Sure. But you are looking at it wrong. Understand that it is practiced all over America. And it saves lives. We are not considering 3rd world hellholes. We know that, in the US of A, we are better off, as in our employees don't die as often, when we let them have it. And, to your point, in areas in this country where it works against us, we hire armed security. I pay a pretty big bill for that every month.
Insurance Company Bias against guns in the workplace.
- Thread starter Tirod
- Start date
- Status
Sure. But you are looking at it wrong. Understand that it is practiced all over America. And it saves lives. We are not considering 3rd world hellholes. We know that, in the US of A, we are better off, as in our employees don't die as often, when we let them have it. And, to your point, in areas in this country where it works against us, we hire armed security. I pay a pretty big bill for that every month.
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
"Why, yes, sir! Please help yourself to anything in the till! Let me get you a bigger bag. And, while we're at it, I see you're a little down on your luck, driving that '91 Grand Am. Let me get you the owner's keys. He drives this year's Escalade. And, wait! Before you go, here, I'll write down the owner's home address. I understand he's managed to accumulate some nice things with his share of what my labor produces. You can go ahead and shoot me, but the owner will have my replacement in here first thing tomorrow. It's a buyer's market after all, isn't it?"
Or, there is real life.
WestKentucky
Member
In today's market, it seems as many are after smokes as they are cash. I guess smokes are harder to track but who keeps 20 cartons of at least 4 or 5 different variety on hand?
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
Right. The one where the average retail worker's interests are aligned more closely with the thief's than with his master's. Just pointing that out for you. But you're not quite able to grok that, are you?
Nonsense. Not that it doesn't happen and isn't in some places prevalent. But to say it is the average is nonsense. Or telling.
zxcvbob
Member
The clerk with the gun in his/her face isn't dealing with averages he's dealing with reality, and has a lot more at stake than the owner of the company who isn't even there.
Exactly. Thats the point. Thats exactly why we ask them to let them have whatever they want. We want them to make the safest possible decision.
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
Ooh! 'Or telling…' You've got me all figured out, you wily capitalist genius!
Uh, yeah, what'evs.
To say that it isn't normative, which is what I think you meant, but were unable to get there, is a reflection of the typical retail worker's Stockholm Syndrome.
Only an idiot risks himself over the owner's cash register.
Conversely, 'Gimme everything in the register, and your wallet!' Is justly met with. 'Uh, yeah, that's right here in my' BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
And then one is looking for another crap job tomorrow. With probably the same 'no firearms policy.'
zxcvbob
Member
"Whatever they want" might be to leave no witnesses. Or just to kill somebody for meanness.
If the owner really cared at all about the safety of the clerks, the counter would be bulletproof so they could duck behind it. (they're not bulletproof, are they? because that would cost money) "Safest possible position" is just posturing unless you yourself are on the front line.
If the owner really cared at all about the safety of the clerks, the counter would be bulletproof so they could duck behind it. (they're not bulletproof, are they? because that would cost money) "Safest possible position" is just posturing unless you yourself are on the front line.
True. But far more often it will lead to no injuries compared to defending it. Again thats the point. It is FAR safer to have shop employees not defend it(whatever it is).
Bulletproof counters? At Chilis? Or Best Buy? At Bed Bath & Beyond? Yea ok.
And It has nothing to do with posturing.
Actually, it is very common, in fact quite normal, for retail workers to naturally want to defend the property in the store. That is true whether you are a single owner operator or an operation as large as Target or Radio Shack. In fact all of those companies actually have to train it out of them. Its by no means universal, but it is very common. Especially amongst salaried managers.
And you are right about the last sentence, they will be looking for another job tomorrow. Every time.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Understand that it is practiced all over America. And it saves lives. We are not considering 3rd world hellholes. We know that, in the US of A, we are better off, as in our employees don't die as often, when we let them have it. And, to your point, in areas in this country where it works against us, we hire armed security. I pay a pretty big bill for that every month."
I also understand that when banks are robbed, there is a big, disproportionate push by police to catch the baddies, because they know if the crooks get away, they will doubtless try their luck again. Also that armed security isn't exactly an argument against the idea of the establishment defending itself; it's specialization to more effectively form a defense (because cashiers are better at working tills than triggers). The passive tellers are not what prevents robbers from swarming these places daily; it's the enormous force countermeasures that would be leveled against them during or after the fact. Employees wouldn't die so often when resisting robbers if the buildings were set up to be in any way defensible, but that's not a possibility for an exposed clerk --so the classic mode of defense from that particular position is inadvisable.* It's a tactical disadvantage to be avoided at all costs by not instigating their gunfire. But that's not an argument to completely remove the option from yourself should they open up. So why remove the option from yourself?
As far as reckless/idiotic behavior; that's an argument against recklessness and idiots, neither of which can be regulated despite the best of intentions, neither of which should be tolerated in a free society, and for both of which we have numerous laws that punish their actions. We will also suffer the cost of their actions in some way regardless (no matter how many warning labels). Maybe if we had mandatory gun-safety/handling training for kids growing up in schools, we wouldn't have so many reckless buffoons bumbling around with guns falling down their pants. In any case, I see no logical reason to constrain the intelligent for the sake of the moronic, or the responsible for the sake of the not-so.
If you craft a system so constrained that morons cannot deviate from proper men, you've created a system of morons
. I fully support an owner's freedom to dictate his workplace, I just don't think restriction in this area achieves benefits commensurate with the shear ubiquity of no-gun rules in businesses. Considering how pretty much every business of decent size has the rule, you'd think there would be a very clear and measurable quantity of cost related to tolerating firearms (and we could decide for ourselves if it was worth losing this human right for 8 hours of the day). There is a very clear cost to not allowing employees to question manager dictates (an analogue to free speech) in the form of inefficiency/impropriety, so it's not like human rights are incompatible with a workplace environment (and self-defense is every bit as basic as self-expression)
Like most anti-gun rules/laws, I'll bet it is in fact based on a lot of 'common sense thinking' by people who just don't think guns are a good idea; it colors government thinking, why not a corporation's?
TCB
*Yes, I'm aware of that jewelry store idiot that shot like ten robbers over the course of a handful of robberies; that guy was an idiot for not hiring security or moving his jewelry store to a less insane location. Maintaining a jewelry store in the middle of impoverished gang territory raises its own questions, but I won't go there.
I also understand that when banks are robbed, there is a big, disproportionate push by police to catch the baddies, because they know if the crooks get away, they will doubtless try their luck again. Also that armed security isn't exactly an argument against the idea of the establishment defending itself; it's specialization to more effectively form a defense (because cashiers are better at working tills than triggers). The passive tellers are not what prevents robbers from swarming these places daily; it's the enormous force countermeasures that would be leveled against them during or after the fact. Employees wouldn't die so often when resisting robbers if the buildings were set up to be in any way defensible, but that's not a possibility for an exposed clerk --so the classic mode of defense from that particular position is inadvisable.* It's a tactical disadvantage to be avoided at all costs by not instigating their gunfire. But that's not an argument to completely remove the option from yourself should they open up. So why remove the option from yourself?
As far as reckless/idiotic behavior; that's an argument against recklessness and idiots, neither of which can be regulated despite the best of intentions, neither of which should be tolerated in a free society, and for both of which we have numerous laws that punish their actions. We will also suffer the cost of their actions in some way regardless (no matter how many warning labels). Maybe if we had mandatory gun-safety/handling training for kids growing up in schools, we wouldn't have so many reckless buffoons bumbling around with guns falling down their pants. In any case, I see no logical reason to constrain the intelligent for the sake of the moronic, or the responsible for the sake of the not-so.
If you craft a system so constrained that morons cannot deviate from proper men, you've created a system of morons
. I fully support an owner's freedom to dictate his workplace, I just don't think restriction in this area achieves benefits commensurate with the shear ubiquity of no-gun rules in businesses. Considering how pretty much every business of decent size has the rule, you'd think there would be a very clear and measurable quantity of cost related to tolerating firearms (and we could decide for ourselves if it was worth losing this human right for 8 hours of the day). There is a very clear cost to not allowing employees to question manager dictates (an analogue to free speech) in the form of inefficiency/impropriety, so it's not like human rights are incompatible with a workplace environment (and self-defense is every bit as basic as self-expression)Like most anti-gun rules/laws, I'll bet it is in fact based on a lot of 'common sense thinking' by people who just don't think guns are a good idea; it colors government thinking, why not a corporation's?
TCB
*Yes, I'm aware of that jewelry store idiot that shot like ten robbers over the course of a handful of robberies; that guy was an idiot for not hiring security or moving his jewelry store to a less insane location. Maintaining a jewelry store in the middle of impoverished gang territory raises its own questions, but I won't go there.
zxcvbob
Member
But is the clerk trying to defend the cash (or jewelry case, or whatever) or is he trying to defend himself? If the former, fire him for being stupid. If the latter, you have no right to interfere.
The hellI don't have the right to interfere. What makes you think I do not have that right?
Because it is not just about you. It is about your coworkers and your customers.
Put yourself in a position of managing 500 shops and 7000 employees. Understand that 20 of those shops will be robbed this year. 12 of them once, 6 twice, and 2 four times. Each of those robberies will happen with an average of 11 people in the building not including the robbers. The will occur in 14 different cities across six different states. All of those robberies they will select one or two people to clean out the safe, money, jewelry, electronics, whatever it is they came in for. It is not just about you. It is about the other people in your store. And understanding the impossible logistics around assuring the training that would be needed to ensure that not only cold that person make the right decisions(with regards to firearms) for themselves but they will also make the right decision for other coworkers and customer is absolutely impossible. Its much easier, and far more effective, to not put yourself in that position.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
So what you're saying is fighting back is tactically unwise, no? Tell them they may not draw outside of self-defense (a gunman presenting and immediately saying he won't shoot if you cooperate might be considered grounds for not drawing your piece; especially in a bank-robbery situation where it is actually quite likely he won't shoot you if you cooperate, solely out of convenience). Why remove the option if worst comes to worst? Part of (all of) carrying a deadly weapon is knowing when its use will help or harm your survival. The only reason you have it is to help you in that goal, so why the heck would you draw it otherwise?
"The hell I don't have the right to interfere [in the self defense of their physical person]"
Wow. Just wow. Cogitate on that for a while, would you? One of your employees is in imminent fear for his life, and you would stay his hand for him. Wow. At what point would you deign to permit him to raise a fist in defense of his mortal being? Or is it just so long as it isn't a gun that's raised..?
TCB
"The hell I don't have the right to interfere [in the self defense of their physical person]"
Wow. Just wow. Cogitate on that for a while, would you? One of your employees is in imminent fear for his life, and you would stay his hand for him. Wow. At what point would you deign to permit him to raise a fist in defense of his mortal being? Or is it just so long as it isn't a gun that's raised..?
TCB
I understand my position is not going to be too popular on this thread(that seems to be a theme for me tonight). But before I go to bed I want to leave you with an intentionally vague real life circumstance. I will not, cannot reference it so whether or not you want to believe it is up to you.
In a past company we had a security guy that had been a VP of Audit/security at a company many of you would recognize. He came in and changed a few things but generally agreed with a lot of our at the time current policies. During our review he showed a statistic that in over 1500 robberies of all kinds over the previous ten or so years, the vast majority of injuries or deaths received by any employees or customers was caused by some kind of resistance. It was actually exceptionally rare that it was attempted. But when it was(including running, chasing, fighting, shooting, anything but cooperating) the chances of someone getting hurt or killed grew substantially. IN fact if I remember right more than 10% of the time there seas something considered major. Yet in all of the instances where everyone cooperated, nobody was killed and any physical injuries were exceptionally rare. There were actually less people injured or killed in the 99ish% of the time they cooperated than there were in the 1ish% time they didn't. Of course he was telling us what we already knew and only reinforced our position.
When you begin to understand things like that you see why big retailers make the discussions they do.
Good discussion and have a good night
In a past company we had a security guy that had been a VP of Audit/security at a company many of you would recognize. He came in and changed a few things but generally agreed with a lot of our at the time current policies. During our review he showed a statistic that in over 1500 robberies of all kinds over the previous ten or so years, the vast majority of injuries or deaths received by any employees or customers was caused by some kind of resistance. It was actually exceptionally rare that it was attempted. But when it was(including running, chasing, fighting, shooting, anything but cooperating) the chances of someone getting hurt or killed grew substantially. IN fact if I remember right more than 10% of the time there seas something considered major. Yet in all of the instances where everyone cooperated, nobody was killed and any physical injuries were exceptionally rare. There were actually less people injured or killed in the 99ish% of the time they cooperated than there were in the 1ish% time they didn't. Of course he was telling us what we already knew and only reinforced our position.
When you begin to understand things like that you see why big retailers make the discussions they do.
Good discussion and have a good night
OK. Maybe I was a little harsh. I guess I missed his point and certainly didn't do a good job making mine when responding. I will refer to my last post for clarification.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"During our review he showed a statistic that in over 1500 robberies of all kinds over the previous ten or so years, the vast majority of injuries or deaths received by any employees or customers was caused by some kind of resistance. It was actually exceptionally rare that it was attempted. But when it was(including running, chasing, fighting, shooting, anything but cooperating) the chances of someone getting hurt or killed grew substantially."
What is absent is why those particular incidents resulted in the employees/customers feeling the need to resist. Namely, the demeanor of the guys robbing the place has an effect on the people being robbed. If they are highly agitated and flailing guns or shoving them in a clerk's mouth with finger on the trigger, a guy in the back room may feel more of an imminent need to intervene. If the robbers are professionals, and quickly secure the employees at gunpoint and remain calm while they are satisfied, there is little need for anyone to go loud (assuming the robbers are not psycopaths). On the flip side, if a robbery is going all according to plan, and the Vietnamese Market owner's son comes crashing through the back door with a machete raised, it is actually understandable for the robbers to...react accordingly
. Like I said, the whole of wielding lethal weapons is knowing when to use them --and just as importantly, when not to.
Once more, I fail to see how the likelihood of surviving a gunfight has anything to do with being allowed the means to defend yourself in one. If you have reason not to trust your employees with something as potentially dangerous as firearms, I can understand restricting them; but do keep that in mind when you give them forklift or cash-register keys.
TCB
What is absent is why those particular incidents resulted in the employees/customers feeling the need to resist. Namely, the demeanor of the guys robbing the place has an effect on the people being robbed. If they are highly agitated and flailing guns or shoving them in a clerk's mouth with finger on the trigger, a guy in the back room may feel more of an imminent need to intervene. If the robbers are professionals, and quickly secure the employees at gunpoint and remain calm while they are satisfied, there is little need for anyone to go loud (assuming the robbers are not psycopaths). On the flip side, if a robbery is going all according to plan, and the Vietnamese Market owner's son comes crashing through the back door with a machete raised, it is actually understandable for the robbers to...react accordingly
. Like I said, the whole of wielding lethal weapons is knowing when to use them --and just as importantly, when not to.Once more, I fail to see how the likelihood of surviving a gunfight has anything to do with being allowed the means to defend yourself in one. If you have reason not to trust your employees with something as potentially dangerous as firearms, I can understand restricting them; but do keep that in mind when you give them forklift or cash-register keys.
TCB
Your first comment doesn't make any sense. Your not going to defend yourself in one because you are not going to get in one. Thats the point. Its preventative. Its not perfect, but it is far more perfect than the alternative. That was the point of my comment you quoted."During our review he showed a statistic that in over 1500 robberies of all kinds over the previous ten or so years, the vast majority of injuries or deaths received by any employees or customers was caused by some kind of resistance. It was actually exceptionally rare that it was attempted. But when it was(including running, chasing, fighting, shooting, anything but cooperating) the chances of someone getting hurt or killed grew substantially."
What is absent is why those particular incidents resulted in the employees/customers feeling the need to resist. Namely, the demeanor of the guys robbing the place has an effect on the people being robbed. If they are highly agitated and flailing guns or shoving them in a clerk's mouth with finger on the trigger, a guy in the back room may feel more of an imminent need to intervene. If the robbers are professionals, and quickly secure the employees at gunpoint and remain calm while they are satisfied, there is little need for anyone to go loud (assuming the robbers are not psycopaths). On the flip side, if a robbery is going all according to plan, and the Vietnamese Market owner's son comes crashing through the back door with a machete raised, it is actually understandable for the robbers to...react accordingly
Once more, I fail to see how the likelihood of surviving a gunfight has anything to do with being allowed the means to defend yourself in one. If you have reason not to trust your employees with something as potentially dangerous as firearms, I can understand restricting them; but do keep that in mind when you give them forklift or cash-register keys.
TCB
Up with a sick kid
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Your not going to defend yourself in one because you are not going to get in one. Thats the point. Its preventative. Its not perfect, but it is far more perfect than the alternative."
Well, that's kind of like driving safe so you don't need a seatbelt, though. Or rather vice-versa? Stuff happens, and often through no fault of your own. The guy gets a look in his eye and you know he is going to kill you and... now what? You see my point? You've surrendered your options to deal with such a scenario, and accomplished what? Abided by some statistical figure to ostensibly promote aggregate safety? That doesn't matter to your, specific, individual situation; your stakes are infinite, so society's are irrelevant*. That's the whole purpose of individual rights; to ensure individuals are properly covered no matter their individual circumstance. Having a gun in a gunfight is far more preferable than the alternative, regardless how you arrived there.
TCB
*Another aspect to this subject is the uniquely abrupt, warningless, and dramatic nature of gun shots and thus, gun violence. It's so abrupt as to be unpredictable, and this unpredictability --even at vanishingly small frequencies of occurrence with regard to negligent discharges-- raises the severity of the threat to 'infinite' levels in our minds. A pure artifact of our ability to calculate risk being limited in scale. It's a well known psych phenomena where people will sometimes react less defensively to 'comprehensible' violence as opposed to incomprehensible violence, supposedly because they are more comfortable confronting a known than an unknowable (oddly, they same will react exactly opposite in offense; if they have first hand experience with how a knife or bat feels when used against them, they may pause to calculate tactics when once is presented, whereas an unknown like a gun may not send up the same red flags. Defenders don't normally have the luxury of pausing to consider tactics, hence the difference in approach). We know we won't be able to react to gunshots in time to prevent bullet strike, so we focus all our energy on avoiding the problem at all costs --even if the problem isn't nearly that severe in the first place. It's just so scary it merits extra effort in our minds --just look at all the activity in Tactics boards for evidence of the same. Obviously this is total grey-area mumbo-jumbo stuff, based in statistical anomalies of statistical anomalies. But it does explain a lot of guns' unique psychological reactions in people.
Well, that's kind of like driving safe so you don't need a seatbelt, though. Or rather vice-versa? Stuff happens, and often through no fault of your own. The guy gets a look in his eye and you know he is going to kill you and... now what? You see my point? You've surrendered your options to deal with such a scenario, and accomplished what? Abided by some statistical figure to ostensibly promote aggregate safety? That doesn't matter to your, specific, individual situation; your stakes are infinite, so society's are irrelevant*. That's the whole purpose of individual rights; to ensure individuals are properly covered no matter their individual circumstance. Having a gun in a gunfight is far more preferable than the alternative, regardless how you arrived there.
TCB
*Another aspect to this subject is the uniquely abrupt, warningless, and dramatic nature of gun shots and thus, gun violence. It's so abrupt as to be unpredictable, and this unpredictability --even at vanishingly small frequencies of occurrence with regard to negligent discharges-- raises the severity of the threat to 'infinite' levels in our minds. A pure artifact of our ability to calculate risk being limited in scale. It's a well known psych phenomena where people will sometimes react less defensively to 'comprehensible' violence as opposed to incomprehensible violence, supposedly because they are more comfortable confronting a known than an unknowable (oddly, they same will react exactly opposite in offense; if they have first hand experience with how a knife or bat feels when used against them, they may pause to calculate tactics when once is presented, whereas an unknown like a gun may not send up the same red flags. Defenders don't normally have the luxury of pausing to consider tactics, hence the difference in approach). We know we won't be able to react to gunshots in time to prevent bullet strike, so we focus all our energy on avoiding the problem at all costs --even if the problem isn't nearly that severe in the first place. It's just so scary it merits extra effort in our minds --just look at all the activity in Tactics boards for evidence of the same
. Obviously this is total grey-area mumbo-jumbo stuff, based in statistical anomalies of statistical anomalies. But it does explain a lot of guns' unique psychological reactions in people.
Last edited:
No its not because we know it to be true. We know that driving without a seatbelt is more dangerous than not. We also know that asking our employees to cooperate with robbers is also safer than not. You are right in the sense that we we take the decision out of our employees hands and of course many on here couldn't handle that. We do it for aggregate safety as well. I get it. I also pointed out that it is not perfect. It is just the best option, by far, statistically(probably a good spot to refer back to the insurance part of this thread).
Its also not fair to say society's risks are irrelevant. But my defense of that would be for another thread on another website.
I would agree that the business owner who is telling his employee's to just fork over the till has substantial reasons for doing it if violence is aggravated by resisting. I get it that there are others in the building who shouldn't be involved.
On the other hand, it's more than obvious it's a two faced policy. I work retail, sure, the bank next door gets robbed monthly, it seems, no guns at all used now. The robbers just present "a note from Mommy" and the tellers fork over the cash. Most are caught within the year.
Where they and I both work, it's no guns, but I am aware that locations that are known to be high risk, where workers were shot, now allow employees to carry open to reduce the risk.
I suppose if I wanted to move to a high crime metro area, I could work and carry at the same time, too. A lot of liquor store owners, jewelry store owners, and others recognize their risk and they carry.
So, while it might be working for a lot of the suburban crowd, it's not in high crime areas.
When do you need to change policy? In America, it's a rule - first somebody gets killed, then we think about it and decide differently.
Right now, we have a no guns policy - but only where nobody has been killed. Yet. We can rationalize it very nicely, quote the odds, and even point out that it all about the lawyers.
So, rather than blame the insurance companies, what I am hearing is that it's not them, it's the lawyers suing for criminals who act wrongly that cause the problem.
I thought there was a principle in law that the innocent aren't guilty of someone else's acts. And that a criminal in commiting a crime has no Constitutional protection under the law.
What has been decided, by whomever, is that it's better to give up a little liberty, in order to get some security. Hmmm.
You sure about that? Seems we were warned about that centuries ago by some sage individuals who knew better. They carried weapons then because their were NO police, and it was on them to do the job for themself, family, co workers, customers, etc.
Now we are being told to cooperate in the robbery and assist the criminal. So, that's High Road?
Seems we keep coming back to that.
Now, along with lying about the No Guns policy to get a discount, or, at least usurping the employees right to self defense, we are now telling them to assist the perp, and things will turn out better.
Am I the only one who wonders what has happened to common sense in America?
On the other hand, it's more than obvious it's a two faced policy. I work retail, sure, the bank next door gets robbed monthly, it seems, no guns at all used now. The robbers just present "a note from Mommy" and the tellers fork over the cash. Most are caught within the year.
Where they and I both work, it's no guns, but I am aware that locations that are known to be high risk, where workers were shot, now allow employees to carry open to reduce the risk.
I suppose if I wanted to move to a high crime metro area, I could work and carry at the same time, too. A lot of liquor store owners, jewelry store owners, and others recognize their risk and they carry.
So, while it might be working for a lot of the suburban crowd, it's not in high crime areas.
When do you need to change policy? In America, it's a rule - first somebody gets killed, then we think about it and decide differently.
Right now, we have a no guns policy - but only where nobody has been killed. Yet. We can rationalize it very nicely, quote the odds, and even point out that it all about the lawyers.
So, rather than blame the insurance companies, what I am hearing is that it's not them, it's the lawyers suing for criminals who act wrongly that cause the problem.
I thought there was a principle in law that the innocent aren't guilty of someone else's acts. And that a criminal in commiting a crime has no Constitutional protection under the law.
What has been decided, by whomever, is that it's better to give up a little liberty, in order to get some security. Hmmm.
You sure about that? Seems we were warned about that centuries ago by some sage individuals who knew better. They carried weapons then because their were NO police, and it was on them to do the job for themself, family, co workers, customers, etc.
Now we are being told to cooperate in the robbery and assist the criminal. So, that's High Road?
Seems we keep coming back to that.
Now, along with lying about the No Guns policy to get a discount, or, at least usurping the employees right to self defense, we are now telling them to assist the perp, and things will turn out better.
Am I the only one who wonders what has happened to common sense in America?
- Status
