Ah, yes - a Facebook status from an NRA member....

[BeachBaby]

"To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons made Oprah fat! Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!! Repost if you agree!"

Have fun with this one, kids. :/

[fascisthunter]

1. Pencils are designed to be a tool to right, not stab

fucking idiotic statements

[Sal Minella]

3. Write on.

[wtmusic]

7. *Psrljksbskk*

:rofl:

[fascisthunter]

20. lol

[-..__...]

14. How about a magic trick?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpSoEIN18WI

[shadowrider]

17. The same could be said about those who don't know how to spell WRITE. n/t

[blondeatlast]

2. Oprah chose to eat more than she should have, the self misspells words.

Nine year old Christina Taylor Greene did not pull the trigger herself and I hold drunk drivers as accountable as people who shoot guns into crowds of people.

[lawodevolution]

32. But do you hold the easy access to cars or alcohol as the reason why drunk drivers kill

"Nine year old Christina Taylor Greene did not pull the trigger herself and I hold drunk drivers as accountable as people who shoot guns into crowds of people."




Or do you not mind being a hypocrite and just blame the object itself when guns are misused?

[Starboard Tack]

53. If you really believe that

then I hope you don't own a gun or ever drive drunk. Not to defend drunk driving, but the truth is that most drunk drivers actually make it home without hurting anyone, because that is exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Most people who fire guns into crowds kill or maim others, because that is exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

[CoffeeCat]

4. The day that someone walks into a political event...

...and kills dozens of people with a spoon or a pencil--that will be the day that this guy's point
makes sense.

[YllwFvr]

27. How about when they do it with a knife?

Mass knifings have wounded and killed large groups just like shootings have. Lets regulate who can buy a steak knife and butter knives like they do in the UK. That protects untold thousands. They will find another weapon, and for those who think knives are less efficient, they dont run out of ammo, they dont reload, and they dont break like guns do. Reading reports of the attacks countries have with knives, they seem to do just fine without guns when it comes to the mentally unstable wishing harm on the public. It saves no one.

Ive seen a report of a man killed with tweezers. Cho reloaded 17 times, with mags that were allowed even in strict states like New York and were also available during the assault weapon ban. Round count means nothing. Passing restrictive legislation will do nothing.

[shadowrider]

29. Let's not forget the ever reliable machete n/t

[YllwFvr]

38. I havent actually heard of such an attack

But it has to have happened, its a far more efficient weapon than a knife. Ill have to flex my google powers

[PavePusher]

39. Rwanda. n/t

[shadowrider]

41. Rwanda - Google it

Pictures available, but be forewarned, they're freaking gross.

[YllwFvr]

46. Thanks to both of you

and yes, I could have gone without the photos... But life isnt always wrapped in neat little packages

[TZ]

5. BTW, cars have licenses and tests that you have to pass

to drive legally. Last I checked you don't have to take a class or get a license to shoot to own and use a gun. Pass a background check but thats not NEARLY the same thing. Funny society where its harder to be able to drive a car then to use something DESGINED to kill

[blondeatlast]

6. +++++++++1,111,111,111,111. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Perhaps there is more stringent regulation on vehicles

because vehicles have demonstrated a greater mortality rate than firearms. If nobody ever died as a result automobile accidents or used them as a tool to aid in crime, I imagine there would be no licensing or testing.

More risk... more regulation.

[blondeatlast]

9. More people own cars than guns. therefore, maybe that proportionality

argument needs some work.

Maybe gun fans should consider that the NRA isn't always as smart as they like to think they are.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. Who said anything about the NRA?

Despite more people owning cars, I will demonstrate that automobiles are involved in disproportionately more fatalities. This has nothing to do with the NRA. Sources are shown in parentheses... the rest of the methodology is elementary level math. 2006 data was used because it was the most recent data I could find from the same year.

Gun ownership: 260,000,000 guns held by 80,000,000 people (wikipedia & gallup)
Auto ownership: 254,000,000 cars held by 147,000,000 people (US DOT)

Gun deaths not counting suicides: 14,013 (Homicide, Accident, Legal Enforcement, & Unknown)
Auto Deaths not counting suicide: 41,789 (estimates show <2% of fatal crashes are suicidal)

Auto deaths surpass gun deaths by 198.2% despite only having an advantage of 83.7% in ownership.
Like I said, perhaps cars have more regulation because they have been shown to be more dangerous. :P

[Starboard Tack]

48. Auto deaths surpass gun deaths by 198.2%

Wow, really? That makes me feel so much safer knowing that for every 2 people killed in an auto accident, somebody somewhere in this country is shot to death. Hmm! I prefer to ride my bike anyway.

[YllwFvr]

45. perhaps when cars become a right

then they will stop being so tightly regulated. Until then, if I want to get a firearm, but need to jump through hoops to do so, its not really a right now is it?

To go to church this sunday, you need to be fingerprinted, have a criminal background check, have the police call your place of employment to speak to your boss, be issued an ID card, take a mental evaluation, put your intent to get a gun in the newspaper, and then even if you do all this and pass, you can still be denied going to church.

Not fair is it? Some of the things gun owners need to go through to get a gun. Seems silly when you replace it with a different right. Like replace church above, with the right to voice your opinion on Obama, or any other public official while in public.

If it really was as hard to exercise any other right as it is to get a firearm people would be outraged. Instead many complain it is too easy to get a gun. In my state its not hard, in some, I think its too hard. Some rights are more privileges than not it seems.

[michreject]

11. Don't need a background check to buy a gun

In many states. Only if you buy from a ffl dealer. Otherwise it's cash and carry.

[Riftaxe]

16. Last i checked you don't have to have a

license to own and legally drive a vehicle on private property...

[shadowrider]

19. Not if it doesn't leave private property

You can get in and go all you want. No license, no registration, no fees, no tests. Farms come to mind.

[lawodevolution]

35. The day you agree to establish a test and license of competency in order to vote is they day you can

Do the same thing with guns. Better if we don't do either

[beevul]

58. False equivalence.

False equivalence.

"BTW, cars have licenses and tests that you have to pass to drive legally."

Incorrect. Cars have licenses and tests that you have to pass to drive legally on public roads.

No license registration or insurance, seatbelts, airbags, uncracked winshields, working tail lights, license plate lamp, winshield wipers, or tests, are needed to drive on ones own property.

Likewise, no license is required in the great majority of places, to own or possess a gun on ones own property.

"Funny society where its harder to be able to drive a car then to use something DESGINED to kill"



There IS a parallel to what you described, and its called concealed carry. Funny that in spite of it being parallel to the car thing, that many are against it. In spite of the licensing and tests.

[Marr]

10. If a gun is just a tool, why fetishize it?

That's what I never get from guys like this. I'm a gun owner myself (I have a hunting rifle), and I do consider it just another piece of equipment that can be dangerous if misused-- little different from a circular saw or a power drill. But I don't fetishize the thing. I don't want to carry it around at political gatherings, I don't imbue it with any mystical crime-stopping powers, and I certainly don't think it has anything at all to do with masculinity.

However, almost every time I hear a person say a gun is "just a tool", they also fetishize the thing-- and typically, their chosen "tool" is designed purely for killing human beings.

[blondeatlast]

12. I'm curious; I'm not against guns, per se. I come from a family of hunters

and spent some growing up years in Montana. My parents would always make sure that my friends' families' guns were properly secured before I could visit their houses; it was SOP in "those parts" and so, of course, everyone did so.

I've known common-sense gun (even handgun) owners and ourtright kooky NRA True Believers (damn near zealots) who didn't lock their stuff up even with toddlers around.

So, to my questions, if you will indulge me:

1. What's your thoughts on the vastly different attitudes I've encountered?

2. Are you an NRA member? Is there any alternative to the NRA for sensible gun enthusiasts?

3. Why the collective balk at registration?

I really don't mean to put you on the spot here. It's just that you seem to have the most sensible reply on this thread so far, and I'm really curious as to whether it's possible to have a reasonable debate about this issue.

Thanks in advance. :hi:

[Marr]

22. Happy to give you my opinion if you want it, sure.

As far as storage, I don't have any children running around, but I keep my rifle separated from the ammunition, and unloaded. It's easy enough to lock ammunition away and even keep it's location secret from any invading munchkins around the holidays. The rifle is too bulky to truly hide from a child. They find everything. I keep it stored, and you'd never see it if you were just walking about, however.

Anyone who doesn't store their weapons properly is a lazy fool who shouldn't have them, in my opinion. I've heard some men try to dress up their negligence with masculinity, and it always pisses me off. Even if you don't have children around, you should store it properly.

I'm not a member of the NRA. I honestly don't know enough about them to speak intelligently on the subject, but the idea of joining club for one of my tools seems a bit silly to me. I'm wouldn't join the Circular Saw Association, either. :P

I don't understand the problem with registration, personally. It makes sense from a law enforcement point of view. In my city you have to register your bicycle, and *that* makes no sense to me, but a gun? Of course.

[blondeatlast]

24. "Circular Saw Association." Think we could get tax-exempt 501c status?!

I'm in!

Thanks!

[Atypical Liberal]

34. Answers for indulgence...

1. What's your thoughts on the vastly different attitudes I've encountered?

The sad truth is that there are far more right-wing pro-firearm folks than not. I believe this is because the right has successfully used it as a wedge issue. By giving lip service to guns (while simultaneously eroding our liberties and giving head to the corporations), they ingratiate themselves with the "god, guns, and guts" crowd. Many people believe that self-reliance is a virtue, and owning a firearm is a key part of being self-reliant. They mistakenly identify politicians who are pro-firearm with being "self-reliant", and also sharing other "salt-of-the-earth" virtues. Of course, they seldom do. They talk a good game about freedom and start lots of wars so they look tough on defense, but in reality they are eroding our liberties with things like Extraordinary Rendition, Enemy Combatants, Pervasive Domestic Surveillance, and more. They talk a good game about religion and family values, but then go back to their wide stances. They talk a good game about fiscal responsibility, but then line the pockets of everyone at the war trough.

But they talked a good game about firearms, and so for too many people that makes them A-OK right there.

2. Are you an NRA member? Is there any alternative to the NRA for sensible gun enthusiasts?

Yes, I am an NRA member. There are many pro-firearm groups out there, but none with the political clout of the NRA.

3. Why the collective balk at registration?

If you believe, as I do, that the purpose of the second amendment was to have an armed populace that could serve to counter federal military power as insurance against tyranny, you seriously undermine this capability when you give the government a list of all the people who are armed and able to resist. Registration is a prerequisite to confiscation.

[YllwFvr]

50. My input

1. There is a lot of division among gun owners. Some only hunt. They could care less about high capacity magazines, "assault rifles", mag limits, pistols being banned and so on. I dont hunt. Doubt I ever will. I dont mind eating deer, but I cant kill them myself. I suppose to survive I could... just no desire to now. I would still fight for hunters rights though. Some hunters will be anti handgun, or assault rifle. Many handgun carriers are anti open carry and think it should never been seen or spoken of. The varying attitudes are astounding, and a reason we cant come together as a whole. So many will fight only for what they deem is important. Not a hunter? Many wont care if they restrict hunting rifles.

2. Im, mostly, anti NRA. Gun Owners of America is a nationwide one. Most states have small groups that fight locally, like virginia Citizen Defense League if I remember right. Pa has Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association, and Firearm Owners Against Crime. Even Pink Pistols that stands up for gay firearm ownership. The NRA tends to fight for the big, high profile cases, or where they will make the most difference. The little ones fill in the gaps on a local level. With around 4 million members, yes they are very big. But consider there are anywhere from 40-120 MILLION gun owners. Now its not that big.

3. My take on this is, its a right, its private property, and its none of anyones damn business. Would you register your TV? What would be the point? What does it matter? Many countries around the world demand registration then later confiscation. That is not my excuse for not wanting it, but one of many. Do I think if they were registered they would be taken? I dont know... but Id say its a good chance. Look at Canada, many peoples guns have been taken because of it, even when they tried to follow the law.

Thats just my thoughts on those subjects

[beevul]

60. I know you weren,t addressing me, but I'll give it a shot. This will be wordy.

"1. What's your thoughts on the vastly different attitudes I've encountered?"

The right to keep and bear arms is more important to some people, than it is to other people. Thats it distilled down to the simplest I can make it.

"2. Are you an NRA member? Is there any alternative to the NRA for sensible gun enthusiasts?"


No. I was at one time in my youth, as a 1 year membership came free with the gun safety course I took in my youth. No, there simply is no organization , as the other poster replied, with their degree of political clout.

"3. Why the collective balk at registration?"

First and foremost, registration at the federal level, is against federal law. The firearm owners protection act makes it so.

Second, heres a long list of names and quotes:


"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993


As long as there are people with the attitudes expressed in the above quotes, there will be people that would misuse a total registration scheme, to attack what they do not like/disagree with.

Its a tool I will not endorse or support.

[shadowrider]

21. Why do you fetishize your computer to comment on this board? n/t

[Marr]

23. I don't understand. n/t

[shadowrider]

30. Then we're even. I don't understand your "fetish" comment regarding gun owners n/t

[Marr]

47. You don't understand what a gun fetish is?

You'll have to forgive me, because I can be a little slow spotting the difference-- are you being obtuse or are you just a moron?

[shadowrider]

49. I know what a fetish is. Why don't you tell me what YOU mean by gun fetish

That way, I'll be educated.

And why are you resorting to name calling?

[Marr]

52. Because you're being ridiculous.

I think you know what a gun fetish is. Some people seem to invest great emotional meaning into their guns, equating them with masculinity and strength. That's a gun fetish.

[shadowrider]

54. Now see, my meaning was different from yours

My meaning would be someone who constantly shines, cleans, holds, dry fires and so on, so your definition is quite different.

Personally, I act no more manly if I'm carrying than if I'm not. You see, to act more manly and feel stronger could be interpreted by someone that I initiated a confrontation. I won't do that. Once a confrontation is initiated by a gun carrier, it's next to impossible to claim self-defense.

I'm me wherever I go and feel no stronger or masculine because of my weapon.

IOW, I have no gun fetish as you define it.

[Marr]

56. That's fine. I never said you had a gun fetish.

[guitar man]

31. wow

You can tell when somebody is posting on a Mac? How do you do that? :spray:

[shadowrider]

33. --snort--

[beevul]

59. I think thats a perception, more than a reality.

Some people are firearm enthusiasts. Doesnt mean they have a feish.

In my home, I have enough computer parts in the original boxes, left over from upgrading my machines, that some might say I have a computer fetish.

Mostly the claims of fetish, where guns are concerned, is eliminationist rhetoric.

[RedSpartan]

13. Bullets don't kill people, the holes do. n/t

[Johonny]

15. why would a gun owner want irresponsible gun ownership?

it just gives all owners a bad name. Had the laws worked as written in the books this man should not have been able to get a gun.

You wants a lead instead of graphite pencil
want a car without airbags and seat belts
want food to come without nutritional information

There's rules to our tools and the rules around guns exist, they just have pointless loopholes and sloppy paperwork. We should do better.

[Riftaxe]

18. Which law would have prevented him

from legally obtaining a gun?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

28. Improper execution of the mental health examination system.

It's not so much a singular law as the funtion of a system that dissallows crazies from being allowed to get guns.

This man had problems, clearly. At some point he should have been evaluated by professionals... and that has nothing to with the 2A or guns. At that point, there are proceedures in place making sure someone who is mentally unfit gets added to the restricted list. Whether the failure to have this man evaluated was a legal or moral failure I do not know. But suffice it to say, either the legal system failed or the people of his community failed to bring his situation to light.

[YllwFvr]

51. If he was a prohibited person

do you think this would have happened? Im going to say yes.

[shadowrider]

55. Of course it would've happened. The mad lunatic will find a way

If he had to choose a different way, he could have killed many, many more.

[Johonny]

42. The current spirit of the current law

Arizona background check only forbids individuals convicted of a crime or found to have a mental illness by a court.

Of course this person was flagged for both illegal drugs (a crime) and flagged for potential mentally illness (probably have to wait for the trial to know more on this). We know now that information is just thrown out by the current system. There's no there, there in the gun laws. Much like the Virginia Tech shooter the warning signs were there, but there no way in the current system for that information to make it into background checks. There no information flowing to the gun dealers. Do I think gun owners want to sell weapons and amo to these type of people? No. But the tools aren't there to help flag these people for them. Heck they don't even know if a previous store refused to sell to them.

Here's how this game goes: a) someone buys a gun that the laws clearly are designed to prevent buying a gun and kills people b) NRA calls for enforcement of current gun laws c) legislatures explain what changes really need to be made to make the current spirit of the gun laws work d) NRA declares these new gun laws, new restrictions e) law makers back down, f) someone buys a gun that the laws clearly are designed to prevent buying a gun and kills people...

[Straw Man]

57. Arizona law?

Arizona background check only forbids individuals convicted of a crime or found to have a mental illness by a court.

That's not Arizona's law: it's Federal. The NICS check is done whenever a firearm is purchased. I would question how you can make a legal restriction on a person in the absence of any legal judgment, such as a conviction or an adjudicated commitment.

I don't think anyone wants weapons in the hands of people who are seriously mentally ill and potentially violent. I don't want them behind the wheel of a car either, or standing behind me on the platform as the train pulls in. But how they are diagnosed and what happens to them afterwards are big, difficult questions.

[benEzra]

44. We don't. The problem is that those who don't like gun ownership

aren't trying to ban irresponsible gun ownership; they are after responsible gun ownership as well.

I am certainly open to suggestions as to changes to the mental health laws that could have put this guy on the restricted list. I am NOT amenable to the moralists banning half the contents of my gun safe even though I own guns responsibly.

[beevul]

62. "want a car without airbags and seat belts"

A car without airbags and seatbelts is perfectly legal to own possess and drive on ones own property.

Besides that, none of the things you listed there, have a rule that restricts government from interfering with them without a really good cause, and a verry narrowly tailored interference.

[CreekDog]

25. Ohhhh I think I know them from this forum!

:rofl:

[lawodevolution]

36. He foregot to add: is it the cameras fault that people use it to make child porn?

[KansasVoter]

37. Is this real or making fun of NRA members? Sad I cannot tell!

[BeachBaby]

40. Sadly, it's VERY real.

I know him personally, which saddens me as well. :P

[ileus]

43. not really gun related, mostly troll bait.

[jody]

61. Is that a call for anti-RKBA beetles to swarm in?