Wanting to commit suicide has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. Or cars or motorcycles or tall buildings or bridges. I don't believe this study will accomplish anything. One of the biggest causes for the increase in suicides we are seeing are all of the psychotropic drugs that are dispensed like candy by licensed doctors. Study THAT problem if you want to reduce suicides.
Project "Grip". Study in regards to firearm violence/suicide. Your input please.
- Thread starter Ralph III
- Start date
- Status
Tinman357
Member
Agreed . I didn't mention that my daughter was on an anti depressant. Prescribed by the doctor that was telling me how good things were going. As she was hanging by a rope in a crappy hotel room.
That said, It does look like the OP heart is in the right place and he's trying to do what he can for good reasons and not stepping on the Constitution.
That said, It does look like the OP heart is in the right place and he's trying to do what he can for good reasons and not stepping on the Constitution.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
Look up the Florida State Mental Hospital in Chattahoochee, FL; they have some seriously disturbed folks in a few areas with barbed wire that makes a maximum security prison look like a country club.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Hospital
Ignition Override
Member
Married friends of ours - retired pharmacist - and a manager at the Shot Nurse - confirm how some antidepressants backfire on so many people. Not just common hearsay.
My wife has a different friend whose husband was a Pain Doctor. He suffered from depression (never
even bought life insurance! ), and bought a gun to kill himself. Luckily he parked somewhere in downtown Memphis. He was prescribed one of those same drugs.
He would have been successful with suicide, no matter whether using a gun or other proven methods.
But when the media needs to publicize something to further their somewhat hidden agenda, guess which suicide method is closer to the front of a newspaper, or upper area on a website?
My wife has a different friend whose husband was a Pain Doctor. He suffered from depression (never
even bought life insurance! ), and bought a gun to kill himself. Luckily he parked somewhere in downtown Memphis. He was prescribed one of those same drugs.He would have been successful with suicide, no matter whether using a gun or other proven methods.
But when the media needs to publicize something to further their somewhat hidden agenda, guess which suicide method is closer to the front of a newspaper, or upper area on a website?
Last edited:
OP
OP
Ralph III
Member
Hello Everyone. See attachment......
This study is attempting to get at LEGITIMATE solutions and it is being directed by legal gun owners!!!!! Not sure how many times I have to state that.
Prior to our meeting I sent Dr. Krista Mehari my opinion in regards to these issues and as it applies to project GRIP. It is in fact a detailed version of my original post to this thread but tweaked somewhat in order to better represent what we shared on this forum. It is 9 pages long so read it if desired. This is something that I had promised Dr. Mehari that I would do and she was ecstatic that I did such. I also sent sent her a few other pertinent documents/studies as well in that email. This was her reply which was prior to ever meeting with her or the group.
I don't think anyone believes we are going to solve these issues over night or even possibly at all. But at least we can dispel the notion that firearms are the issue and get the focus where it truly should be and that is on people and their actions. That would be a win win. Maybe then society could wake up and start a legitimate conversation on how to address some of these issues.
Thanks,
Ralph
Well that is the point Drail!!!!!
This study is attempting to get at LEGITIMATE solutions and it is being directed by legal gun owners!!!!! Not sure how many times I have to state that.
Prior to our meeting I sent Dr. Krista Mehari my opinion in regards to these issues and as it applies to project GRIP. It is in fact a detailed version of my original post to this thread but tweaked somewhat in order to better represent what we shared on this forum. It is 9 pages long so read it if desired. This is something that I had promised Dr. Mehari that I would do and she was ecstatic that I did such. I also sent sent her a few other pertinent documents/studies as well in that email. This was her reply which was prior to ever meeting with her or the group.
I don't think anyone believes we are going to solve these issues over night or even possibly at all. But at least we can dispel the notion that firearms are the issue and get the focus where it truly should be and that is on people and their actions. That would be a win win. Maybe then society could wake up and start a legitimate conversation on how to address some of these issues.
Thanks,
Ralph
Attachments
Tinman357
Member
Drail. True. The machine is large, well funded, and deeply entrenched. But the OP is fighting it anyway. Don't forget that the war in the pacific in WW2 was being lost by the U.S. Badly. A lone squadron, lost, low on fuel, and hopelessly outnumbered turned the tide and broke the japanese fleet at Midway.
Last edited:
Mark out those counties on a map. Then look at a map showing who each county voted for in the last election.
Major job losses in my town.
Lots of suicides. Many by gun.
Stainless revolver outside if one wants to check out.
Saw a once fired Colt 380 gov that sat in the red stuff overnight and etched the slide bad.
Major local employer had good insurance. Think half the workers on an SSRI.
They (docs) dunno exactly how they work, so they put somebody on one and try it for a month or two and if that doesn't work, swap to another.
Can really mess people up. Seen it. Think it was more common 20 yrs ago, the overall shotgun approach w SSRI (no pun intended).
Have also seen a low dosage SSRI calm a nerve issue from brain to gut and literally kept a person from wasting away. System works as normal now and is retraining the brain and gut to communicate properly. Might end up not needing an SSRI in a couple of yrs.
They can be of benefit.
People often get on an SSRI (over prescribed) and then when they get off, have problems. Some people have legit problems and can be helped. Ya just never know.
Lots of suicides. Many by gun.
Stainless revolver outside if one wants to check out.
Saw a once fired Colt 380 gov that sat in the red stuff overnight and etched the slide bad.
Major local employer had good insurance. Think half the workers on an SSRI.
They (docs) dunno exactly how they work, so they put somebody on one and try it for a month or two and if that doesn't work, swap to another.
Can really mess people up. Seen it. Think it was more common 20 yrs ago, the overall shotgun approach w SSRI (no pun intended).
Have also seen a low dosage SSRI calm a nerve issue from brain to gut and literally kept a person from wasting away. System works as normal now and is retraining the brain and gut to communicate properly. Might end up not needing an SSRI in a couple of yrs.
They can be of benefit.
People often get on an SSRI (over prescribed) and then when they get off, have problems. Some people have legit problems and can be helped. Ya just never know.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Ralph III
Member
Maybe but did you read any of the studies which I cited? Specifically the one by Journal of the American College of Surgeons? They noted that public opinion has shifted dramatically and that states have reduced the restriction of concealed carry over the last 30 years..."Over the last 30 years, public opinion and state level legislation regarding the concealed-carry of firearms have shifted dramatically.". They noted that such states liberalization, defined as less government restrictions, of concealed carry laws had no influence or correlation in regards to homicides and other violent crimes.
Secondly, you do realize the USA college study "GRIP" is being conducted by professors/researchers who are legal gun owners themselves and that they are recruiting other legal gun owners to help conduct this study? These people aren't just gun owners. They are gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment supporters.
I don't know about you but I will always stand up for what I believe in. When it comes to gun rights do you just decide to cower away while Biden and such as he make all the rules for you? Sorry, that ain't me. Just like everyone on this project, we will give a point of view as legal gun owners on these matters and that is what we have been asked to do. I really admire these professors and researches because they have truly gone out on a limb with this one. So I can only imagine the push back they may get from some within academia. I will also make sure the points that Tinman357 made as well as others is represented in our discussions. I never consider giving my opinion a waste of time.
God Bless,
Ralph
Last edited:
I think a lot of people struggle with the concept of this study because the study assumes that there is a causal relationship between firearms and suicides, homicides and accidental deaths, and it is this assumption that is used by anti 2A activists to promote the false narrative that eliminating guns (the assumed cause) will reduce deaths and injuries. That's why you hear the counter argument that if that false narrative was actually correct, then forks and spoons should be banned to prevent obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
So to answer the original questions, from a gun owner's perspective, the responses are fairly simple. Firearms have no causal relationship to suicides and homicides. They are mental health, law enforcement and educational issues. There is no data for this response because the question assumes a false premise. The way firearms can affect unjustified homicide rates is to promote gun ownership and support the right to self defense to prevent innocent people from being victimized. Note that homicides can be either justified (self defense) or unjustified (murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide).
Accidental firearms deaths and injuries is a political and educational issue. The government could easily help to prevent gun accidents if they taught proper gun handline procedures in public schools, but that would be politically incorrect because many state and local governments view firearms negatively and refuse to teach basic firearm usage. People that don't have parents who are gun owners are therefore required to self educate, which is what many of us have done.
So to answer the original questions, from a gun owner's perspective, the responses are fairly simple. Firearms have no causal relationship to suicides and homicides. They are mental health, law enforcement and educational issues. There is no data for this response because the question assumes a false premise. The way firearms can affect unjustified homicide rates is to promote gun ownership and support the right to self defense to prevent innocent people from being victimized. Note that homicides can be either justified (self defense) or unjustified (murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide).
Accidental firearms deaths and injuries is a political and educational issue. The government could easily help to prevent gun accidents if they taught proper gun handline procedures in public schools, but that would be politically incorrect because many state and local governments view firearms negatively and refuse to teach basic firearm usage. People that don't have parents who are gun owners are therefore required to self educate, which is what many of us have done.
OP
OP
Ralph III
Member
Hello,
I really could use a little help here......
1. Can anyone provide National FBI stats for the last 10, 20, or 30 years in regards to violent crime trends? I would prefer something in graph form. It's my understanding and what I have read that violent crime has been on a decline for the last 20 or 30 years. I just need a good graph for presentation purposes.
2. Can anyone provide similar stats/graph for the state of Alabama?
I am trying to find these items myself but I cannot find anything which allows an easy comparison as a graph would. Many of you may have the proper sources whereas I am throwing darts in the dark.
Thanks,
Ralph
I really could use a little help here......
1. Can anyone provide National FBI stats for the last 10, 20, or 30 years in regards to violent crime trends? I would prefer something in graph form. It's my understanding and what I have read that violent crime has been on a decline for the last 20 or 30 years. I just need a good graph for presentation purposes.
2. Can anyone provide similar stats/graph for the state of Alabama?
I am trying to find these items myself but I cannot find anything which allows an easy comparison as a graph would. Many of you may have the proper sources whereas I am throwing darts in the dark.
Thanks,
Ralph
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Over the years I've learned that surveys are almost always a black hole that consumes time like nothing else, and results in no real change in the world.
Good luck though.
Good luck though.
Armednfree
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2020
- Messages
- 42
I have great difficulty combining suicides. It's like they think if the firearm wasn't present the suicide wouldn't happen by other means. Yet our suicide rate is very much similar to the suicide rates of other western countries. In many of these countries firearms are virtually banned. And lets not talk about Asian countries where firearms are banned and the suicide rate far out strips ours. The fact is that if they want to die they will do it, the means is really irrelevant. That issue is far more than the implement used.
Vern Humphrey
Member
That's exactly what they mean. And if you call them on it, they'll say, "Well people who attempt suicide with a firearm are much more likely to kill themselves."
The response to that is. "MOST people who attempt suicide don't WANT to die -- they want to call attention to themselves. That's sometimes called, 'A cry for help.' Those people who don't want to die choose methods unlikely to kill themselves. Those who DO want to die, choose the surest ways.
"Now people who DO want to die usually suffer from severe depression. If a man who is so depressed he wants to put a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger, can't get a gun, do you think he'd be magically cured of his depression, and go through the rest of his life skipping and whistling?"
Armednfree
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2020
- Messages
- 42
Working in a prison and having spent several years working in the mental health unit I can say if they really want to they will. I've seen a bunch of fakes to be sure but really hanging yourself isn't fake.
Telekinesis
Member
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report is usually a good source for that. They have a “crime data explorer” which is a basic visualization tool that might show the high level stats in a graphical form. I always recommend going to the actual numbers in the report, but if you’re looking for a very high level graph this might work.
I would also strongly recommend you dig a bit deeper than just showing the graph. There are lots of things that can cause high level stats to change which may or may not be answering the question you are actually after. As an example, year 1 and year 2 could have the exact same events occurring, but a difference in how the reports were created could lead to different results on the high level graph. (Not saying that happened, just that high level stats are only a good reference when the underlying data is understood). When you’re looking at comparing 30 years of data, this becomes a bigger factor.
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr
You might need the detailed data anyway if you’re looking at longer timelines and/or state specific data. The graph should be fairly easy to do in excel.
On the study itself, I assume the goal is to present some sort of policy recommendation to reduce homicides/suicides/accidents with firearms? Make sure they follow up with analysis of “what happens if this recommended policy is enacted?” I may be biased (degree in economics and all) but this is a question that behavioral economics might be well positioned to help with.
For example, a likely answer to “how do we keep people from committing suicide with guns” will likely be some form of “don’t let them have guns”. Let’s assume for sake of argument that this is a legitimate answer. How do you accomplish getting guns away from the suicidal person? And what are the consequences of those policies?
As a side note, this is where a lot of anti-gun people say that we get too into the weeds. The problem is that WE have to live with the exact letter of the law while they don’t. They don’t care how “assault weapon” or “transfer” is defined, but for us it is the difference between being a law abiding citizen and committing a felony. Details matter.
Friends and family are one option to keep firearms away from someone who is likely to attempt suicide, but if the suicidal person doesn’t want to give up their guns, what then? Also note that universal background checks would make it more difficult for a family member to remove guns from the possession of someone who is suicidal. If you’re talking about anything more than a handful of guns, it would be cost prohibitive (and time intensive) to go through the transfer process for each gun. Not to mention that the cost/time is doubled because you have to use the same process to give the owner back his/her guns. So one gun? Sure. But what about 20 guns? Or 100 guns? What if they are NFA weapons? You might be lucky to have the transfer approved in 6-8 months...for each transfer. And that’s not even getting into the monetary value of the collection (which with NFA weapons could easily get into six figures).
Using government to take the firearms is even more of an issue, especially considering there is legislation in various states that amounts to essentially the government confiscation of firearms without due process. And like it or not, there is a concern in this community that the government (or people using the government) will make use of any new laws to make it more difficult or illegal for people to possess firearms. We already know that this is a reason that people do not seek help for mental illness, and any policy increasing the government’s ability to remove firearms from an individual (or make them a prohibited person) for the mere act of seeking help is only going to make more people fearful of going to physicians to get help.
OP
OP
Ralph III
Member
Hello Everyone. I am going to lay a burden on you in hopes of getting some new inspiration, support or direction.
In being honest with you I am a little disappointed in our Gun Owners Advisory Board! Going in I thought it was going to be a bunch of gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment supporters such as myself. But that's not the case. Many of them are but a percentage can only lay claim to owning a gun. I really think the Researchers who are conducting this study have more enthusiasm for firearms and the 2nd Amendment than a percentage on the Gun Owners Advisory board. Then, I had an encounter with two obviously very Liberal and I believe truly anti 2nd Amendment gun owners at the last meeting. One is a Democrat running for some sort of office. The other is a quack female self proclaiming "scientist" who works/worked in the medical field.
I end up doing quite a bit of talking (percentage wise) because I'm passionate about firearms and responsible ownership, etc. I've also attempted to do my homework and in getting feedback from you folks. Most people at the meetings have really appreciated the points I have made, so I'm standing out. This isn't purposeful but if I have an opinion or fact to share, then I share it. This however is becoming a double edged sword because apparently a few see me as their counter. A question was posed "What can we do to limit homicides with firearms". We then spent a moment tweaking that sentence in order that it would be more receptive in future surveys to other gun owners. I objected to the blanket term of "homicides" in associating it with a purely negative connotation with firearms. Because many homicides are justifiable; as with a LE officer or legal gun owner stopping a violent criminal who may have been attacking and killing or injuring innocent people. So I feel a distinction should be made between "justifiable homicides" and "criminal homicides" and the former should not be lumped in with the later, period.
Anyhow, everyone agreed with this point and we changed "homicide" into "murder" along with some additional tweaking. Upon doing that and after a bit more discussion I shared my opinion that more concealed carry by legal gun owners would in part help reduce criminal homicides. Well, upon saying that the "scientist" lady and the "Democrat" almost had a physical and mental breakdown or conniption. It was all they could do to contain themselves. Nobody else had a reaction to that statement/opinion but I'm quite perceptive and I could see these two were beside themselves. Anyhow, I truly believe that statement from both a common sense point of view as well as numerous studies which tend to strongly support it. Such as the one conducted under the Obama Admin and the "conceal carry" study as noted by the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
In keeping piece as I saw it, I attempted to present references to those studies for their consideration after the meeting but they'd have absolutely nothing to do with it. It was at that point that I realized these two folks consider me to be their antithesis. There is no way they are 2nd Amendment supporters or gun enthusiasts. It's hard to even fathom that they would own a firearm given their apparent disdain.
Anyhow, I found this to be very disappointing. I also find it to be disappointing that many of the other gun owners are not seemingly stepping up to defend gun rights. The scale is supposed to be finding legitimate solutions on one hand while also protecting/promoting gun rights on the other hand. I feel somewhat alone in the later. Again, I feel the Researchers have displayed more enthusiasm for the 2nd Amendment at times.
I don't know. Maybe I am just expecting folks to be as outspoken as I am and that's not the case. For the most part they seem in agreement, so maybe they are content on listening and agreeing? Maybe my frustration will cease after the next meeting as the ridiculous encounter with the two Liberals fades.
Anyhow, I just wanted to vent a little.
God Bless,
Ralph
In being honest with you I am a little disappointed in our Gun Owners Advisory Board! Going in I thought it was going to be a bunch of gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment supporters such as myself. But that's not the case. Many of them are but a percentage can only lay claim to owning a gun. I really think the Researchers who are conducting this study have more enthusiasm for firearms and the 2nd Amendment than a percentage on the Gun Owners Advisory board. Then, I had an encounter with two obviously very Liberal and I believe truly anti 2nd Amendment gun owners at the last meeting. One is a Democrat running for some sort of office. The other is a quack female self proclaiming "scientist" who works/worked in the medical field.
I end up doing quite a bit of talking (percentage wise) because I'm passionate about firearms and responsible ownership, etc. I've also attempted to do my homework and in getting feedback from you folks. Most people at the meetings have really appreciated the points I have made, so I'm standing out. This isn't purposeful but if I have an opinion or fact to share, then I share it. This however is becoming a double edged sword because apparently a few see me as their counter. A question was posed "What can we do to limit homicides with firearms". We then spent a moment tweaking that sentence in order that it would be more receptive in future surveys to other gun owners. I objected to the blanket term of "homicides" in associating it with a purely negative connotation with firearms. Because many homicides are justifiable; as with a LE officer or legal gun owner stopping a violent criminal who may have been attacking and killing or injuring innocent people. So I feel a distinction should be made between "justifiable homicides" and "criminal homicides" and the former should not be lumped in with the later, period.
Anyhow, everyone agreed with this point and we changed "homicide" into "murder" along with some additional tweaking. Upon doing that and after a bit more discussion I shared my opinion that more concealed carry by legal gun owners would in part help reduce criminal homicides. Well, upon saying that the "scientist" lady and the "Democrat" almost had a physical and mental breakdown or conniption. It was all they could do to contain themselves. Nobody else had a reaction to that statement/opinion but I'm quite perceptive and I could see these two were beside themselves. Anyhow, I truly believe that statement from both a common sense point of view as well as numerous studies which tend to strongly support it. Such as the one conducted under the Obama Admin and the "conceal carry" study as noted by the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
In keeping piece as I saw it, I attempted to present references to those studies for their consideration after the meeting but they'd have absolutely nothing to do with it. It was at that point that I realized these two folks consider me to be their antithesis. There is no way they are 2nd Amendment supporters or gun enthusiasts. It's hard to even fathom that they would own a firearm given their apparent disdain.
Anyhow, I found this to be very disappointing. I also find it to be disappointing that many of the other gun owners are not seemingly stepping up to defend gun rights. The scale is supposed to be finding legitimate solutions on one hand while also protecting/promoting gun rights on the other hand. I feel somewhat alone in the later. Again, I feel the Researchers have displayed more enthusiasm for the 2nd Amendment at times.
I don't know. Maybe I am just expecting folks to be as outspoken as I am and that's not the case. For the most part they seem in agreement, so maybe they are content on listening and agreeing? Maybe my frustration will cease after the next meeting as the ridiculous encounter with the two Liberals fades.
Anyhow, I just wanted to vent a little.
God Bless,
Ralph
entropy
Member
We tried to tell you.
OP
OP
Ralph III
Member
In what regards entropy? My initial concerns like many of yours was simply with the possible legitimacy of the Study and the Researchers conducting the study. I can tell you with absolute certainty, those concerns were put to rest almost immediately. The Researchers are gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment supporters. It's in part why they wanted to conduct this study. They wanted to do so as gun owners and from gun owners perspective in trying to come up with legitimate solutions as they/we see it for some of these issues.
Instead, my concern and disappointment is coming from a completely unexpected place and that is with the gun owners themselves. I grew up as a gun enthusiast from a perspective of shooting sports. That is the case with many in our group so it's safe to assume they are most assuredly 2nd Amendment supporters. However, there is a percentage who have weapons due to safety concerns and/or having been involved with the violent aspect. Consequently, they are not necessarily 2nd Amendment supporters or gun enthusiasts. I feel maybe a few truly have a disdain for firearms. I hadn't expected or considered that.
I understand the goal is to get varying opinions but to have some who are not truly 2nd Amendment supporters puts them on the wrong board. They should be on the Community Advisory board instead. I think the prudent thing would be for me to contact the Researchers to express this concern.
God Bless,
Ralph
There are ardent anti-Oil company activists that own stock in Oil companies. Why? So they can go to shareholder meetings and disrupt the proceedings. Is it fair for the company leadership to say, "our stockholders aren't supporting us"? These activists own stock, not as a profit motive or to have a sense of ownership, but to destroy the company in any way possible.
There are anti-gun activists that own guns so they can be quoted, and they can say honestly, "I'm a gun owner and I support this or that infringement. It's just common sense. It's for the children." Do they shoot? Do they even own ammunition? I have no idea. But they are anti 2A, and the fact they own a firearm is a means to an end.
Activists are called that because they are active. They inject themselves into the process from all angles to steer the conversation - as demonstrators outside and as "concerned citizens" inside the process. They draft bills and present them to their representatives in Washington and in the statehouse, including things that further their agenda.
Of course you ran into anti-2A activists in a university sponsored study of firearms, and that study had "gun violence" in the study title. The only surprise is that anyone was surprised.
There are anti-gun activists that own guns so they can be quoted, and they can say honestly, "I'm a gun owner and I support this or that infringement. It's just common sense. It's for the children." Do they shoot? Do they even own ammunition? I have no idea. But they are anti 2A, and the fact they own a firearm is a means to an end.
Activists are called that because they are active. They inject themselves into the process from all angles to steer the conversation - as demonstrators outside and as "concerned citizens" inside the process. They draft bills and present them to their representatives in Washington and in the statehouse, including things that further their agenda.
Of course you ran into anti-2A activists in a university sponsored study of firearms, and that study had "gun violence" in the study title. The only surprise is that anyone was surprised.
I thought about editing my prior message, but I think I'll leave it be and add this:
Most everyone in this country drives a motor vehicle. But not all are "car nuts". In fact, the automotive enthusiast is the exception. Many people view a car as thing to get from point A to point B. If a law comes out that says, "no more internal combustion engines" many would shrug. But the car nuts would be up in arms if they couldn't drive their beloved high performance cars.
We see some of the same in some gun owners. They own firearms, but they have other priorities in life.
Most everyone in this country drives a motor vehicle. But not all are "car nuts". In fact, the automotive enthusiast is the exception. Many people view a car as thing to get from point A to point B. If a law comes out that says, "no more internal combustion engines" many would shrug. But the car nuts would be up in arms if they couldn't drive their beloved high performance cars.
We see some of the same in some gun owners. They own firearms, but they have other priorities in life.
theotherwaldo
Member
Many gun owners are against allowing people that aren't like themselves to have guns.
entropy
Member
Even more non-gun owners, and owners of certain types of guns only, are against allowing people that aren't like themselves to have guns, or certain types of guns that they don't own.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Obviously, we have some people in need of an education.
I don't have to approve of YOU having a gun, or of your opinions, etc. I have to defend ALL your rights -- whether I approve of them or not -- because that's the only way I can defend MY rights.
I don't have to approve of YOU having a gun, or of your opinions, etc. I have to defend ALL your rights -- whether I approve of them or not -- because that's the only way I can defend MY rights.
- Status
