Teen girl in Columbus killed by police

[BigPapaKain]

(05-03-2021, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You havr no basis in fact to back up this allegation. You have no idea how a majority of gun owners behave.

SSF has said many times that no gun owner he knows would tell the truth about if they own guns or how many they own.

I am not saying all gun owners act this way. But almost half (40%) of gunowners whose guns somehow make it to a crime scene don't report them stolen until the gun is tracked back to them.

Actually we do. Because most gun owners behave the same way in regards to their firearms - go to any gun forum or discussion and you'll find very little dissension among them when it comes to how to remain proper.

No responsible gun owner will tell you how many guns they have because A: it's nobody else's business and B: they're under zero threat to tell the truth about it if they decide to tell someone. Despite what you might think, most gun owners don't wave them around for the world to see like the chucklefucks you see on the news.

That last bit is a baseless accusation that has zero root in reality. I challenge you to find anything to back that claim up.

[fredtoast]

(05-03-2021, 02:02 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: You're making an awful lot of assumptions there, big guy. Just because I don't agree with your emotional rambling doesn't mean I don't read it. 

The fact that you responded to my post by arguing against making all guns illehal when I never said anything about making all guns illegal sure makes it look like you never read my posts.

But it could have just been proof that you can't come up with a sound argument against licensing and registration so you just started squealing about something I never said.

[fredtoast]

(05-03-2021, 02:07 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: That last bit is a baseless accusation that has zero root in reality. I challenge you to find anything to back that claim up.

I already posted the link to the proof in post #268.

Don't know how you missed it since you read my posts so thoroughly. 

[BigPapaKain]

(05-03-2021, 03:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact that you responded to my post by arguing against making all guns illehal when I never said anything about making all guns illegal sure makes it look like you never read my posts.

But it could have just been proof that you can't come up with a sound argument against licensing and registration so you just started squealing about something I never said.

Something something squealing something something. 

Once you resort to petty insults lose any ground you had, and this is twice you've done it. I'm over it and I'm done arguing with you. You know nothing about guns and your ideas are short sighted and ineffective at best.

[fredtoast]

BTW I am a gun owner. I own 3 handguns. My dad owned handguns (2 of the ones I own now were his) and rifles and a shotgun. I have been shooting guns since I was 10 years old.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-03-2021, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: BTW I am a gun owner. I own 3 handguns. My dad owned handguns (2 of the ones I own now were his) and rifles and a shitgun. I have been shooting guns since I was 10 years old.

Hehe...shitgun

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2021, 05:34 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Hehe...shitgun

I have to admit I got a juvenile chuckle out of that when you quoted it.

[Dill]

(05-03-2021, 02:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe, let's find out. 
If you find a gun on someone's person the question of "ownership" has already been resolved.
Again, a gross oversimplification.  There are so many variables inherent in finding a gun at the scene of a search. 

These three comments respond to my reconstruction of the back and forth between you and Fred.

I said I agreed that a gun found by a cop on a felon will not pose a legal problem. But that was not the issue I was addressing, but rather what happens if an "orphan" gun is found in a vehicle or residence, with more people than the felon.

There was no "gross oversimplification" in my point; even if "many variables" may be involved in finding a gun at the scene, that does not argue that registration is no help to police.

(05-03-2021, 02:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Guns are registered to someone, the legal purchaser.  To purchase a new firearm a NICS check must be conducted.  Of course older guns don't fall into this category.  But older guns make up a small fraction of firearms in these scenarios and those that do occur are largely stolen and have been reported as such, making their provenance known.

Guns may be registered to someone if the law requires registration. And the registry of guns then helps sort out who owns an orphan gun at a crime scene. I understood that to be Fred's point.

#239 you say "Fun fact criminals don't follow the law, so a gun registry will not assist law enforcement. What will help law enforcement is if you actually enforce existing gun laws instead of treating criminals with kid gloves because 'the criminal justice system is systemically racist.'"

It seemed to me Fred was arguing that gun registry does assist law enforcement. Why wouldn't that would make tracing stolen guns easier for police.

Are you arguing registration is unnecessary because 'most' stolen guns are reported stolen anyway?

(05-03-2021, 02:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, because they are.  The rest of this statement is a gross oversimplification as this is clearly not the case.
Because it's been reported as stolen?  Small hint, legal gun owners whose property has been stolen tend to report it.
The straw purchaser usually has little to do with the buyer on a day to day basis.  Your attempt to put this occurrence at 50/50 is grossly inaccurate.  More like 99/1.

I have to say, this all seems like a rather "gross oversimplification" to me.  E.g., I can think of several reasons why stolen guns might not be reported.

Lol just before posting this I saw Fred's link to the WaPo article about confiscated guns in Pittsburgh. 40% of the recovered stolen guns there had not been reported stolen by their owners. And Fred added the point the police generally don't run the registration of every gun they encounter when looking for something else.  So the supposed good behavior of gun owners doesn't obviate the need for registration.

Also I wasn't "attempting" to create data about straw purchasers relations to felons, just exploring a possibility. The ratio was not important.

So you are arguing that registration does not help police because people reliably report stolen guns and you can reliably assume that straw purchasers are not present when a gun is discovered in a car or residence?

(05-03-2021, 02:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote:Quote:If there were a debate in a state legislature over whether to register guns and this issue of straw purchase were raised, I doubt it would be treated as a substantial objection.

You're not really making a point here.  No one is in favor of straw purchasers.

In my example, your point about straw purchases would be raised by one side as an objection to registry, as in why it wouldn't be effective. There would not be anyone in that debate in favor of straw purchasers.

As I understand it, Fred was arguing that registration would help get guns off the street--especially in cases where an unclaimed gun is present in a car or residence.

Asserting that there are "many variables" involved in arrests for illegal possession does not really refute this general point, any more than a claim that most stolen guns are reported stolen.

[Dill]

(05-03-2021, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In any case, it was not my assumption that if five kilos of heroin were found in a house full of people, it meant that "everyone in the home" would be charged.  

I already answered this.  Try addressing points already made instead of asking them like they're brand new assertions.

Rather, my assumption was that someone would be for sure. The police would not simply confiscate the heroin but arrest no one. When all was sorted out out, SOMEONE would eventually be charged for having it. 

I already addressed this as well.  Please refer to previous posts.

??? I was restating the issue here, not "asking" anything. People do that to steady discourse, to make sure people are not flying off topic or addressing the wrong points.

And I was restating Fred's point because you have not effectively addressed it. You claimed there was no way all people in your example would be charged with heroin. What you needed to show to make your analogy and refute Fred was that NONE would. You didn't do that. 

So you added at best some ancillary information, that warrants may contain further specifications etc. But none of that closes out the possibility Fred raises--that registration makes it easier for police to confiscate stray guns, and in situations he specified, to prevent others in a car or residence from claiming one to save a felon.

(05-03-2021, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are so many variables that your attempt at a clever analysis has failed to cover.  What evidence did you use to obtain the warrant?  Why are you investigating this particular residence in the first place?  Both you and Fred seem to treat these instances as occurring in a vacuum, with no prior evidence prompting them. 

Fred speaks of instances in which police could not determine ownership of guns, even when suspected stolen, and had to relinquish them to a felon's friends.  Apparently that can happen whatever evidence is used to obtain a warrant and whatever reason a vehicle or car is investigated in the first place.  That's' why we aren't concerned about "prior evidence prompting them." That doesn't prevent the problem so it does not speak to the issue.

(05-03-2021, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You admit to little experience, but appear to argue from a position of knowledge.  Again, your position appears to spring from a position of ignorance as to how and why warrants are issued in the first place.  In the event of a spontaneous search brought on by reasonable suspicion or a probation/parole search, there are already numerous other factors at play to determine this.  You appear to want a hard and fast answer to a question with an obscenely large number of variables.

Again ???   No, I don't "appear to argue from a position of knowledge."  

I grasped Fred's point about "constructive possession." I saw how registering guns would resolve a problem related to determination of ownership when a gun is found "loose" in a car or residence with a felon and other people.  I saw that your objections don't refute his point. 

If it actually happens, as Fred says, that police in his state do have a harder time assigning ownership when guns are not registered, and confiscating them as well, then it is harder with all your "numerous other factors." And when gun registration is required, then it would be EASIER, even with all your "numerous other factors."  That's why those factors are not really a variable here. Or at least you have not demonstrated how they are or could be. You've just asserted they are there.

So for the moment, it looks like there is a hard and fast answer to the question of whether gun registration helps police get guns off the street.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-05-2021, 03:19 AM)Dill Wrote: So for the moment, it looks like there is a hard and fast answer to the question of whether gun registration helps police get guns off the street.

No, there isn't.  Simply point to any evidence beyond Fred's anecdotal statements.  Remember, you don't like anecdotal evidence, or maybe it's only a problem when it's not one of your buddies using it?

In any event, Fred is the one making the claim, he has provided not one shred of empirical data to support his claim.  Many of his points have been directly refuted with sources and evidence.  Or maybe this is another episode of "Dill doesn't see it"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Rather than respond to Dill's points one at a time I will, for the benefit of all reading, only make a general statement. A national registry would, at times, make identification of a lawful gun owner easier. But SSF, you're directly contradicting an earlier statement. Just hold on. It would assist, but not nearly to the degree that Fred claims as his scenarios are far from commonplace. Fred is typically over exaggerating his position, you'll notice while providing zero proof to back his claims other than his arguing from expertise (someone around here doesn't usually like that, I just can't remember who). But yes, there are occasions in which a national registry would assist law enforcement in this regard.

You know what would help law enforcement a millions times more? A national DNA registry. If everyone was required to submit their DNA to a national databank law enforcement could solve slews of crimes that now go unsolved. Found bodies could be immediately identified, and DNA left on scene would lead directly to the person who left it. It is no exaggeration to say that this would help solve hundreds of thousands of crimes. Now, how would a national DNA registry impact your civil liberties? Let's say you need a court order to access it. You'll never be affected unless you're a criminal. Seems there's zero downside to this right? Everyone ok with it? No potential for further abuse down the road, right?

The real question here isn't Fred's claims that he cannot substantiate. The real question here is, is the impact on our civil liberties, both immediate, and the potential for further infringement down the road, worth this loss of personal and civil liberty? Now, if you're a person who's consistent at all then your answer to both a national registry of firearms and a national DNA registry must be the same. The only difference of substance between the two is that a DNA database would actually have an enormous impact on stopping and solving crime, while a national firearms registry would have a very small one.


Don't even get me started about a GPS tracking device that we could all have implanted (beyond your phone ). Don't worry, they'll need a court order to activate it, what are you afraid of if you're not a criminal?

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 11:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, there isn't.  Simply point to any evidence beyond Fred's anecdotal statements.  Remember, you don't like anecdotal evidence, or maybe it's only a problem when it's not one of your buddies using it?

In any event, Fred is the one making the claim, he has provided not one shred of empirical data to support his claim.  Many of his points have been directly refuted with sources and evidence.  Or maybe this is another episode of "Dill doesn't see it"?

In the post following this you grant that a gun registry would help police confiscate guns. That's a yes. You add the qualifying claim "But not as much as you think" and anyway it raises a civil liberties issue (i.e., a different issue). But that's still a yes.

By the way, regarding anecdotes--I assumed we all agreed that Fred was telling the truth about cops in his state complaining about their inability to confiscate guns they believed stolen, or were claimed by friends of felons just to keep them out of jail. Unless your argument now is Fred is lying and that never happens, then "anecdotal" passes muster here.  

Anecdotal "data" does not, however, when you claim that most or all stolen guns are reported. E.g., Fred refuted that claim with his WaPo link. 

As far as Fred's points about "constructive possession," no, I have not seen that any of them have been directly refuted with sources and evidence. 

Why couldn't a felon's non-felon friend claim a loose gun to protect the felon, if the gun is not registered and there is no law requiring it be? Why couldn't cops confiscate the unregistered gun, taking it off the street, if registration is a requirement? 

If you insist these points have been refuted, then the way to handle that is to the cite posts and statements establishing that, and then stand for questions, not claim you have already addressed them. If you really think you did, then your "address" did not pass muster, and that's why "Dill doesn't see it." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-05-2021, 06:51 PM)Dill Wrote: In the post following this you grant that a gun registry would help police confiscate guns. That's a yes. You add the qualifying claim "But not as much as you think" and anyway it raises a civil liberties issue (i.e., a different issue). But that's still a yes.

Sure.  it's a yes that it would help law enforcement if no one was allowed outside without a permit too.  Your position is inane.

Quote:By the way, regarding anecdotes--I assumed we all agreed that Fred was telling the truth about cops in his state complaining about their inability to confiscate guns they believed stolen, or were claimed by friends of felons just to keep them out of jail. Unless your argument now is Fred is lying and that never happens, then "anecdotal" passes muster here.  

Dear lord, I never figured you for such an immense hypocrite.  You consistently attacked me for using anecdotal evidence, demanding outside, and often empirical, sources.  You literally couldn't be more inconsistent if you tried.

Quote:Anecdotal "data" does not, however, when you claim that most or all stolen guns are reported. E.g., Fred refuted that claim with his WaPo link. 

Sure, if you treat that as truth for all such incidents.  No one really argued his claim, but we continue to demand actual proof that his claims will make a difference worth the infringement.  You don't demand it because you like Fred and your standards are completely different when the person involved is someone you like.

Quote:As far as Fred's points about "constructive possession," no, I have not seen that any of them have been directly refuted with sources and evidence. 

Or supported with evidence.

Quote:Why couldn't a felon's non-felon friend claim a loose gun to protect the felon, if the gun is not registered and there is no law requiring it be? Why couldn't cops confiscate the unregistered gun, taking it off the street, if registration is a requirement? 

Again, there's much more to such scenarios then your childishly simplistic construction.

Quote:If you insist these points have been refuted, then the way to handle that is to the cite posts and statements establishing that, and then stand for questions, not claim you have already addressed them. If you really think you did, then your "address" did not pass muster, and that's why "Dill doesn't see it." 

I honestly don't think I could make a better post explaining why you're a massive hypocrite that isn't worth discussing anything with than the one you just produced yourself.  Double standards are no standards and you have objectively revealed yourself as that person.  Thanks for doing my work for me.  I honestly appreciate your proving what I've claimed about you for years.  Sincerely, thank you.  

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 07:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure.  it's a yes that it would help law enforcement if no one was allowed outside without a permit too.  Your position is inane.

Dear lord, I never figured you for such an immense hypocrite.  You consistently attacked me for using anecdotal evidence, demanding outside, and often empirical, sources.  You literally couldn't be more inconsistent if you tried.

Sure, if you treat that as truth for all such incidents.  No one really argued his claim, but we continue to demand actual proof that his claims will make a difference worth the infringement.  You don't demand it because you like Fred and your standards are completely different when the person involved is someone you like.

Or supported with evidence.

Again, there's much more to such scenarios then your childishly simplistic construction.

I honestly don't think I could make a better post explaining why you're a massive hypocrite that isn't worth discussing anything with than the one you just produced yourself.  Double standards are no standards and you have objectively revealed yourself as that person.  Thanks for doing my work for me.  I honestly appreciate your proving what I've claimed about you for years.  Sincerely, thank you.  

Because anecdotes and anecdotal evidence are no substitute for data, or actual case studies, doesn't mean they can never have a constructive role in arguments, stating hypothesis, providing witness testimony, introducing issues, articulating/illustrating principles (e.g., "constructive possession" in this case) and the like. Most introductory logic/rhetoric textbooks define a role for anecdotes and anecdotal evidence, and teach students the appropriate context for each.  That means one could use an anecdotal argument or evidence in one context, and call out its misuse in another, without being "hypocritical" or guilty of a "double standard."  But one has to know what constitutes misuse in the first place. 

E.g., One typically tests or refutes anecdotal data, like your claim stolen guns are always reported, with statistical data. The quickest way to refute anecdotal evidence like Fred's claim that officers in his state complain because lack of registration has allowed felons to keep stolen guns, is by showing it to be logically inconsistent in its own terms. 

I asked you for that kind of refutation when I wrote "Why couldn't a felon's non-felon friend claim a loose gun to protect the felon, if the gun is not registered and there is no law requiring it be? Why couldn't cops confiscate the unregistered gun, taking it off the street, if registration is a requirement?" 

A counter anecdote, based on your experience would be admissible here too. But you don't appear to have one which could refute Fred's in principle. (Just telling a story about one time a felon's friend couldn't claim an unregistered gun because of one mitigating factor would not do the trick.) 

Unable to establish that a felon's friend could not claim an unregistered gun etc. you assert there is "more to" such situations. And unable to specify any "more to" which would negate Fred's example, you launch into a flailing personal attack, accusing me (ironically) of "childishly simple construction" and hypocrisy and double standards now supposedly "revealed."  

And yet, this panic ad hominem follows your concession that registration can indeed help police get guns off the street. You yourself implicitly accept Fred's anecdote in that concession.  That's what has been "revealed" here, underneath the desperate name calling.

In the future, I'll probably continue to "attack" you for use anecdotal evidence in place of data. But on another thread. It appears you have run out of arguments here.                                                                                                                             keeper

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2021, 02:06 AM)Dill Wrote: Because anecdotes and anecdotal evidence are no substitute for data, or actual case studies, doesn't mean they can never have a constructive role in arguments, stating hypothesis, providing witness testimony, introducing issues, articulating/illustrating principles (e.g., "constructive possession" in this case) and the like. Most introductory logic/rhetoric textbooks define a role for anecdotes and anecdotal evidence, and teach students the appropriate context for each.  That means one could use an anecdotal argument or evidence in one context, and call out its misuse in another, without being "hypocritical" or guilty of a "double standard."  But one has to know what constitutes misuse in the first place. 

E.g., One typically tests or refutes anecdotal data, like your claim stolen guns are always reported, with statistical data. The quickest way to refute anecdotal evidence like Fred's claim that officers in his state complain because lack of registration has allowed felons to keep stolen guns, is by showing it to be logically inconsistent in its own terms. 

I asked you for that kind of refutation when I wrote "Why couldn't a felon's non-felon friend claim a loose gun to protect the felon, if the gun is not registered and there is no law requiring it be? Why couldn't cops confiscate the unregistered gun, taking it off the street, if registration is a requirement?" 

A counter anecdote, based on your experience would be admissible here too. But you don't appear to have one which could refute Fred's in principle. (Just telling a story about one time a felon's friend couldn't claim an unregistered gun because of one mitigating factor would not do the trick.) 

Unable to establish that a felon's friend could not claim an unregistered gun etc. you assert there is "more to" such situations. And unable to specify any "more to" which would negate Fred's example, you launch into a flailing personal attack, accusing me (ironically) of "childishly simple construction" and hypocrisy and double standards now supposedly "revealed."  

And yet, this panic ad hominem follows your concession that registration can indeed help police get guns off the street. You yourself implicitly accept Fred's anecdote in that concession.  That's what has been "revealed" here, underneath the desperate name calling.

In the future, I'll probably continue to "attack" you for use anecdotal evidence in place of data. But on another thread. It appears you have run out of arguments here.                                                                                                                             keeper

Spare me.  You've been exposed.  All your pontifications won't be able to obfuscate your intellectual dishonesty and blatant double standards.



Keeper.

[Belsnickel]

(05-06-2021, 02:06 AM)Dill Wrote: Because anecdotes and anecdotal evidence are no substitute for data, or actual case studies, doesn't mean they can never have a constructive role in arguments, stating hypothesis, providing witness testimony, introducing issues, articulating/illustrating principles (e.g., "constructive possession" in this case) and the like. Most introductory logic/rhetoric textbooks define a role for anecdotes and anecdotal evidence, and teach students the appropriate context for each.  That means one could use an anecdotal argument or evidence in one context, and call out its misuse in another, without being "hypocritical" or guilty of a "double standard."  But one has to know what constitutes misuse in the first place. 

E.g., One typically tests or refutes anecdotal data, like your claim stolen guns are always reported, with statistical data. The quickest way to refute anecdotal evidence like Fred's claim that officers in his state complain because lack of registration has allowed felons to keep stolen guns, is by showing it to be logically inconsistent in its own terms. 

I asked you for that kind of refutation when I wrote "Why couldn't a felon's non-felon friend claim a loose gun to protect the felon, if the gun is not registered and there is no law requiring it be? Why couldn't cops confiscate the unregistered gun, taking it off the street, if registration is a requirement?" 

A counter anecdote, based on your experience would be admissible here too. But you don't appear to have one which could refute Fred's in principle. (Just telling a story about one time a felon's friend couldn't claim an unregistered gun because of one mitigating factor would not do the trick.) 

Unable to establish that a felon's friend could not claim an unregistered gun etc. you assert there is "more to" such situations. And unable to specify any "more to" which would negate Fred's example, you launch into a flailing personal attack, accusing me (ironically) of "childishly simple construction" and hypocrisy and double standards now supposedly "revealed."  

And yet, this panic ad hominem follows your concession that registration can indeed help police get guns off the street. You yourself implicitly accept Fred's anecdote in that concession.  That's what has been "revealed" here, underneath the desperate name calling.

In the future, I'll probably continue to "attack" you for use anecdotal evidence in place of data. But on another thread. It appears you have run out of arguments here.                                                                                                                           

Anecdotal evidence from a scientific perspective, and since policy analysis is a field of political science that is the way I tend to view it, is an invitation for more empirical and formal study. It can help lay the groundwork for a hypothesis. It can give a more personal feel to the presentation of the data, but without the data to back it up the anecdotal evidence is worthless. I've already said that I want to see studies on this topic, and it's because anecdotally I have seen and heard the same things Fred talks about, here. But anecdotes should never be a basis for public policy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2021, 06:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Anecdotal evidence from a scientific perspective, and since policy analysis is a field of political science that is the way I tend to view it, is an invitation for more empirical and formal study. It can help lay the groundwork for a hypothesis. It can give a more personal feel to the presentation of the data, but without the data to back it up the anecdotal evidence is worthless. I've already said that I want to see studies on this topic, and it's because anecdotally I have seen and heard the same things Fred talks about, here. But anecdotes should never be a basis for public policy.

The interesting, and by that I mean insanely hypocritical, part of this anecdotal evidence argument is that somehow, for some reason, Fred's anecdotal evidence trumps my anecdotal evidence.  Fred is being blatantly deceptive in framing this as a common problem.  It can, and does, happen, but not very often.  In the vast, vast majority of cases ownership can be determined by the area of immediate control or other factors.  If a firearm is in a home, whose room was it found in?  Sure, a national registry will immediately determine ownership, unless the serial number is removed, which it would be in every single instance.  With a national registry every single firearm in criminal hands would have the serial number "erased" so proper ownership could never be verified and, even if you believe Fred's anecdotal exaggerations, you're right back to square one with the problem you're attempting to "solve". 

[fredtoast]

(05-06-2021, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: With a national registry every single firearm in criminal hands would have the serial number "erased" so proper ownership could never be verified and, even if you believe Fred's anecdotal exaggerations, you're right back to square one with the problem you're attempting to "solve". 

At least with a national registry the gun geys confiscated. So we are not back to "square one" instead we ate grtting more guns off tje streets if not legally tegisteted.

[fredtoast]

(05-06-2021, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  In the vast, vast majority of cases ownership can be determined by the area of immediate control or other factors.  

This just is not true at all.

You started out saying it never happened.  When I got you to admit you were lying about that you just stated with another lie.

[Belsnickel]

(05-06-2021, 03:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This just is not true at all.

You started out saying it never happened.  When I got you to admit you were lying about that you just stated with another lie.

And here we have the problem with anecdotal evidence. You have two people, both of whom are in a position to know about this topic through their occupations, who are making opposing claims based upon their experiences (or second-hand accounts). It's why policy shouldn't be guided by anecdote.