.

 

[88GT]

The license itself, in no way, deters criminal actions with firearms. I think it's criminal actions by firearm that has made our right more difficult. If a person has it in their mind to commit a crime with a firearm, they'll do it regardless of a license. People should be allowed to protect themselves from these crimes without having to pay for it. Why should anyone with no firearm convictions be required to have a ltch. It makes no sense.
IN. needs to change the law and not require a ltch. At the very least allow citizens to safety train and/or practice at a range.

Why should we even have firearms convictions at all? It assumes there are laws that than legally limit the usage of firearms. I can't think of a one that would stand alone on the firearm itself. And all the others would be crimes with or without the firearm present.

I took it differently. When I was still looking, still trying to decide what kind of gun I wanted, I went to my local range which was also a gun store (still is, under new management now, and an INGO Advertising Supporter!) I told them I'd never shot a pistol before. First gun they handed me was a Glock 19. They took the time to explain that it did not have an external, manual safety. They took the time to go back into the range area with me and ensure I knew how to load the rounds into the mag (I did) and taught me a little bit about stance, grip, and such things as slide bite.

Had I not had someone willing and able to show me these bare-bones basics, I might have never come back, never gone on to buy a handgun, never gone for my LTCH, and never become active in this community. I'd not have written letters to all of our mutual benefit to my legislators, not gone to Indy to lobby for the passage of a very good bill...

I'm reminded of the poem, "All for the want of a horseshoe nail.

The guys who come in, too proud and too full of themselves to admit to a lack of knowledge, are our enemies just as much as Chucky Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, perhaps worse, because it is they who will make stupid mistakes that any of the people here could warn them against, and those mistakes will be ammo for the Feinsteins, the Schumers, and the McCarthys to use against us. Those are the people who will get POd at someone at work and not have been taught, as self-evident as it is, that their gun is not a go-to tool to resolve any argument.

A business-neighbor of my daughters is forever talking about the fact that he carries and uses that fact as a pseudo-intimidation when someone has something to say that he doesn't agree with. I've not heard him make a comment myself yet, but when I do, I fully plan to call him aside and point out what he's doing and in what horrible light he's painting gun owners.

If I see someone seeming to have trouble while I'm shooting, I'll offer to help. If they reject the offer, that's their business, and I don't get hurt feelings over it. I made the offer and that's all I can do. Hell, at NFA Day this last weekend, I saw someone trying to load rounds into an AR mag without a loader. He was trying to push the rounds down from the front and slide the next one in along the length of the previously fed rounds. I just showed him that he could push them straight down from the top. I got a "Cool, I didn't know you could do that!" response. All is well. Was it "mandatory training" because I didn't ask him if he wanted a hint? I suppose you might call it that... but the only thing contingent on his learning what I had to teach was that it would make his loading go more easily.

I see where the issue you have with this is. I agree that the RKBA should never hinge on whether or not you've met someone else's criteria to allow you to do so. I cannot argue with the promotion of the idea that gun owners should (not must, just should) receive some kind of education. I won't back my should with any kind of force of law, just recommend and even incentivize it. As long as we have the LTCH in place, I think that a person showing reputable handgun training should receive theirs at a discount or even free. (The ideal would be that the LTCH would go away in favor of Constitutional Carry, but I don't see that happening any time soon in Indiana. Why would the state voluntarily give up a revenue stream?)

More training is the only thing government can never take from you.

Blessings,
Bill

Don't get me wrong. I have a low opinion of people who don't seek to behave in responsible manners with their firearms.

Of course, the business neighbor of your daughter's is an assclown. He only uses the firearm to highlight it. If it weren't the firearm, it would be something else. Having the firearm doesn't make him a jerk though. In that same vein, people aren't irresponsible because they have firearms. We only get to witness their irresponsibility through their use of firearms. Let's take cigarette smoking. How many fires are started because of irresponsibly disposed cigarettes? Excepting the age requirement (which does lessen the impact of this example somewhat, regrettably), we don't require licenses for smoking, training for proper disposal, or limitations on where they can smoke (for the purpose of preventing fires; the health issues are a different beast and one I disagree with wholeheartedly as well).

The highlighted text above is what I take issue with, as you've correctly surmised. And since that was the premise--the direct connection--for the argument that "reasonable limitations" were a good thing, I have to take issue with the conclusion as well. Poisoned fruit, or whatever the phrase is. KWIM?